A proposal to legalize and regulate hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," pending a million-dollar study on its safety died in a Senate committee, but due to a procedural move, it may zombify.
The measure, Senate Bill 318, was heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee, a hearing required because the bill calls for funding (i.e. the study). In a nutshell, it legalizes and regulates fracking (assuming the study doesn't deem it harmful—not that it would under Gov. Rick Scott's administration), makes it illegal for cities and counties to ban it and calls for the study.
A similar measure has already passed in the House.
Its sponsor, Naples Republican Garrett Richter, said the bill was justified because is creates an environment that supposedly holds the oil and gas industry accountable.
Richter defended his bill against critics who say fracking shouldn't be allowed at all, given that it involves breaking up underground rock (some of it potentially water-bearing) using noxious chemicals that don't have to be disclosed to the public, and that it overrides home rule by not allowing cities and counties to ban it if they choose.
“The opponents of this are extremely emotional,” he said at the start of the hearing. “Today many well-intended, but, frankly, misinformed people are going to testify against this bill.”
While all who supported the bill were Republicans, not all who voted against it were Democrats.
Clearwater Sen. Jack Latvala, a Republican, asked why Richter saw a need to pass a bill allowing and regulating fracking rather than funding the study itself (over the duration of which fracking would be illegal), and later, if the results show fracking is kosher, take up a bill legalizing and regulating the practice.
“Why can't we do the study, authorize the study, find out the facts, and then after we have those facts, then make the decision about the legislation and the enforcement mechanisms?” Latvala said.
Richter said he was concerned with how the significantly more conservative House would react.
Latvala and others also had questions on transparency when it came to disclosure of what constitutes the chemical cocktail oil and gas companies may use.
"My understanding is that on the chemicals there has to be a hundred percent percent disclosure to the department, that's what you said. But that doesn't necessarily mean a hundred percent disclosure to the people who might be the neighbors or the people who might drink from the water table where the fracking is done.”
Richter replied that such formulas would have protection under trade secret protections at the federal level, but would still be subject to review by the Department of Environmental Protection (environmental stalwarts they are).
“Are those [lists of] chemicals distributed to the public at large?" Richter said "No. But that's why we have a regulatory body. That's why we rely on the department, to regulate the activity. That's why we need preemption, so that we don't have hundreds of different standards.”
Sen. Bill Montford, a Democrat from Tallahassee, asked why supporters feel there's a necessity to study the practice at all, given how across the country, fracking has proven to be damaging to the environment
“Why spend a million dollars doing a study when we already know the impact and effects of fracking?," he said "All you've got to do is look at other states and look at what's happened. That's the question we're facing. Why not rely on the data that's already been there?”
To that, Richter cited a (much disputed) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study supposedly showing fracking as generally safe.
“How do you know what's there unless you study? Florida's got a unique geology, a unique hydrology. The EPA has done a study … and the EPA initial findings were that fracking and activity frackings for the most part do not have a negative impact on water … it was challenged and it will continue to be challenged.”
The dozens of people who showed up, which included a fifth-grade class (whom Richter told fracking would be legal if the bill didn't pass because scaring children is fun for some people, apparently), to stand against the bill begged to differ.
“All I hear is 'fracking is horrible,'" said Linda Edson, a teacher. "And I appreciate that, but as a teacher, I hear a lot of confusion. It is a very emotional issue. So I urge you to vote 'no' today because you need more study.”
Rich Templin, legislative director with Florida AFL-CIO, said lawmakers' enthusiasm over legalizing fracking doesn't reflect public sentiment, obviously.
“I think that people's opposition to this is being under-noticed," he said. "I think that when we talk about [how] people are misinformed, and they're emotional, I think that demeans the fact that people don't want these technologies in the state of Florida. And they're concerned about it. They want to be informed. They know what they want for themselves and their families.”
Meanwhile, Environment Florida director Jennifer Rubiello called into question the other threat fracking may pose to local water supplies, namely the over-use of potable drinking water, which is already imperiled in many places.
“It does not prohibit the use of drinking water in fracking, and it does not study the impacts of water use in the type of fracking mostly likely to be used in Florida," she said. "And while I do appreciate the expansion of the definition, it still doesn't cover dissolving rock. Furthermore, local governments should be able to protect the citizens [by] banning fracking.”
Before it voted, the Senate panel took one more crack at debating the measure.
State Sen. Arthenia Joyner, a Tampa Democrat, said the hazards fracking poses bring to mind a familiar environmental disaster.
“I think the people of the state of Florida who've been represented by many people who spoke in here don't want fracking," she said. "This takes me to the Love Canal situation in New York that came up many years ago. I was a freshman in the House when this came up. That was when I got my environmental push and realized then that when we start messing with the aquifer, and not knowing what's going in, then things happen to people.”
For Miami Republican Sen. Anitere Flores, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public (save for maybe a handful) opposed the bill was enough.
“The major question is, are all these risks worth what we would be getting in return?" she said. "The answer, for me, is no.”
Republicans in support continued to defend the bill as the only shot the state has at preventing illegal fracking from taking place, as it had in Collier County in recent years.
“I think that this bill is the best bill that we have before us to address the issue of fracking," said Sen. Thad Altman (R—Melbourne). "It's important that we recognize individuals' property rights, the right to be industrious. We cannot take their property without giving them due process and also paying for their property. I also think that there are some environmental advantages of fracking and horizontal drilling. It diminishes the impact on the surface, it can be done, it can be done right and it can be done properly.”
The committee ultimately voted it down 10-9, though the bill could come back with modifications to somewhat address the concerns of environmentalists.
Environmentalists applauded the decision:
“SB 318 would pave the way for dangerous fracking in our state, putting the drinking water for 90 percent of Floridians and the Everglades in jeopardy. Today Floridians spoke up for their water, and senators listened. We thank the bipartisan group of legislators who stood up against dirty drillers and today, we’re celebrating! But we’re mindful that this issue is not over yet. We’ll continue to work with our allies to defeat this reckless pro-fracking bill at every step of the process,” Rubiello said in a written statement following the vote.
The group Floridians Against Fracking cautioned against being overly optimistic, given the attempt at political maneuvering that appears to be happening:
“Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted down Senate Bill 318, the pro-fracking regulatory bill. While we are pleased with this success, and with the deliberativeness with which the Senate is approaching this topic, we acknowledge that Senator Benacquisto could bring the bill up again for a vote. We urge Senator [Lizbeth] Benacquisto to refrain from doing so, however if she chooses to bring the bill for a revote, against the wishes of her constitents, we urge the Appropriations Committee to vote it down."
This article appears in Feb 25 – Mar 2, 2016.