If approved by the Legislature, the amendment would go before voters in the fall.
Advertisement
Republican Anitere Flores echoed most critics who wonder if the bill has to have so many safeguards, why consider fracking at all? “I know that ultimately we’ll probably end up back before the Supreme Court on this issue, because the way I see it, the trend is toward unanimous jury verdicts”. DEP officials answered questions from senators about a list of chemicals fracking companies would use during the drilling process. Sen.
It also directs the department to designate FracFocus, a national chemical disclosure registry, as the state’s chemical disclosure registry.
The public opposition included the appearance of the fifth grade class of the Cornerstone Learning Community in Tallahassee, who stood single file before the committee, each student prepared with a speech to urge the committee to oppose fracking. Bill Montford, D-Tallahassee, introduced the group. One student, Jenna Caskey, spoke on their behalf.
Richter’s bill calls for a moratorium on fracking until the study is completed and rules are adopted.
But the exchange was later used to illustrate the nature of Thursday’s hearing.
“Fracking should be banned in Florida because water is vital for our tourism industry, our drinking water and of course the Everglades”, Caskey said.
“The state can not have 410 standards out there”, Richter said. Hanging in the balance could be the future of the oil and gas industry in Florida, and, critics insist, Florida’s environment. It takes 72 votes to approve an amendment. Then its sponsor, Sen.
Simmons questions were pointed and direct. They centered on including matrix acidizing in the regulatory scheme.
Siding with Richter was Sen. Tom Lee, R-Brandon. The provision remains a sticking point for opponents.
“We knew that we had to have a bill”.
Advertisement
But state Rep. Evan Jenne, a Dania Beach Democrat, said the move would just create a revolving-door judiciary, with new judges being “former politicians with a (law degree) and an ax to grind”. “Until I get comfortable on that issue I’m a “no” on the bill”. The bill was voted down after more than two hours of debate, but supporters used a procedural maneuver to put it on hold. Having voted on the winning side she was able to make a motion to reconsider, thus giving Richter and Simmons time to address opponents’ concerns about the disclosure of chemicals used in the process and the preemption of local ordinances. “The first thing it does is, DEP is going to study it. Why not find out the truth and in the meantime have a moratorium?”
