James Call

Democrat Capitol Reporter

Senate Appropriations voted down the fracking bill 10 - 9

But a motion to reconsider it keeps it alive for another hearing

The measure preempts oil and gas regulations to the state legislature

Opponents also say it does not require public disclosure of chemicals used in the process

Gobblygook, that’s what the League of Women Voters of Florida Debbie Harrison Rumberger heard during a Senate committee's two-hour discussion of a fracking bill.

Public testimony on SB 318, setting up a regulatory structure for fracking, came after the sponsor presented and answered questions about the proposal. And it came after lawmakers questioned the Department of Environmental Protection about its conclusion that without it the agency is powerless to regulate fracking. And then, after the sponsor of an amendment explained the lengths he went to address opponents concerns.

The Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday voted down the proposal 10 – 9, but the bill remains on life support. Sen. Lizbeth Benacquisto, R-Fort Myers, quickly made a motion to reconsider the vote, giving the sponsor, Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, time to rework the bill and making it available for the committee’s next meeting.

“Gobblygook is what our citizens are hearing. We’re being told we can’t do anything to stop fracking,” Rumberger said when given an opportunity to address the panel. The chair quickly reminded Rumberger the longer she stood at the microphone the less time others would have to speak. At least 54 people had signed up to testify. They were given an hour to air their concerns. All but two spoke against the proposal.

Nearly 80 cities and counties have passed ordinances to ban or oppose the use of hydraulic fracturing and matrix acidizing, a fracking-like method that dissolves rocks instead of fracturing them with highly-pressurized liquid. The process is used to collect natural gas locked more than a mile below the ground surface. Richter’s proposal would void local ordinances.

It also would impose an immediate moratorium on fracking, have DEP conduct a study to determine the risks fracking poses to fresh water and to Florida’s limestone bedrock. Lawmakers would then use the study to write regulations and approve rules proposed by DEP.

“If you are against fracking you should vote for this bill,” Richter told lawmakers. He explained that fracking in Florida is currently unregulated and only the companies know what chemicals are being used to frack.

“We want to untie the hands of the regulators,” said Richter.

The pre-empting of local ordinances riled citizen activists who have petitioned their local governments to ban the procedure. They also complain that despite Richter and DEP’s insistence that the chemicals used in the process need to be listed on permit applications that the information would not be available to the public.

Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, made several attempts to get clarification on that point.

“I have never seen a better tap dance than what the department (DEP) did today on trade secrets and disclosure," Latvala told lawmakers, drawing on his experience of hiring and supervising employees, raising teenagers and questioning bureaucrats as a committee chair.

Ellen Jorgenson’s 5th grade class at Cornerstone Learning Community inadvertently led off the public testimony. Sen. Bill Montford, D-Tallahassee, introduced the group. Given an opportunity to speak, one of the students asked lawmakers to protect Florida’s water supply and tourism industry by voting down the measure.

Richter quickly explained to the children that without his bill fracking will continue.

But the exchange was later used to illustrate the nature of Thursday’s hearing. The AFL-CIO’s Rich Templin told lawmakers hundreds of union members have signed petitions opposing fracking. Then he reminded them what Richter had told the 5th graders.

“We had fifth graders told if they’re against fracking then support this bill,” said Templin. “Then why is the oil and gas industry for it?”

The committee approved an amendment changing the definition of fracking to cover a wider variety of techniques. Then its sponsor, Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs, questioned a representative of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida on what he needed to write into the bill to give more comfort to environmentalists.

Simmons questions were pointed and direct. They centered on including matrix acidizing in the regulatory scheme.

At Richter’s request, Sen. Tom Lee withdrew an amendment that would have lifted the preemption of local ordinances after the Legislature approved a regulatory scheme. The provision remains a sticking point for opponents.

Senators also questioned the need for a $1 million study of the potential harm to Florida’s drinking water supply. The aquifer is about 500 feet below the surface. Opponents fear the process of shooting vast amounts of highly pressurized water and chemicals into the ground to fracture rock formations will contaminate the aquifer.

“Why do we need a study when we already know the impact? All you have to do is look at other states,” said Montford to applause from the audience.

“How do you know what is there until there is a study?” responded Richter. “A study removes emotion and lets science drive the issue. I want to let science drive the issue.”

Benacquisto had voted against the proposal, but she used a parliamentary maneuver to keep Richter’s proposal alive. 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.

“Doing nothing is not a solution,” said Simmons. “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?”

Contact James Call at jcall@tallahassee.com and follow on Twitter @CallTallahassee.