Measure requiring DEP to apply a ‘test' before OK-ing oil drilling advances to full Senate
A bill that would require the state to apply a 'balancing test' in considering proposed gas or oil drilling permits near certain waterbodies and shore areas won unanimous approval in a Senate committee on Thursday and now goes to the full Senate for consideration.
The measure (SB 1300), sponsored by North Florida Republican Corey Simon, differs from its House companion (HB 1143), which would ban oil and gas drilling within 10 miles of a National Estuarine Research Reserve (NEER). There are three NEER's in Florida — the Apalachicola in North Florida, the Guana Tolomato Matanzas in Ponta Verde Beach, and Rookery Bay in Naples.
The House bill sponsors, North Florida Republican Jason Shoaf and Democrat Allison Tant, have said that their legislation is a response to a decision last year by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to permit an exploratory oil well along the Apalachicola River.
Wakulla County resident Hunter Levine, host of the Captain's Collective podcast, which focuses on the fishing industry, spoke before the Senate Agriculture, Environment, and General Government Appropriations Committee on Thursday. He said that he's interviewed nearly 200 fishing industry leaders across the globe and learned from their shared experiences.
'And whether they're fishing guides or small business owners, oystermen, artists, photographers — they've all shared one common lesson, and that it's the decisions that we make today determine the opportunities that we afford others tomorrow,' he said. 'These amazing places are not an accident, they are a result. … A result of good policy and protection, something that this bill offers.'
'The possibility of potentially drilling is very concerning for my business and for the future of these farmers,' added Jeff Wren of Rattlesnake Cove Oysters. 'I appreciate Sen. Simon looking out for our way of life.'
Both House and Senate versions of the legislation have cleared all of their committees and await a final vote in their respective chambers.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
26 minutes ago
- Axios
Fresh Senate request for $55 billion for Ukraine
Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have introduced new legislation to provide Ukraine with an additional $54.6 billion in foreign aid. Why it matters: It's the first formal attempt to convince President Trump to send fresh military assistance for Ukraine in his second term. It comes as Trump is growing increasingly frustrated with President Vladimir Putin and his reluctance to end a war that has dragged on for more than three years. The funding request, which both chambers would need to approve follows a successful effort by the Senate to pressure Trump to impose sanctions on Russia. Congress passed $61 billion for Ukraine last April, which was signed into law by President Biden. Some of that money is still available. "There is continued bipartisan resolve to sustain Ukraine's valiant fight for freedom by helping Ukraine obtain the air defense needed to protect its civilian population centers, including schools and hospitals, from Russia's relentless drone and missile attacks," Shaheen said in a statement. Zoom out: Earlier this summer, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), led a successful effort to convince Trump to impose so-called secondary sanctions to hurt Russia, hitting other countries with high tariffs for buying Russian exports like oil and natural gas. Their legislation, which ultimately collected 85 cosponsors, never received a floor vote, but the senators claimed victory when Trump embraced its basic framework. After initially questioning the legislation, Trump promised on July 14 to impose "very severe" sanctions on Russia if it didn't achieve a peace deal with Ukraine in 50 days. Trump shortened the deadline to 10 to 12 days on Monday, during an appearance with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Zoom in: The Shaheen and Murkowski legislation would also codify the mineral deal that Trump signed earlier this year, according to the New York Times, which first reported on the new appropriations bill.
Newsweek
27 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Rand Paul Sparks Fury for Floating Potential Third Trump Term: 'Chilling'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky brought up the potential for a third Trump term while speaking about the stock trading ban on Thursday. The comments sparked backlash on social media. Newsweek reached out to Paul's office via email for comment. Why It Matters The 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution limits presidents to two terms in the White House. Despite this, the notion of President Donald Trump running for a third term has periodically surfaced among Trump allies and the president himself. Trump fueled speculation in a March interview with NBC News, saying there were "methods [by] which you could do it" and adding that he was "not joking" about the prospect. However, he also said it was too early to seriously consider the idea, stating, "I'm focused on the current" presidential term. President Donald Trump speaks to the press at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on July 25, 2025, in Prestwick, Scotland. President Donald Trump speaks to the press at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on July 25, 2025, in Prestwick, To Know While speaking on Fox Business about the stock trading ban, Paul told host Stuart Varney, "I think we're going to discourage good people, successful people, from holding office. Part of the bill, I do believe, would forbid the president immediately from buying and selling stocks, and it would exempt him from the divestiture part." "Future presidents wouldn't be allowed to own things, so Donald Trump or the next president, which, you know, or some say he might run for a third term," Paul added. "But he would be forced to divest everything. He would have to sell all of his possessions." Paul continued: "I think Donald Trump's got a complicated, probably, financial empire, and a lot of people just wouldn't want to sell or get involved with all of that. You also don't want to sell it during a downturn. There's a lot of reasons, what would discourage successful people, and I frankly think that some of the success of Donald Trump being president is that he was used to the world of high finance, used to making deals with large amounts of money, and I don't think we want to discourage people like that from holding office." Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan reacted to Paul's comments on Bluesky, saying, "Chilling to see a senator floating the third term idea." Mark Copelovitch, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote on Bluesky: "Signs you might be a far right authoritarian party (#3191): Casual normalization by a sitting Senator of a 'third term'" Former Republican Representative Joe Walsh posted on X, "The only reason Trump has succeeded is because he's gotten way too many Americans to normalize his corrupt, lawless, dishonest, and unconstitutional behavior.👇" What People Are Saying Robert Y. Shapiro, a professor of political science at Columbia University, told Newsweek: "I think Trump and his MAGA stalwart supporters like to have fun and to soak up media attention by talking about Trump serving a third term as president. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and the 12th Amendment make it sufficiently legally clear that he can serve no more than two terms. The harm here is any attempt to assert further authoritarian power of the sort we see in Russia, China, and Turkey and elsewhere, and to thereby undermine American constitutional democracy." Political analyst Craig Agranoff told Newsweek: "Paul's casual mention of a possible third term for Donald Trump, framed hypothetically in a discussion on stock trading bans, is noteworthy because it subtly tests the boundaries of the 22nd Amendment's two-term limit while portraying Trump as an indispensable figure deterred by divestment rules. This kind of offhand remark contributes to a pattern in Republican circles where constitutional constraints are treated as flexible, potentially to gauge public reaction." Agranoff added: "Among MAGA supporters, I believe most take this seriously rather than as humor; many see it as a legitimate aspiration, driven by frustration with perceived betrayals from establishment Republicans and a desire to extend Trump's influence indefinitely, viewing term limits as an obstacle to their agenda. "Yes, this rhetoric is dangerous, it normalizes authoritarian tendencies by eroding respect for democratic institutions, emboldening extremists and risking broader instability if such ideas gain traction without pushback." Republicans Against Trump, on X: "Rand Paul on voting against the stock trading ban: We discourage successful people from holding Trump were the next president, and some say he might run for a 3rd term, he would be forced to divest everything HE CAN'T RUN FOR A THIRD TERM." What Happens Next As debate over the legality and feasibility of a third Trump term floats around on social media and political circles, legislative efforts such as the proposed stock trading ban for public officials are expected to remain contentious.
Fox News
27 minutes ago
- Fox News
Former blue state GOP lawmaker will not seek comeback bid in hotly competitive race
Former Rep. Michelle Steel, R-Calif., will not try to run for her seat again after two terms and narrowly losing to Rep. Derek Tran by just over 600 votes in 2024.
