Florida oil drilling changes backed by senate committee
The Senate Agriculture, Environment and General Government Appropriations Committee unanimously backed the proposal (SB 300), filed by Sen. Corey Simon, R-Tallahassee. The bill would require the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to use a 'balancing test' when considering proposed drilling permits within one mile of rivers, lakes, and other water bodies.
'This balancing test should assess the potential impact of an accident or a blowout on the natural resources of such bodies of water and shore areas, including ecological functions and any water quality impacts,' the bill says.
'The balancing test must consider the ecological community's current condition, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, fish and wildlife use, time lag and the potential costs of restoration.'
The bill was filed after the Department of Environmental Protection last year approved a draft permit for a Louisiana-based company to drill an exploratory well in Calhoun County. A challenge to the draft permit is pending at the state Division of Administrative Hearings, as environmentalists argue the project threatens the Apalachicola River and Apalachicola Bay. Simon's district includes the region.
A House version (HB 1143), sponsored by Rep. Jason Shoaf, R-Port St. Joe, is ready to go to the full House, though it has some differences from the Senate bill.
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
14 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana mom sues school district after it banned her for recording a meeting
A mom and a national public policy organization are taking her northeast Indiana school district to court to challenge a school policy they say violates her First and 14th Amendment rights. The Goldwater Institute, a conservative-leaning Arizona-based think tank, filed a complaint Aug. 12 in the Northern District of Indiana that, if successful, could overturn the school district's meeting recording policy and clarify a gray area of First Amendment law. Whitley County Consolidated Schools' policy says a building administrator must first give permission before parents and others can record private school meetings such as parent-teacher conferences. Goldwater argues that the policy is unconstitutional, saying there is "no compelling, substantial, important, or even rational reason" to prohibit parents from recording. "We think there's a clear idea that the First Amendment protects more than just verbal speech. It protects conduct, and especially conduct that's inherently expressive," Goldwater attorney Adam Shelton said. "We think that presents a very good and important First Amendment question." In a previous statement to IndyStar, district Superintendent Laura McDermott said Nicole Graves was restricted from campus for "a pattern of aggressive interactions with school staff and public commentary involving children other than her own," not for expressing concerns. IndyStar has reached out to McDermott regarding the newly filed litigation. Last year, Graves recorded a meeting with her school principal about an incident on her daughter's school bus concerning the driver's behavior. She decided to record the meeting so she could accurately recount what was said, according to Goldwater. Discontent with the principal's answers, she posted part of the recording on social media. The district then notified Graves in a letter, which IndyStar obtained, that she broke policy and was given a school grounds ban and restrictions on staff communications. The punishment has since expired. As she brings her fight to court, Graves said she is surprised it has come to this but not that the school won't back down. She said she is continuing to fight to establish better policies for parents and protect children. "This is not fun for me. This is not something I ever thought I would have to fight for," she said. "But I am more than happy to stand up and fight and talk to who I need to talk to to get things to change because I think it's important for all the families in this school district." With her four children still attending school in the district, Graves is concerned about retaliation. She said she is keeping a close eye on her children's schooling and is "terrified" the school will ban her again. The right to record public officials engaged their official duties in a public place has been solidified through previous case law. Goldwater, through its complaint, is attempting to deepen those rights by arguing that some private conversations are protected as well. In its complaint, Goldwater argues that people have the right to record meetings with government officials as long as the recording doesn't violate the rights of other private individuals and the person is lawfully present. "When it's just a conversation between a parent and a school official about their child and doesn't implicate any privacy rights of other students, we think a parent has the right to record that meeting," Shelton said. If the school restricted Graves from talking about the meeting or drafting a transcript, Shelton previously said, it would undoubtedly violate the First Amendment. He questions why a recording would be any different. The complaint also says the policy violates Graves' 14th Amendment rights to control her child's education in several instances, overlapping with their First Amendment argument. Goldwater is seeking an injunction halting the recording policy and a judgment finding the school district violated Graves' First and 14th Amendment rights. This is Goldwater's second crack in two years at clarifying First Amendment case law on recording conversations with school officials. The institute petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024 to take up the case of a Massachusetts dad denied the ability to video-record his son's special education accommodation conferences. The high court did not take up the appeal after a district court ruled the act of recording was not protected by the First Amendment. Shelton said the institute is hopeful the courts will take a full look at their arguments in Graves' case. "We think we have a very good argument here that the recording of this meeting is protected both by the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment," he said. "We look forward to expressing those ideas in court." The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Raskin demands documents on Maxwell prison transfer, interview with Blanche
House Judiciary Democrats are launching a probe into the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a lower security prison, arguing the move creates 'the strong appearance that it is attempting to cover up the full extent of the relationship between President Trump and Mr. Epstein.' Maxwell, a close associate of deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein, met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last month and sat for hours of questions about the actions that led to her conviction on child sex trafficking charges. Shortly thereafter, she was transferred out of a Tallahassee, Fla., facility to another prison in Texas. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the panel, said the new, lower security prison has 'greater freedom for inmates' and 'prior to this extraordinary transfer, [was] categorically off limits to sex offenders.' 'These actions raise substantial concerns that the administration may now be attempting to tamper with a crucial witness, conceal President Trump's relationship with convicted sex offenders, and coax Ms. Maxwell into providing false or misleading testimony in order to protect the President. The transfer also appears to violate both DOJ and Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policies,' Raskin wrote in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and BOP Director William K. Marshall III. The letter demands a series of documents related to the transfer, as well as a transcript and recording of Maxwell's meeting with Blanche. The letter outlines the strict guidelines for prison transfers as well as the unusual speed at which Maxwell's was initiated. As a sex offender, Maxwell would typically be ineligible for a minimum-security federal prison camp like the one in Bryan, Texas, where she now lives, as such facilities offer 'access to the community.' The ban is seldom waived, something that Raskin said takes 'multiple levels of review that would ordinarily take months to complete,' typically requires new evidence, and inmates then usually have to wait months for an opening at such a facility. The facility where Maxwell is now held was listed as among the ' Best Jails in America to Serve Time.' 'Ms. Maxwell, however, appears to have short-circuited the entire review process and jumped the queue, receiving a place in Federal Prison Camp (FPC) Bryan within a matter of days. Neither DOJ nor BOP has provided anything like a satisfactory explanation for providing Ms. Maxwell this uniquely favorable treatment,' Raskin wrote. Documents obtained by Allison Gill show some of Maxwell's BOP classifications, including that her sex offender status was waived by management to allow her to move to a lower security facility. Raskin demands a list of all administration officials who 'were aware of, were involved in, or approved' the transfer, as well as all documents and communications related to the matter. He also asks for 'any possible benefits to Ms. Maxwell, including transfers, changes to conditions of confinement, pardons, commutation, or changes to DOJ positions in ongoing matters.' Raskin noted that the transfer also came as Maxwell is under pressure to testify before Congress – with the House Oversight Committee issuing a subpoena for her testimony with the backing of both parties. 'There can be no question that your actions have served to send a clear message to Ms. Maxwell in the lead up to any testimony before Congress and the American public: this Administration can punish or reward her as it sees fit for its own purposes,' he wrote. Raskin likewise asks for a transcript and recording of Blanche's conversation with Maxwell, noting the unusual nature of having the No. 2 DOJ official interview an inmate, a task that typically falls to career prosecutors directly involved with the case. 'These meetings were highly unusual for several reasons. Mr. Blanche, who until ten months ago served as Donald Trump's personal criminal defense lawyer, met with Ms. Maxwell and her attorney with no line prosecutors present. The meeting took place just days after DOJ leadership fired one of the chief career prosecutors on the Epstein matter,' Raskin wrote, a nod to the removal of Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, who previously worked on the Epstein prosecution. 'The need for this meeting was undercut by DOJ's recent contradictory statements that its thorough review of the Epstein files, which reportedly identified repeated references to the President, 'did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.'' Blanche previously said he would 'share additional information about what we learned [from Maxwell] at the appropriate time.' The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment, while BOP declined to comment on the substance of the letter. 'The Federal Bureau of Prisons responds directly to Members of Congress and their staff. Out of respect and deference to Members, we do not share our Congressional correspondence,' the agency said in a statement.
NBC News
43 minutes ago
- NBC News
How redistricting became the burning hot center of Democratic politics
It was once an issue that made voters' eyes glaze over. But in the last several weeks, the once-arcane subject of redistricting — underpinned by Texas Democrats' extraordinary exodus from their state to block Republican plans to redraw maps — has transformed into the burning hot center of Democratic politics. Potential 2028 White House candidates have sought to put themselves at the center of the fight against what they call a GOP power grab in Texas. So, too, have a bevy of Democratic governors, members of Congress and candidates for office across the country. Far from the days of old for a party mocked for sending 'strongly worded letters' while Republicans steamrolled them, Democrats are now firing their own flamethrowers. It's precisely what the rank and file want to see from a party they're fed up with and disappointed in, Democrats say. 'There are not that many moments when politics break through to normal people. This is breaking through … because of how ruthless people are seeing Republicans be, and they want to see their Democratic leaders fight just as hard,' said Josh Marcus-Blank, a Democratic consultant who has worked on senatorial and presidential campaigns. 'Any [Democratic] voter thinking about 2028 is mad right now, and they really want Democrats to stand up and fight back.' President Donald Trump elevated the issue to the national stage when he said he wanted Texas to carve up its congressional map to create up to five more Republican districts to protect the party's narrow House majority in the 2026 midterms. While both parties have gerrymandered their states' congressional districts in the past, the move in Texas stands out because it seeks to rip up the state's map mid-decade, rather than after the new census every 10 years. Democrats left the state to deny a quorum in the Texas House and prevent the GOP's plan from moving forward. The move ultimately may only delay the action, as Gov. Greg Abbott has vowed to repeatedly call special sessions until he can push through the new map. But as Abbott moved forward, the heavy hitters of the left moved to get in on the action. Democrats have already gerrymandered his state to the hilt, but Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, used another route into the spotlight. In June, he quietly discussed a way for Texas Democrats to take refuge in his state on the eve of a legislative special session. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to pursue a redraw of his state's congressional maps if Republicans move forward with their plans in Texas. Newsom, however, would need to circumvent an independent commission that controls the redistricting process in California. 'They want to change the game,' Newsom said of Republicans. 'We can act holier than thou. We could sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.' In another escalation on the issue, Newsom declared Tuesday night that Trump had missed a deadline and so California would be 'historic' and 'end the Trump presidency,' he said in a social media post that mockingly emulated the kind of statement Trump would make. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, declaring, ' We are at war,' also said she would look at ways to counter Texas' plans. Any new map in her state wouldn't take effect until after next year's midterms. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a possible presidential contender, held a live social media forum and posted a video about the issue. 'What it shows is that Republicans believe that they will lose Congress unless they change the maps before the next election,' Buttigieg said. After Texas Republicans first publicly considered redrawing the map mid-decade, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Hawaii Gov. Josh Green took turns teeing off on the issue from the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting in Colorado in late July. 'My party can't stand by and watch it happen and have the Congress taken away from the people's will, whatever that is. It's completely unethical for Texas to do this — to redistrict. It's an obvious attempt to steal elections,' Green said in an interview. 'If the courts won't stop it, then you're going to have to fight fire with fire.' In Illinois, where a competitive race is underway to replace retiring longtime Sen. Dick Durbin, the leading candidates appeared alongside Texas Democrats at news events. One day, Reps. Robin Kelly and Raja Krishnamoorthi vowed to build a wall against Trump's efforts, and the next, it was Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton. 'Now is our time to stand up and fight. President Trump and Gov. Abbott, we are watching you. In Illinois, we don't sit on the sidelines. In Illinois, we don't take kindly to threats, and in Illinois, we fight back,' Stratton said before a splay of TV cameras last week. 'If Trump and Texas Republicans won't play by the rules, we will look at every option available to stop their extreme power grab, and nothing will be off the table.' Andrew O'Neill, the national advocacy director for the progressive grassroots group Indivisible, referred to some of the Democrats' remarks and actions as 'productive ambition.' 'Democratic leadership amongst Democratic voters — it's in the toilet right now. The Democratic base is furious with the state of their party,' O'Neill said. He added that any Democrats hoping to draw attention on the national stage must show the base they know how to take off the gloves. 'If you take the sort of quiet-adult-in-the-room, 'we're just going to be responsible' approach, nobody pays attention to you, and nobody hears your message,' O'Neill said. 'So it's all well and good that you put out a boring press release that says you believe in democracy and fair maps, but if you're not actually taking the fight to Republicans and drawing that strategic conflict, in the attention economy we currently live with, nobody's going to hear you.' Hosting Texas Democratic lawmakers in Illinois has given Pritzker a platform to play protector-in-chief, vowing to stand in the way of Trump and Texas officials who authorized civil arrest warrants. 'There's no federal law that would allow the FBI to arrest anybody that's here visiting our state,' Pritzker said Sunday on NBC News' 'Meet the Press.' 'So it's a lot of grandstanding. That's what this is all about.' Meanwhile, Newsom and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the former House speaker, stood with a half-dozen Texas lawmakers Friday in Sacramento, where Newsom declared California would 'nullify' Texas Republicans' map if they moved forward. There are some signs Democrats' actions are gaining traction. For instance, a new Siena College poll found that Hochul's job approval and favorability ratings have ticked up since June as she has been front and center in the redistricting debate. Texas state Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., who leads the Democratic Hispanic Caucus and is among those in Illinois sitting out the special session, said he has been emboldened by the public's response. 'People have reached out to me that I've never heard from,' he said. Romero relayed feedback his brother, a schoolteacher, has received. 'Every day, he says, 'Man, you know, everybody's coming up to me, telling me how proud they are of you and for the fact that they didn't even know what redistricting was and now they know,'" Romero said.
