‘This bill protects our precious waters': how a Florida environmental group scored a win against big oil
The Florida state congressman Jason Shoaf remembers how the threat affected the bay.
'It harmed our commercial fishing, aquaculture operations, and just the threat of oil kept tourists away for months,' Shoaf recalls. 'Businesses were forced to close, jobs were lost, and the disaster reshaped our region forever.'
Related: How Trump is targeting wind and solar energy – and delighting big oil
Those memories were freshly triggered in April 2024, when the Florida department of environmental protection (DEP) granted a permit to Louisiana-based Clearwater Land and Minerals for exploratory oil drilling on the Apalachicola River basin. So area residents, along with environmental and business groups, formed a Kill the Drill coalition to oppose the permit.
A year later, the coalition's efforts and an administrative challenge to the DEP's permit by the non-profit Apalachicola Riverkeepers prevailed when Judge Lawrence P Stevenson recommended the department deny the permit.
In May, the DEP reversed course and denied the permit.
But that was not enough to convince those seeking to preserve the region's environment. Shoaf, who represents Florida's north-eastern Gulf coast region, applauded the DEP's decision but says the threat of oil exploration and drilling near north Florida's inland waterways would only be ended by a permanent ban. So to prevent future threats and the DEP from issuing other oil exploratory drilling permits, Shoaf and state representative Allison Tant co-authored House Bill 1143.
'While the permit to Clearwater Land and Minerals was denied, we can't assume the next one will be,' Shoaf says. 'HB 1143 protects our precious water resources and the ecosystems that depend on them by prohibiting drilling, exploration and production of oil, gas and other petroleum products within 10 miles of a national estuarine research reserve in counties designated as rural areas of opportunity. It also requires the Florida department of environmental protection to ensure natural resources are adequately protected in the event of an accident.'
This region has a deep collective memory of how the gulf oil spill devastated the regional economy
Adrianne Johnson
In April, the legislature overwhelmingly passed HB 1143 with only one dissenting vote in the Senate. It was presented to Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, on 18 June. And, despite a poor recent record on protecting the environment, DeSantis signed the bill last week – handing the coalition that lobbied for it a cheering victory.
The area now saved from the oil industry is invaluable both to nature and the people who live there. The Apalachicola River, formed by the meeting of the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers, flows 160 miles (258km) to the Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf. Both the river and bay are critical to the region's tourism and seafood production industries.
For environmental campaigners, the success of their efforts might help lay to rest the ghosts of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, which released nearly 3.19m barrels of oil into the gulf.
'Oil from the BP spill didn't reach our coasts, but the damage caused by the threat was enough,' Tant says. 'We've seen what can happen. We've lived it. This is not theoretical. It was a perilous time for small businesses and for those who lived in the area. It stopped tourism and shuttered small businesses. So it defies logic to think it's a good idea to drill for oil along the Apalachicola River.'
Adrianne Johnson is executive director of the Florida Shellfish Aquaculture Association which represents more than 350 shellfish farmers in Florida. Johnson, an Apalachicola native, became involved in the Kill the Drill movement for personal and business reasons.
'This region has a deep collective memory of how the Gulf oil spill devastated the regional economy and collapsed the oyster industry in Apalachicola Bay,' Johnson explains. 'And that was just the threat of oil. The majority of the state's oyster farms operate across Wakulla, Franklin and Gulf counties, and these areas downriver would be most impacted by oil drilling upriver (at the proposed site in Calhoun county). If there were to be a spill upriver because of drilling in the basin, it would have catastrophic environmental and economic impacts on the area that would be felt for generations.'
Johnson also points to the region's frequent weather-related natural disasters, such as hurricanes, as another reason why drilling had to be banned in the region.
'Our shellfish farmers are still recovering from the multiple hurricanes of 2024,' she explains. 'But the reality of being a Florida farmer is having to contend with these weather-related events. Hurricanes and natural disasters are outside of our control. Permitting oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas is very much within our control and is an unnecessary threat to our industry.'
Tant agrees.
'We are a hurricane-prone state,' she says. 'We can't get away from that. It's not a question of will we get hit by a hurricane because we know it's going to happen. But an oil spill caused by a hurricane would make the disaster 100 times worse.'
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the Deep Horizon oil spill caused the loss of 8.3 billion oysters, the deaths of nearly 105,400 sea birds, 7,600 adult and 160,000 juvenile sea turtles, and a 51% decrease in dolphins in Louisiana's Barataria Bay.
Related: Ron DeSantis's fall from grace: 'He's completely crashed to the ground'
Craig Diamond, current board member and past president of Apalachicola Riverkeeper, says another factor behind the ban was the river system itself.
'A spill would be highly impactful given the existing stresses in the system,' says Diamond, who has worked with the Northwest Florida Water Management District and taught graduate courses on water resources at Florida State University. 'Apalachicola Bay Riverkeeper and its allies believe the long-term risks of fossil fuel exploitation in the floodplain or bay (or nearshore) far outweigh the short-term benefits.'
Shoaf says he was inspired to write HB 1143 by the community's grassroots efforts to defend the region's natural resources.
'This bill is essential to prevent unnecessary and irreparable harm to Apalachicola Bay, as well as the economies and ecosystems that depend on it,' he says.
After DeSantis signed the bill into law, the threat of drilling has now receded into the distance for the foreseeable future.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Crypto lobby gains ground under Trump
At least 27 crypto companies or advocates filed their first-ever lobbying disclosures this year across some 20 firms, reflecting an increasing appetite for influence in a more crypto-friendly Washington. The newcomers originate from all corners of the industry. There's betting website Polymarket, a gaming company that created an NFT version of the White House Easter egg hunt, and a Seychelles-based exchange that cannot operate in the U.S. market due to a federal money laundering settlement. Together, they spent nearly $2.8 million between April 1 and June 30 on lobbying landmark legislation promoting digital assets to the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a host of other issues relevant to blockchain infrastructure — an increasingly sprawling ecosystem that some hope could one day be as ubiquitous as the internet. The push has paid off for crypto so far. The GENIUS Act, a bill with bipartisan support signed by President Trump last week, has been regarded as the government's 'seal of approval' on the industry. The law sets up a regulatory framework for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency that is theoretically pegged to the U.S. dollar or another reference asset. The House also advanced several other landmark bills during its monumental 'crypto week,' which featured high-profile lobbying stunts such as vending machines around the Capitol and the National Mall with customized chocolate bars urging 'yes' votes, bankrolled by the crypto exchange Coinbase. Lobbying expenses that week were not covered in the second quarter disclosures. At least 73 companies or associations focused on crypto disclosed federal lobbying activities, to the tune of about $11.4 million. This total doesn't include spending from investment firms such as Andreessen Horowitz ($790,000) or BlackRock ($810,000) that have substantial crypto interests but also lobbied on a suite of other financial regulation issues. The Hill's Miriam Waldvogel has more here.


Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
Advertisement Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Sorokin wrote. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. Advertisement A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.


The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Ethics panel: Pennsylvania Republican violated code of conduct with spouse's stock trades
The House Ethics Committee 'found substantial evidence' that Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) violated the code of conduct for the lower chamber when his wife profited off stock trades for a company the congressman was focusing on in Washington. The report — which spans 28 pages and has three packets of supporting documents — cleared Kelly of intentionally causing his wife to trade based on insider information and having a conflict of interest, determining there wasn't evidence to prove those two wrongdoings. But the panel found that Kelly, a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, breached the House's code of conduct 'by failing to meet his duty of candor.' The committee ordered he and his wife to divest their investments in Cleveland-Cliffs, the steel manufacturer at the center of the report. 'Representative Kelly's conduct with respect to Cleveland-Cliffs and his wife's stock purchase raised significant concerns for the Committee, even if it did not rise to the level of insider trading or clearly violate conflict of interest rules,' the committee wrote, later adding Kelly 'has not demonstrated sufficient appreciation for the harm to the institution caused by the appearance of impropriety.' The panel's investigation focuses on a series of trades of Cleveland-Cliffs stock that Kelly's wife, Victoria, made in the last five years. Cleveland-Cliffs in 2020 acquired AK Steel, which is the sole producer of grain oriented electrical steel (GOES) in the U.S. GOES is produced in Butler, Pa., a town in Kelly's district. In early 2020, Cleveland-Cliffs had said it may have to close the Butler location and lay off employees if the Trump administration did not implement Section 232 tariffs, which would protect the production of GOES in the U.S. Kelly took part in actions in Washington to address the matter. On April 28 of that year, the Commerce Department told Cleveland-Cliffs — and Kelly learned — it would begin a Section 232 investigation for some GOES-based steel products, according to the report. The next day, the panel learned, Victoria Kelly bought 5,000 shares of Cleveland-Cliffs stock for $23,075. The investigation was announced on May 4. The committee said it was unable to determine if Victoria Kelly was made aware of the development before making the trade. But, the congressman was working from home at the time after testing positive for COVID-19 and told the committee 'Mrs. Kelly would've heard any of my conversations,' adding that she 'sits around for most of the time I'm on the phone,' according to the report. The panel said it could definitely determine if she heard the conversation. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, enacted in 2012, prohibits members and staff from engaging in insider trading using information learned in official capacities. While Kelly was interviewed as part of the investigation, his wife 'refused to participate in a voluntary interview or to respond to written questions from the Committee, citing her prior cooperation with document requests as well as health concerns,' according to the report. The Congressman also said his wife did not want to speak to the committee because she felt the process was 'invasive.' 'The Committee did not receive full cooperation from Mrs. Kelly and was therefore unable to determine whether her stock purchase was improper,' the report reads. The panel did, however, find that the investment in Cleveland-Cliffs 'was an outlier' in her portfolio, noting that unlike other trades that were made at her firm's discretion, that transaction 'had to be instructed and confirmed directly by Mrs. Kelly in order for the transaction to be completed because it was not on PNC's investment platform.' The move marked her first purchase of individual stock in a year, according to the report, and was different from the mainly funds and bonds on her account. Kelly said he believed his wife made the transaction because 'she thought the stock was so low priced, it'd be foolish not to… I know that she thought she made a hell of a buy.' In August 2020, however, Kelly's office told a local news outlet inquiring about the purchase that it was made 'to show her support for the workers and management of this 100-year old bedrock of their hometown, where they both are life-long residents.' The second transaction examined by the committee was made in January 2021, shortly after Cleveland-Cliffs in December 2020 acquired a steel manufacturing corporation that caused its stock to skyrocket in value. Victoria Kelly that month sold all her shares in the company for $87,551.06, turning a $64,476.06 profit. 'None of the witnesses interviewed by OCC or the Committee, including Representative Kelly, provided an explanation for why Mrs. Kelly chose to sell her stock at that time. Representative Kelly told the Committee he did not speak with Mrs. Kelly about the sale at any point,' the report reads. Then in June 2024, Kelly disclosed that his wife purchased between $50,000 and $100,000 in shares of Cleveland-Cliffs back in March, as the congressman's office was involved in a matter involving the company and the Department of Energy. In March, the Energy Department made a decision on the matter that protected the facility in Butler. As a result of the findings, the panel recommended that Kelly and his wife 'divest all of Cleveland-Cliffs stock should he continue to take official actions relating to the company.' 'It is rare for the Committee to recommend divestment of stocks where there is a potential appearance of a conflict of interest. As Representative Kelly himself noted, however, he is an 'insider' when it comes to Cleveland-Cliffs, by virtue of his position as the representative for his district,' the report reads. In a statement responding to the Ethics report, Kelly said: 'This investigation has unnecessarily lasted for nearly five years.' 'In the years since this investigation began, the Cleveland Cliffs Butler Works plant faced an uncertain future due to the Biden administration's reckless energy policies. Throughout this process, I have fought for the 1,400 workers at the plant, I've spoken with these workers, and they appreciate the hard work we have done to fight for those jobs and for Butler. My family and I look forward to putting this distraction behind us,' he added.