Florida Environment Agency has refused permission to train oil near the Apalachicola River

TALHASSEE — The Florida Department of Environmental Protection refused permission to train oil near the Apalachicola River on Monday, endorsing the recommendations of an administrative law judge, giving environmentalists and residents of northwest Florida a victory.

Last year, the department issued a permit to Louisiana-based Clearwater Land & Minerals Fla to drill exploratory wells in an unincorporated area of ​​Calhoun County between Tallahassee and Panama City. However, the environmental group Appalachicola River Keeper challenged the proposed permit at the state administrative hearing.

In April, Judge Lawrence P. Stevenson issued a 53-page recommendation order that stated that permission should be denied. Under the Administrative Law, the issue has returned to the department for final decisions.

Monday’s order rejected a series of arguments that Clearwater land and minerals raised Stevenson’s recommendations. By way of example, one of the issues involved what is known as a “balance test” of state law, which requires balancing environmental benefits, the order said.

“Clearwater does not dispute that the findings of the recommended order are supported by competent substantial evidence. Rather, it suggests that the ALJ (administrative law judge) should give more weight to that evidence and produce findings that were more useful for the case,” the final order said. “As is, the department is… limited to ALJ’s findings when applying balanced standards, and neither of these findings supports issuing excavation permits to Clearwater.”

We may appeal or appeal the final order to the First District Court.

The state and federal governments have long taken steps to protect the Apalachicola River and Apalachicola Bay, and have attracted attention, at least in part. They are part of the Appalachicola Chattahoochee-Flint River system, which starts in northern Georgia, crosses Alabama and ends in Appalachicola Bay in Franklin County.

Stevenson writes that the proposed location is within the 100-year flood plain of the Apalachicola River, within a mile of two ponds hydrologically connected to the river and surrounded by swamps. When working on the draft permit issued last year, he said, “DEP and Clearwater will look very narrowly at the scope of the project for environmental review purposes and limit it to locations close to the site’s drilling pads.”

“The runoff will have devastating consequences as it is close to nearby streams, marshlands and ponds,” writes Stephenson.

Discussions about the project were also on fire during this year’s legislative meeting, with opponents claiming that oil could spill into the river, which could harm the oyster industry and businesses in the Appalachicola Bay Area.

Lawmakers have passed measures (HB 1143) to effectively prevent drilling within 10 miles of the Apalachicola National Estuary Research Institute. The bill has not been formally sent to Gov. Ron DeSantis for his consideration.

While relatively unusual for Florida, businesses have long been drilled for oil around Jay’s Santa Rosa County community and parts of southwest Florida. In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency approved permission from another company on the same Calhoun County site. However, the company Cholla Petroleum was not excavated, Stevenson wrote in his recommended order.

In a document filed in February of the incident, the department said it would point to safeguards such as Berms on the site and prevent the release of contaminants.

“From a broader perspective, the parcels described in the “relevant land,” i.e. the area of ​​well pads and applications, are located within the Apalachicola River Basin,” the department’s document states. “However, given the location and redundant systems to maintain potential discharges of contaminants in well pads, the land involved does not have any special properties that make them susceptible to contamination.”

But Stevenson had trouble with such arguments. For example, he cited rules regarding permitting in “sensitive areas.”

“The focus on site footprints can be understood in the sense that the site is where excavations occur and is the only area that Clearwater controls,” he writes. “However, the cited rules require that applicants “make every effort to minimize the relevant impact.” It will probably include impacts beyond the site itself. The rules do not pretend that the “relevant impact” of the proposed permission cannot be extended beyond the site, as they do not require the person responsible for dep. ”