HB 537 - An Intrusive & Obstructionist Bill Being Discussed In The Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee

Who defines what an 'Urbanized Area' and / or anything else the Ohio Division of Natural Resources concerns itself with is; in the context of proximity to new Gas & Oil wells  ?

Is this determination made solely by the Ohio Division of Natural Resources ?

Or is it determined by the ODNR after consulting with local governmental entities (like a Council / Grange / Board of Trustees / etc.) ?

Can the ODNR determination be over-ridden by a local governmental entity (should the local governmental entity consider the proposed well site as falling within a 'Rural Area') ?

Is this Pro-Active or is it Obstructionist ?

Please discuss.

 

Views: 1520

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ragnars Repo on December 4, 2012 at 7:59am
UN Agenda 21
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 4, 2012 at 1:56pm

Not for me / mine.

Scary stuff.

Hope it's all a load of horse pucky.

 

Permalink Reply by Ragnars Repo on December 4, 2012 at 2:29pm
Me too. If you look at their own web site and read their own words its hard to say its horsepuckey. Additionally if democrats are against the agenda it must be unconstitutional.
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 4, 2012 at 8:19am

Agreed.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 5, 2012 at 2:13am

Read further and discovered within a paragraph [ 1509.021, (H) ] that appears to prohibit any gas or oil well (shallow or deep / Clinton / Rose Run) from being any closer to even a private dwelling in a non-urbanized area than the new suggested standard 1000 feet. 

As written it appears that the owner of the dwelling cannot waive the distance requirement.

To my way of looking at things that's extremely punitive and intrusive.

For instance if I wanted to put a gas or oil well on my property it could be no closer than 1000 feet from my dwelling which to me is punitive.  

If an owner wants to suffer a well on their property closer than 1000' he or she should be able to legally do just that.  After all it is private property.   

Permalink Reply by Ragnars Repo on December 5, 2012 at 3:19am
Unfortunately private property is out and the common good is in. These local house bills are how they are sneaking in the end of property rights. Call me conspiratorial if you like, but read what they say and its hard to argue what's occurring.
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 5, 2012 at 4:00am

I then am also conspiratorial John O.

But - we have to keep being pro-active - actually that's all we can do.

We have to at least tell our lawmakers that Private Property is very much IN ! !

I looked and I saw that HB 493 and HB 537 - which I believe are Landowner Punitive and Obstructionist, are being discussed by the Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee currently. 

A third Bill, HB 528, is also being discussed which I see as pro Landowner but perhaps when viewed by Developers they would perceive it as Punitive and Obstructionist.

I wrote to Dan Hall who chairs the Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee discussing these Bills and told him of my interpretations.

I think all Landowners ought to as well.

Google Dan Hall Ohio Representative then go to his web site and you can write him an e-mail too.

You should also Google 'Ohio 129th General Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee' then go to that page and you can see who's seated.

Write all of them !  

 

Permalink Reply by Ragnars Repo on December 5, 2012 at 4:10am
Thanks for spreading the word. I hope more of our countrymen will stand for our constitution and our nations sovereignty.
Permalink Reply by Dan on December 5, 2012 at 4:47am

Joseph,

The line between "needed" regulations, based on objective facts not fairy tales, and push-back from special interests trying to redraw sanity for their agendas is a constant battle.  With large tract landowners and corporate land holdings the small landowner is owning smaller and smaller parcels.  Why would someone like Con Ag care about fighting for land owner rights over a 1000'  set back if their buildings with this set back would still allow 99.98% of their land to be drilled.  Not that that would be an actual scenerio but very large land owners don't neccesarilly have the same interests as those of us that hold small tracts.

!000' set back could really kill a lot of hope for those with a few acres to have their minerals harvested.

Thanks for bringing this to attention.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 5, 2012 at 6:58am

Dan,

What was wrong with the existing laws governing such ?

Between the existing State and Federal (EPA) regs. we have everything covered.

'Developer Friendly' was a major contributing factor in bringing developers to the Ohio Utica to begin with.

I've heard of no really serious scenarios here in Ohio warranting such a major revamp of governing laws.

In my opinion all we need is more inspection and enforcement.

Beyond that an accident will happen now and then in any industrial endeavor - that's something we all have to accept.

The only way nothing will happen in anything you do is to not do anything in the 1st place - that gets us nowhere.

The answer isn't to legislate our freedoms away and give in to totalitarianism.

It's as if our governmental 'leadership' (recognizing a chance to recover the economy) asks themselves 'what can we do to trip everything up and waste alot of time doing it ?'.

1000 foot setbacks will erase most 50 acre tracts from the ability to develop a well.

Geez ! What a can of worms !

Permalink Reply by Dan on December 5, 2012 at 7:24am

Joseph,

I agree with you.  Just suggesting why landowner rights ARE disapearing.  Many rules and regulations are never dreamed of untill something goes wrong or someone does something wrong.  For these reasons we do need rules.  The rules and regulations brought just because someone dreamed up what could go wrong without any facts or to favor some over others should not be considered.

What if the current set back required was only 50'?  Would you want regulations to increase it to 100'?  I surely would.

We have very good O&G regulations in Ohio but they didn't all happen 100 years ago.  We need to be pro-active that regulations aren't needlessly burdensome but we still need some regulation.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 5, 2012 at 10:12am

I agree Dan.

However, I think the current regs. (prior to the HB 493 and HB 537 suggested revisions) pertaining to setbacks are ok just the way they are.

The only really bad thing that I can think of happening lately was the minor quake in Youngstown.

Injection well regulation, planning, inspection, and enforcement is required there - and BTW I think they've got that pretty well covered these days.

But don't beat up on and penalize the rest of the industry including we Landowners !

That one was an operational anomaly on behalf of the O & G Waste DisposaI Contractor.  Police that from happening again (if possible).  But, don't stymie / delay / hinder the whole Utica play and a healthy regional (Northeast Ohio) economic recovery ! 

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service