Provides for procedures relative to remediation of oilfield sites and exploration and production sites. (8/1/14) (EN NO IMPACT See Note)
The enactment of SB 667 is expected to have significant implications for state environmental law, particularly in regulating the responsibilities of oil and gas companies in Louisiana. It introduces a rebuttable presumption relating to the feasibility of remediation plans structured by the Department of Natural Resources, thereby facilitating a more organized response to environmental damage claims. The bill is designed to reduce prolonged litigation which is often detrimental to effective environmental remediation, fostering a more pragmatic approach to restoring impacted sites.
Senate Bill 667 focuses on the procedures and legal frameworks for the remediation of oilfield sites and exploration and production sites in Louisiana. It amends existing laws to streamline processes involving environmental damage claims and introduces provisions for limited admissions of liability by defendants in such cases. The bill emphasizes court hearings within specified timeframes to determine the presence of environmental damage and clarifies the burdens of proof for parties involved in litigation. It aims to ensure timely and efficient remediation while providing mechanisms for reasonable attorney fees in cases of preliminary dismissals.
The sentiment around SB 667 appears to be largely positive among proponents who argue that it presents a balanced approach to handling environmental damage claims linked to the oil and gas industry. Supporters contend that it streamlines procedural aspects and encourages responsible behaviors from companies involved in extraction and production. However, some skepticism exists regarding whether the provisions adequately protect the environment and hold responsible parties fully accountable, which contributes to a nuanced debate surrounding the bill.
Notable points of contention include the potential for limited admissions of liability to lead to less accountability for environmental damage, as critics express concerns that this aspect may allow companies to evade full responsibilities. Additionally, the criteria established for determining damages could be challenged by affected parties, who may feel that the scope of remediation requirements is insufficient. This debate reveals a critical tension between fostering economic activities in the oil sector and protecting environmental interests.