The bill mandates the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to report by February 1, 2014, on its findings regarding hydraulic fracturing waste. This includes an analysis of effects on various environmental and public health aspects and recommendations on whether the moratorium on hydraulic fracturing waste should continue beyond the established date. The impact of this legislation may result in stricter controls on hydraulic fracturing activities in the state, reflecting concerns about environmental safety and health issues linked to waste disposal and management.
Summary
House Bill 06533, titled 'An Act Concerning Hydraulic Fracturing Waste', establishes a regulatory framework for the treatment, disposal, and storage of hydraulic fracturing waste in the state. Under this bill, activities that involve the discharge, treatment, or utilization of hydraulic fracturing waste are prohibited until July 1, 2014. The intent of the bill is to allow time for a comprehensive assessment of the environmental and socio-economic impacts related to hydraulic fracturing waste, focusing on public health, water quality, and economic effects such as job creation or loss associated with the practice.
Sentiment
The sentiment around HB 06533 appears to be cautious and protective, with a strong emphasis on assessing potential risks before allowing hydraulic fracturing waste management. While supporters of the bill view it as a necessary step towards safeguarding public health and environmental well-being, there are concerns among industry stakeholders regarding delays in operational practices and the economic implications of continued restrictions on hydraulic fracturing activities.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding this bill include the balance between resource extraction for energy purposes and the safeguarding of public health and environmental resources. Advocates for stricter regulations argue that proactive measures are essential in mitigating potential negative outcomes from hydraulic fracturing, while opponents may express concerns about the financial impacts on employment and the energy sector, fearing that extended regulations could hamper economic development in the state.