April 14, 2026 · Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee · 1,216 words · 9 speakers · 46 segments
Well this meeting of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will come to order. Welcome everybody. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Schaefer. Here. Vice Chair Kahler. Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson. Senator Landis. Here. Senator Liston. Yes, here. Senator Manchester. Senator Reynolds. Senator Wilkin. Yes.
Do you have a quorum? Do you have a quorum? Good, thank you. Members, the minutes from the March 10th meeting are on your iPads for review. Any objections or changes suggested for the minutes? None? Okay. Well, the minutes will stand approved as distributed. I'd like to now call Senate Bill 181, Senator Wilkin, for its fifth hearing for proponent, opponent, and interested party testimony. Members, there is a substitute bill for consideration today. and I'd like to recognize Senator Wilkin on the substitute bill for a motion.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept substitute bill L-136-0319-8.
Okay, thank you, Senator. Again, that is L136-0319-8. The motion is in order. Senator, would you like to explain the sub-bill?
Mr. Chairman, the substitute bill makes the following changes from the as-introduced version of Senate Bill 181. It narrows the local zoning prohibition to only prohibiting county and township zoning authorities from regulating underground minerals mining activity on any portion of land permitted for surface mining if one of the following applies. The portion has been zoned to allow for surface mining activities a conditional use certificate or a variance allows surface mining activities on that portion of land or surface mining activities are allowed on the portion of land as a nonconforming use The substitute bill explicitly specifies that adding land to a permit does not prevent any county township or municipal corporation from enacting adopting or enforcing zoning regulations or ordinances to regulate mining activities on such added land The substitute bill also removes the proposed severance tax increase that was under the as-introduced version of the bill, but replaces current law's $1,000 permit fee renewal for the surface mineral mining operations and the $500 permit renewal fee for in-stream mining operations, which are eliminated by the existing bill, with a new annual fee for certain permit holders as follows. $1,000 if the permit holder engages in limestone or dolomite mining, and $500 if the permit holder engages in sand and gravel or clay, sandstone, or conglomerate, shale, gypsum, or quartzite mining. Lastly, the substitute bill allows the Chief of the Division of Mineral Resources Management to require a cone of depression to be established and incorporated into existing surface or in-stream mining permit if a complaint investigation determines that dewatering may be occurring.
Okay, thank you, Senator Wilkin. Are there any objections to adopting the sub-bill? to accepting this sub-bill. Seeing no objections, the substitute bill to Senate Bill 181 will now be the vehicle. We didn't receive any requests for giving testimony for Senate Bill 181 today. Is there anyone here who would like to offer testimony, like to be a witness? Okay, seeing none. That concluded, what is the pleasure of the committee? Senator Wilkin.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we favorably report, substitute Senate Bill 181 to the Committee on Rules and Reference.
We have a motion and it's in order. Any discussion?
Vice Chairman Kaler Thank you Mr Chairman I want to thank the bill sponsor for changing the bill when it comes to the zoning issue I going to be voting no today because I think we need to do more on the non land provisions in the bill But I do appreciate his changes he's made.
Very good. Thank you. Any other comments? Yes.
Ranking Member Hicks-Senson. And I apologize for being late, and also I apologize for not having an opportunity to talk more with the sponsor. Because I, too, and I'm not sure how I'm going to vote yet, but I, too, am wondering why the question about the contiguous or not contiguous permitting in the language of the bill, why that it is okay. I guess that's the best way to ask that question. And I don't know if the sponsor could answer.
Who are you? You're asking the sponsor?
I'm asking the sponsor or whomever that could answer that question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question, Senator. Even if they purchased a non-contiguous parcel of land, the fact that it would come under one permit is simply streamlining the permit process, but has nothing to do, that would not automatically make that piece available to mining unless it was either zoned properly or went through the zoning process. So it doesn't automatically include it. It just, instead of reviewing seven permits, they would review one permit and say, all right, here's an addition, and then there's regulations as to how that addition would either be available for mining or not.
May I follow up? May I follow up?
Please.
Thank you. And again, I appreciate that answer. So let me be clear. So if a company is getting a mining permit and it's within a certain jurisdiction or township, county, or whatever city, not really a city, but that permit could cover the entire jurisdictional area, correct?
Senator Welkin.
So if I understanding your question and I use what I believe would be a big exaggeration If there were five parcels of land that were under a mining permit in a county or say a township and then the rest of the township did not allow mining and as a miner I bought the township I bought the rest of the property. Until it went through the zoning process, it would not be automatically added. It would just be under that permit as an addition, but that addition would have to be approved. Okay.
And follow-up? And I'm looking for where it says, or I just had it because I was looking at it, but I can't find it right now. And I apologize. I'm under pressure.
Another question?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sure.
And I appreciate you sponsor Senator Wilkin for indulging me publicly like this. But I guess my question, my final question, just to be clear, is that it is up to the local zoning to be able to determine whether or not, if that activity is not being done, that it can be done. But it's up to the local zoning and planning commission to approve any type of modification to the property for the use of the land. Yeah, and here's the line I was looking for.
So the answer is yes, you're correct. But in my notes here it says, allowing a mine operator to amend a permit does not allow them to bypass or eliminate any local zoning requirements related to surface mining expansions.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sure. Any other questions? Discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Schaefer?
Yes.
Vice Chair Kaler?
No.
Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson.
Yes.
Senator Landis.
Yes.
Senator Liston.
Yes.
Senator Manchester.
Yes.
Senator Reynolds.
Yes.
Senator Wilkin.
Yes.
Seven to one.
Okay, the motion passes seven to one, and we will be forwarding that on to Rules and Reference Committee. there being no further business before the committee this concludes the hearing on Senate Bill now substitute Senate Bill 181 and we are adjourned