Senate committee holds first hearing on bill to ban hydraulic fracturing beneath Ohio state parks

Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee members heard sponsor testimony Wednesday on Senate Bill 132, titled the PERSERV Act (Protecting Public Resources, Ecosystems, Sensitive Lands from Extraction, Violation and Exploitation Act), which would ban horizontal hydraulic fracturing beneath Ohio state parks and public lands. Minority Leader Antonio delivered the sponsor testimony.

The bill’s sponsor told the committee that explosions, fires and accidents at hydraulic fracturing sites pose a risk to parks, wildlife and nearby communities and cited a recent explosion near Salt Fork State Park as an example of the danger. "While wildlife and water sources were reported to not be impacted by this explosion, it highlights abolishing the practice within Ohio State Parks," Leader Antonio said. He also cited figures he attributed to Save Ohio Parks and a FactTracker analysis arguing that incidents related to oil and gas operations are frequent.

The proposed law would prohibit the horizontal chemical extraction process commonly known as fracking under Ohio state parks and public lands. Leader Antonio described the bill as a preventative step to safeguard biodiversity, recreational access and tourism that supports local economies and said the measure is also intended to reduce potential long-term health harms he associated with fracking operations.

Leader Antonio summarized claims from outside groups alleging 1,400 oil- and gas-related incidents in the past five years and cited studies he said link proximity to fracking sites with increased school absences and hospital visits. When asked for sources by Senator Allen, Leader Antonio pointed the committee to a 2016 fall study listed in his packet (Environmentamerica dot org and related analyses as cited in his testimony). When Chair Schafer asked whether the explosion cited had occurred on private property, Leader Antonio said he believed it had. Ranking Member Hicks Hudson asked whether the sponsor could provide an estimate of emergency-response costs associated with the incident; Leader Antonio said he did not have that figure but could contact local authorities.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on the question of proximity and what a "seven-minute drive from a park entrance" meant in practical terms. Leader Antonio said the point of citing the incident was to highlight potential risks to park visitors and to local water and air quality, and that further factual work would be needed to define safe distances and contamination thresholds. He noted that some chemical formulations used in fracking are commercially protected and not publicly disclosed, which complicates technical risk assessments.

No committee vote was taken. Chair Schafer closed the first hearing on SB 132 after Q&A and invited any additional information the sponsor could provide, including local emergency-cost estimates and source documentation for the studies cited.

The hearing record contains sponsor testimony and follow-up questions from multiple senators; the committee did not take action or set a next-step vote during the session.