
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Tenth Circuit Applies Statute of Limitations That Is “Closest Fit” in CERCLA Action, Overrules Earlier Precedent
- New Jersey Weighs in on State Climate Tort Claims
- First Circuit Holds that Smelling Vehicle Exhaust Constitutes Injury-in-Fact under Clean Air Act
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Vacatur of Some Oil and Gas Leases
- Court Dismisses Microplastics Consumer Protection Suit Citing Federal Preemption
Topics
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- Divisibility
- National Contingency Plan
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Tribal Lands
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Damages
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- Inspection
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Fifth Amendment
- Takings Clause
- Flooding
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Contamination
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- Certification
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Work Product
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Defense Costs
- Cost Recovery
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Farming
- Odors
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Permits
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Supreme Court
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Drilling
- Oil and Gas
- Leases
- Exploration
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
For the past year, the natural gas industry was hopeful that 2012 could be the year that Marcellus Shale natural gas production in New York could finally begin in earnest. Governor Paterson’s Executive Order No. 41, which effectively banned the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling necessary to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, expired in 2011. During the moratorium the state moved forward with its efforts to establish a regulatory and permitting framework that would allow for Marcellus Shale development in New York. New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) issued for public comment preliminary and revised draft Generic Environmental Impact Statements that recommended lifting the moratorium on Marcellus Shale development. In addition, DEC issued a set of proposed regulations applicable to high-volume hydraulic fracturing in 2011. With the comment period on the regulations closing on January 11, 2012, industry hoped that the administrative and regulatory hurdles holding back Marcellus Shale development in New York would soon be gone.
While this review and regulatory process has been underway, however, approximately 50 local municipalities have been busy enacting their own legislation to effectively ban gas drilling activities within their jurisdictions. The local legislation – which two state courts have already upheld – add another significant impediment to the development of the gas drilling industry even if New York ultimately adopts regulations that permit gas drilling activities in the state. The recent decisions issued in, Anschutz Exploration Corp. v. Dryden and Cooperstown Holstein Corp. v. Town of Middlefield, addressed the validity of two such zoning ordinances enacted to prohibit drilling within their respective townships. The plaintiff in both cases, one a gas drilling company and the other a landowner with gas leases on about 380 acres of property, argued that the respective zoning ordinances were invalid based on express preemption language contained in New York’s Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law (“OGSML”). The OGSML provides that its provisions “supersede all local laws or ordinances relating to the regulation of the oil, gas, and solution mining industries; but shall not supersede local government jurisdiction over local roads or the rights of local governments under the real property law.” The court in both cases rejected the preemption claim finding that the legislative intent of the OGSML was to provide the State with authority to control the “how” of drilling activity, while municipalities maintain authority over the “where” of such activities. Of course, these findings give little credence to the fact that the OGSML provision at issue specifically carved out certain rights of local governments (e.g. over local roads), which shouldn’t have been necessary under the reasoning of both decisions. Moreover, it has been reported that one or both decisions will be appealed – so uncertainty about the potential extent of Marcellus Shale development clearly remains in New York.
In contrast to the current state of uncertainty in New York, Governor Corbett recently signed into law Act 13 of 2012, which amends Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Act (“OGA”) to better define, inter alia, the scope of OGA’s preemption of local zoning ordinances directed to oil and gas development. In this regard, not only does the amendment clarify that the OGA preempts local ordinances that attempt to regulate oil and gas operations, but that reasonable development of oil and gas resources cannot be prohibited through local zoning ordinances. Strong incentives exist for municipalities to refrain from enacting ordinances infringing upon the preempted jurisdiction of the OGA in that any municipality determined to have enacted preempted legislation is immediately ineligible to receive any funds collected pursuant to the impact fee provisions of Act 13. Moreover, Act 13 allows persons who successfully challenge zoning ordinances that violate Act 13 to collect attorney fees from local governments that enact such ordinances with willful or reckless disregard of the preemption. Nevertheless, with a long history of local control in Pennsylvania, local governments opposed to Marcellus Shale development in their jurisdictions will undoubtedly test the extent of Act 13’s preemption, which will likely result in some noteworthy litigation on these issues in the coming months.