Guest Post: Peters Twp Responds to MDN on Act 13 Lawsuit

Last week, MDN wrote an article about the just-filed lawsuit by a group of Pennsylvania townships seeking to strike down provisions in a new PA law referred to as Act 13 (see this MDN story). Act 13 preempts local zoning ordinances that prohibit or regulate oil and gas drilling and replaces those ordinances with a set of rules from the state. In essence, Act 13 substitutes the state’s “one size fits all” zoning ordinance for local zoning ordinances. MDN’s comment at the end of that article was that in examining some of the attachments to the filed lawsuit it seems to MDN that anti-drillers are the ones driving the lawsuit.

David Ball, a council member from Peters Township (Washington County), PA—one of the towns filing the lawsuit—emailed MDN to challenge our view and assessment that he and others filing the lawsuit are anti-drilling, and to further explain their reasons for the lawsuit. MDN asked permission to publish his comments and he accepted. This is not the very first, but perhaps the second or third guest post on MDN. We are happy (from time to time) to offer guest posts that disagree with our own views if that post is courteous, serious and advances the discussion. This one does and we thank Mr. Ball for taking the time to write.

Here is his post in its entirety:

Mr. Jim Willis
Editor – Marcellus Drilling News

Dear Mr. Willis,

I have just read your recent article titled “Lawsuit Filed: PA Towns Sue over Act 13 Law”.  I wish to comment on some assertions in the article.

Let’s begin with the final paragraph.  You state, “And when you look at the supporting documentation, you’ll see a variety of the standard anti-drilling clap trap. Which is telling. It says to us that this suit, while at a certain level may have its merits, is being steered by extreme anti-drillers.” That is an absolutely baseless conclusion. I understand that your publication is focused on the gas industry and that may be a conclusion that the industry wishes were true but I assure you it is not. Every SW PA community listed as petitioners allows drilling and have in place local ordinances that allow drilling that are consistent with local land uses and comprehensive plans. Most already have active drilling sites. Peters Township recently put forth a spirited effort to defeat a proposed change to its Charter that would have banned drilling. The proposed amendment lost by a six to one margin. These are the people who are “steering” this effort. We are anything but “extreme anti-drillers”.

Now let’s get to why we oppose a number of provisions of Act 13. Our challenge is a purely constitutional challenge. Act 13 imposes a statewide single zoning requirement on all municipalities. This “one size fits all” approach deprives the citizens of the state of multiple Constitutional rights. It is also a bill created expressly for the benefit of one industry at the expense of the citizens of the state, in and of itself a specific violation of the PA Constitution. Does anyone argue that this is not a “special law” focused entirely on the benefit of the gas industry?

The lawsuit challenges 12 Constitutional violations in the Act. The Act violates both the US and Pennsylvania Constitutions. It violates the very core rational of zoning – that is that the only constitutional rational for zoning is to protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of the municipality. What is proposed is state wide zoning and is subject to the same constitutional requirements as apply to municipalities. It would be interesting to see how the state will explain that placing heavy industrial operations in residential areas fulfills this court validated mandate. Further, constitutionally valid zoning restrictions are based upon the recognition that some land use is incompatible with other land use. Zoning laws allow communities to designate where certain compatible land uses are allowed. All communities are not the same and it is preposterous to imagine that one statewide zoning ordinance, one allowing an industrial operation in residential areas, protects the individual character of all communities as well as their health, safety, morals and welfare. It will be interesting to see how the state argues that an industrial operation is a land use compatible with residential homes and schools.

Municipalities are mandated to conform zoning restrictions to Comprehensive Plans. These plans, along with implementing zoning ordinances, provide for the welfare of residents when they invest in their property and when communities plan their growth. It will be interesting to see how the state argues that indiscriminate industrial operations are consistent with mandated comprehensive plans. Spot zoning, which is what indiscriminate insertion of drilling sites in residential and other incompatible areas becomes, is expressly forbidden, not only to the municipalities but to the state as well.

Act 13 violates the separation of powers part of the PA Constitution by granting the PUC, an executive agency, both legislative and judicial powers. It also gratuitously forbids healthcare professionals from sharing critical diagnostic information with regard to potential health issues that might be related to chemicals used in the drilling and fracturing process, a restriction applied to no other industry. It will be interesting to see how the state argues that this is not constitutionally forbidden “single subject” legislation.

There are a number of other constitutional questions raised in the suit but hopefully you get the picture. This suit is a serious and sincere effort by municipalities that face potential ruin by indiscriminate and uncontrolled drilling to protect the constitutional rights of their citizens as they are constitutionally and legally mandated to do. Not to challenge such a poorly crafted law would be gross dereliction of duty.

Of course, as you note, the drilling industry praises this bill. Why wouldn’t they? They wrote it and it is 100% in their favor. You imply that there are townships that are preventing drilling. A very few may have passed misguided ordinances to that effect but they are unlikely to withstand legal challenge under the existing Oil and Gas Act so this is a spurious argument. You state that local officials are not experts in the oil and gas business. True. But neither are oil and gas companies expert in municipal development and operation. Municipalities have the power to regulate business with “a majority vote” because the Constitutions of the US and the Commonwealth of PA say they do. This is a basic principle of our nation. It is unfortunate if the gas companies feel “burdened” by having to “fight the battle” to drill town by town. Every other industry has to. State law does not exist to make the usurpation of citizens’ rights easy, it exists to protect them. We are simply asking the courts to strike down unconstitutional infringements on our rights as citizens. In America it is “We, the people”, not “They, the gas companies”.


David M. Ball
Peters Township

  • Anonymous

    One zoning law isn’t a bad thing, as long as the zoning condition does not create hazards in residential areas.  The reality is, there are to many “jurisdictins” in Pa to deal with efficiently when drillers and midstreams are dealing with an already burdemsome (and necessary) enviornmental and regulatory system.  To add the additional hurdel of getting every burrough, town, township and counties approval every time you want to put up or move a silt fence has created a nightmare.  The companies drilling and building infastructure do not want to put anyone at risk or harm a town, it will create to much risk in the long run.  This law does not take away civil liberties, it simply creates a uniform code to deal with zoning and the townships and counties will be the direct benneficiaries of the trade off.  Power, the local croanies are losing it and they don’t like it.

  • Anonymous

    To Pennsylhomen,

    One law IS a bad deal.  First, it is unconstitutional.  At a practical level, how can anyone justify industrial operations in any location a gas company desired in residential areas?  Picture your house then picture where 300 feet from you house is.  Now picture a frac water impondment pond and 100 or more trucks parked there.  Appealing?  Towns have a legal obligation to protect their residents’ health safety and welfare, not make something easy for drilling companies.  The law definitely takles away civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.  In this case, “uniform” means oppressive and invasive and is NOT good.  Every other industry deals with individual townships.  What’s special about gas companies?

  • Anonymous

    I agree with the principle of what you are saying.  The zoning law would prohibit oil and gas companies from creating the very heath, safety and welfare risks you are talking about.  PS I have had a frac pond on my land in Washington county for 8 moniths approximatey 500 ft. away from my house.  The company who was using it put in 20 pecan trees for me to cover it and left my property better off after they left than before they got there.  At my request, they tested my water before they began drilling activities and again after they had removed the disposal pond and completed drilling in the unit my land was included in.  I don’t own the mineral rights but they were 100% on the up in up with me.  Yes, there are risks, that is why the constitution provides for a civil and in some instances criminal recourse angainst companies who are negligent.  Zoning is not a constituional right, being allowed to sue a bad actor is.  Towns do not have constitutional rights, the people that live in them do.  The zoning law doesn’t make things easy on the gas companies either, it makes them more efficient.  The standards the companies are to be held to are no less stringent than what an individual town would hold the companies too, they simply create a single playbook instead of multiple ones. 

  • Anonymous


    I am really happy for you that you have had a good experience with drilling.  Many have not but that is not what this suit is about.

    You are incorrect that zoning is not a Constitutional right.  The one size fits all zoning violates Article I, Section 1 of the PA Constitution because allowing for incompatible uses in like zoning districts is in derogation of municipalities comprehensive plans and is therfore an unconstitutional use of zoning districts.

    It further violates Article I, Section 1 by making oil and gas development as permitted uses by right in every zoning district making it impossible for municipalities to follow existing comprehensive plans.

    The Act violates Article III, Section 32 as it is a law enected especially and particularly for the gas industry.

    It violates Article 1, Section 27 by denying municipalities the ability to carry out their constitutional obligation to protect public natural resources.

    It violates the doctrine of seperation of powers by giving the PUC, an executive branch body both legislative and judicuary powers.

    It violates Article II, Section 32 by preventing doctors and healthcare professionals fromsharing diagnostic information for a special purpose with only one industry.

    The only constitutional basis for zoning is to protect citizens health safety and welfare.  The constitution protects, specifically, an indivisuals ability to acquire, possess and protect property and to use that propertya s the individual sees fit.  Gas drilling is neither a compatible use with other uses in residential areas nor does the imposition of use by right in all districts protect safety, health or welfare.

    Incidentally, you can’t even sue a gas company.  You refer it to the PUC.

    This law may make things easier for the gas companies but it deprives citizens and communities of their rights.

    You and I can argue this forever.  It’s now in the courts.  Let’s see what happens.

  • Anonymous

    You can and many do sue gas companies every day.  They only companies the PUC regulate are LDC’s (limited distribution comanies) because they have been identified as public utilities.  Chevron, Exxon Mobile, Range Resources, Chesapeake… all of these companies and more can be sued by pirvate citizens, towns, townships, cities, counties, state agencies, and federal agencies in civil court and have been on a regular basis over the past 120 years of oil and gas development in the commonwealth.  The PUC has no jurisdiction over producers in Pa.  Again, the new zoning law does not prohibit municipalities from from deciding how and where to zone their towns it simply gives them a  uniform way to make the decisions on zoning creating predictability and accountability in an area where there is very little in Pa.  Is it right for a township to breeze a coal company who wants to put in a waste water treatment pond in the area through zoning because the coal company as been there for 20 years and then hold up a pipeline company who wants to dig a ditch righ next to an already existing pipeline that has been there for 60 years in zoning claiming that the pipeline is creating an enviormental and public health hazard?  By the way, the last good one I heard, an unambed township in Washington, Pa withehld zoning for a compressor station citing heath and safety concerns, but in the back room stated that they would allow the zoning process to move forward if the company “donated” a new fire truck to the township and agreed to pay 200k a year in upkeep to the township.  This is blackmail and an innapproriate way to go about doing business.  If Pa wants to continue to reep the benefits of having a multi billion dollar carrying on here, we are going to have to create accountability and a set of rules that are effective for our citizens but predicatable for the companies creating the jobs and investing the money.  I am not just talking about zoning now, but permitting and operational oversite as well.

  • ファブリック2人
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.