Written
by Chloe Marie – Research Fellow
In
March 2017, Pennsylvania DEP approved permits for Class II Oil and Gas Related
Injection Wells in Highland Township, Elk County, and Grant Township, Indiana
County, Pennsylvania. The grant of these permits followed many years of legal
proceedings resulting from opposition to the application filed by Seneca
Resources Corporation in Highland Township and the application filed by
Pennsylvania General Energy in Grant Township. In both instances, local
ordinances were enacted to prohibit the wastewater injection wells.
This
article will address the litigation pertaining to the Grant Township’s
Community Bill of Rights Ordinance. In a prior article,
we focused on the litigation relating to the Highland Township’s Ordinance.
The lawsuit timeline (Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC v.
Grant Township, docket no. 1:14-cv-00209)
On
May 2, 2013, Pennsylvania General Energy (PGE) submitted a UIC permit
application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for conversion of
a production well – the Yanity Well – into a Class II-D brine disposal
injection well in Grant Township, Indiana County, Pennsylvania. The public
comment period was open through October 28, 2013. EPA issued the UIC permit to
PGE on March 19, 2014.
On
April 7, 2014, several residents of the township filed three petitions seeking
review of the UIC permit with the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB)
alleging that “the [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3] failed to respond
adequately to public comments submitted regarding the permit and question
whether the permit conditions are adequate to protect the groundwater aquifer.”
These cases were consolidated, and on August 21, 2014, EAB issued an order denying all three
petitions for review finding that the Region provided sufficient answers to the
questions and concerns set forth by the petitioners. EPA Region 3 then issued a
favorable final
permit decision regarding the UIC permit on
September 11, 2014.
In the midst of all
these developments at the federal level, Grant Township adopted a Community
Bill of Rights Ordinance on June 3, 2014, prohibiting any corporation or
government from engaging in projects and activities that would violate the
Ordinance, including waste disposal generated by oil and gas activities within
the township’s boundaries. As a result, PGE initiated legal action on August 8,
2014, against Grant Township in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania challenging certain provisions of the Ordinance. In
its complaint, PGE declared that
“as a direct and proximate cause of Grant Township’s adoption of the Community
Bill of Rights Ordinance, PGE will be precluded from operating the Yanity Well
for legally permissible injection purposes and will have to seek more costly
alternatives for managing produced fluids.” PGE asked the U.S. District Court
to enjoin Grant Township from enforcing the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance
and declare that the Ordinance is preempted by state law as well as
unconstitutional under federal laws.
On October 10,
2014, PGE also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Grant Township
outlining that Grant Township exceeded its authority in adopting the Community
Bill of Rights Ordinance given the fact that Grant Township is a Second Class
Township and thus is not allowed to regulate injection activities pursuant to
the Second Class Township Code, 53 P.S. §§ 65101 et seq.
On December 15,
2014, both PGE and Grant Township filed cross motions for judgments on the
pleadings. PGE argued that “the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance
impermissibly regulates the development of oil and natural gas, which is
exclusively and comprehensively regulated by [state law]” while Grant Township asserted
that it was “entitled to judgment on the pleadings because the people of Grant
Township possess the inherent and constitutional right of local, community
self-government and legal doctrines asserted by PGE in this action violate this
right.”
On March 19, 2015,
Grant Township filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and mootness
because PGE had yet to receive a DEP permit necessary for the construction and
operation of an injection well. On the same day, Grant Township also filed a
motion to stay pending the issuance of a well permit from DEP. On October 14,
2015, the U.S. District Court denied Grant Township’s motion to dismiss and
granted, in part, PGE’s motion for judgment on the pleadings enjoining Grant
Township from enforcing portions of the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance.
On October 26,
2015, Grant Township filed a motion for reconsideration of the U.S. District
Court’s judgment issued on October 14, 2015. Grant Township alleged that the court
“erred … in failing to expressly rule on whether the people of Grant Township have
an inalienable and constitutional right of local community self-government, and
… by omitting consideration of the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Environmental
Rights Amendment as an independent legal basis for the Community Bill of Rights
Ordinance.”
Interestingly, on
November 3, 2015, Grant Township enacted a Home Rule Charter Ordinance
replacing the Community Bill of Rights Ordinance. Consequently, on December 28,
2015, Grant Township filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction claiming that “in light of the
passage of the Home Rule Charter repealing the Ordinance … PGE no longer has a
basis to seek injunctive relief and its claims in this regard are moot and this
Court no longer possesses subject matter jurisdiction over it.” On January 20,
2016, PGE filed a motion to strike in response to Grant Township’s above
motion. On February 5, 2016, the U.S. District Court denied Grant Township’s
motion for reconsideration contending that this motion is “nothing more than an
attempt to relitigate its motion for judgment on the pleadings.” In addition,
the Court granted PGE’s motion to strike Grant Township’s motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction.
Since February 5,
2016, activity on the case has continued – to include discovery proceedings and
actions involving intervenors. The case remains pending.
Pennsylvania DEP timeline
On
April 22, 2014, PGE filed a first well permit application with the Pennsylvania
DEP (DEP) to change the use of the Yanity Well from a production well to a
disposal well; DEP discovered procedural and substantive deficiencies in PGE’s
application, and thus PGE withdrew its application.
PGE
filed a second well permit application, and DEP granted such permit on October
22, 2014, but revoked it on March 13, 2015, stating that PGE did not meet all
applicable legal requirements under Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law.
On
March 31, 2015, PGE filed its third well permit application, and on June 1,
2015, DEP held a public hearing seeking input to the permit application. DEP
approved the well permit
application on March 27, 2017. On the same date, Pennsylvania DEP initiated a
lawsuit against Grant Township seeking to invalidate the new Home Rule Charter
Ordinance (Pennsylvania DEP v. Grant
Township of Indiana County, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, docket no. 126
MD 2017).
This web site is really a walk-through for all of the info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse here, and you’ll definitely discover it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLiterally, the best blog I have ever read. I feel bad, for not finding this blog sooner.Joseph Hayon
ReplyDeleteThe author has composed this blog in an extremely informal way.
ReplyDeleteMedical Malpractice Lawyers Philadelphia
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free.
ReplyDeleteעורךדיןתעבורה
Bandar Togel Online
ReplyDeleteBandar Togel Teraman
Bandar Togel Terbaik
Bandar Togel Terbesar
cctv installation mumbai | cctv camera service provider in thane | cctv camera dealers in thane | cctv installation services in thane | cctv camera thane | cctv camera installation in thane |
ReplyDeleteAll that changed in the twentieth century as various courts started perceiving nearby bar relationship as guardians to the legitimate calling.go here
ReplyDeleteStates dependably need to confront resistance from such individuals who infringe upon the law and are known as criminals. They may have a terrible appearance as weeds however they just give oxygen to the general public to its life.nowland law
ReplyDeleteThese legal counselors know precisely how to deal with your case, regardless of what it might be. injury attorney pittsburgh
ReplyDeleteThere is another set of courses that familiarize the student directly with the legal system, legal problems and the social aspects of law. https://dr-goz-peter-ugyved.business.site/
ReplyDeleteObligatory guidelines under EC law: Unlike the Traditional English standards, under the Regulation, if the court has ward under any of the arrangements thereof (for example Arts.2 or 5) it can't decline ward because some other court is most appropriate to decide the issue, demonstrating the required idea of the principles.personal injury attorney near me
ReplyDeleteSplit authority, then again, includes the guardians sharing actual care of their youngster or kids. David Iancu
ReplyDelete