Can Towns Ban Fracking? This One Case Could Decide Them All

Reported by: Evan Dawson
Set Text Size SmallSet Text Size MediumSet Text Size LargeSet Text Size X-Large
Share
Updated: 2/05 12:58 am

A very important question is at the center of a court case that commenced this morning in Livingston County Court: Do individual towns have the right to ban natural gas fracking? An energy company is suing the town of Avon, hoping to set a precedent that would block towns from making their own decisions on fracking.

Dozens of towns are considering or have already enacted bans -- more than half the towns in Livingston County passed one-year moratoriums on fracking, for example -- and this is the one case that could decide them all.

We asked Michael Joy, attorney for Lenape Resources, why towns should't have the right to ban fracking in the same way that towns can vote to ban, say, alcohol. Joy said it wasn't a fair analogy.

"Not everybody is opposed to or supports natural gas development," Joy said, "and you have the power as a property owner not to sign an oil-and-gas lease. What the oppositionists want to do is to go beyond that. They say, 'We don't only want to control what we do with our land; we want to control what you do with your land.'"

But to Joy's point, a town that bans alcohol is not a town where no one chooses to drink any alcohol. That doesn't stop the democratically elected town leaders from setting such a ban, nor does it stop the citizens from voting in new leaders if they disagree with such a move. Joy argued that an alcohol ban wouldn't destroy the alcohol industry, but fracking bans could destroy the energy industry in New York State.

"There is absolutely the potential to see the death of -- these kinds of actions could drastically impact the industry, and local employment," Joy said.

The attorney for the town of Avon, who declined an interview after the hearing, disagreed with Lenape's position. In court, Avon's attorney argued that the State Court of Appeals has repeatedly moved to protect the rights of towns to set their own standards for what is an appropriate use of the land within its borders. The attorney stressed, "This case is not about fracking. It's about town rights. Lenape is asking the court to eliminate the rights of towns to decide what use of land is appropriate."

The attorney continued the point by saying that individual towns have to decide whether tourism and recreational activities can co-exist with natural gas extraction. He told the judge that Lenape's position would take away the town's ability to protect its resources.

Joy responded by telling the judge that much of the debate is being driven by "fear-mongering" and said, "Local municipalities should not be regulating the natural gas industry because they clearly do not understand what goes into the operation of it."

Regarding the potential for bans to hurt the energy industry, Avon's attorney scoffed: "This is not a referendum on whether the natural gas industry is going to survive in this state."

Lenape Resources is located in Alexander, NY, just south of Batavia. The company has operated in Avon for several decades, but is awaiting a state ruling on fracking. The lawsuit seeks $50 million in damages, claiming the recent ban has injured the company.

Outside the courthouse, activists rallied to Avon's side and said there were other rallies in Albany and elsewhere focused on the same subject: home rule.

"We're basically coming out to support Avon and support the right of home rule, of local towns to set bans and moratoriums if that's what the folks decide," said Zora Gussow while she waved handmade signs.

This case is likely to become a model for other towns, and Lenape chose Avon for that very reason. "The fact that there are more than a hundred towns dealing with this issue across New York State makes this case that much more important," Joy explained. "What the industry and communities and landowners need is clarity on this issue. This is an issue that is dividing communities across New York, and that's unfortunate. That doesn't help anyone. Resolution on this issue will."

Judge Robert Wiggins did not set a timetable for moving forward, but attorneys on both sides hope to hear from the judge before the end of next week.

Share
5 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of 13WHAM-TV || Rochester

Aurelius - 2/6/2013 3:16 PM
1 Vote
New York is a home rule state, which means that to the extent possible, towns have the power to decide what goes on within their borders. That includes the right to zone, which is the fundamental issue before the court in question. The same issues raised in Avon have already been decided by two two different courts in two different cases--Dryden v. Anschutz and Huntington v. Middlefield. In those cases, the courts held that towns have a perfect right in law to decide what activities go on within their borders. This power is called zoning, a completely uncontroversial matter that has been law in New york since 1916 and has been upheld by the US Supreme Court several times since the 1920s. The right to zone is a fundamental police power of any local government and centuries of common law says that right is exercised without stripping a landowner of any rights, economic or otherwise. The Dryden and Middlefield decisions are on appeal and about to be argued, but on very narrow grounds--whether the Oil and Gas law, which regulates HOW drilling is conducted, preempts the power of a town to decide WHERE or WHETHER drilling is conducted. Predictably, the gas companies argue it does; as predictably, towns like Avon, Dryden. and Middlefield, and many others upstate, say otherwise. To learn more about this and the issues involved, you can read this article in THE HUFFINGTON POST: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/new-york-fracking_b_1409355.html

Kitra - 2/6/2013 11:56 AM
1 Vote
The towns of Dryden and Middlefield have already had their Home Rule rights upheld in two separate decisions last year. Although an appeal was filed by the industry lawyer, Tom West, Anschutz has since pulled out of Dryden. Norse Energy picked up a few token leases to enter as the new plaintiff but has since filed for bankruptcy. "The bankruptcy filing says Norse Energy has $32.6 million in debt and less than $50,000 in assets." $24 million of their claimed $32 million in debt is from lawsuits. http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/norse_energy_files_for_bankrup.html#incart_river_default http://www.damascuscitizensforsustainability.org/2012/02/win-in-middlefield-ny-breaking-news/ http://cornellsun.com/node/50051

Glenn Wahl - 2/4/2013 11:21 PM
2 Votes
John Holko's basic argument is that Avon should not be able to have a ban on fracking, since that will (if NYS approves fracking) prevent John's company from making money by drilling in Avon, since Avon has declared the new kind of fracking illegal in that town. In other words, he's suing for loss of business (and that's odd, since he hasn't even lost any business yet) If John wins his case, then by his same logic, pimps could sue for loss of business because prostitution is illegal, meth lab operators could sue for loss of business because those drugs are illegal, etc. What part of "illegal" doesn't John understand?

famous - 2/4/2013 2:08 PM
0 Votes
Why not Frack the eco-friendly way? GASFRAC’s proven, advanced gelled LPG technology replaces conventional water-reliant fracturing methods. First, there’s no water. It’s a Liquefied Petroleum Gas gel that is as natural to a well as soil is to the earth. Soluble in formation hydrocarbons, it improves performance without using water. Second, it's safe. We've developed a zero-oxygen, closed system and specialized equipment that protects worker safety, eliminates post-job cleanup and requires only minimal flaring that can be reduced to zero given the appropriate recapture facilities. Third, it produces more. The ability to quickly recover 100% of the fracturing fluid results in enhanced oil and gas recovery, longer sustained production, and the ability to recapture, reuse or resell—a highly cost-effective benefit, especially for multi-stage horizontal wells.

codestripper - 2/4/2013 1:41 PM
1 Vote
Mr. Joy was not completely truthful on several points. The Avon moratorium does NOT forbid current gas well and drilling operations, including Lenape's existing wells. Lenape shut their wells down voluntarily, in order create drama. The suit claims hardship for John Holko and Lenape, yet they have not pursued the many existing avenues for moderation or relief prior to filing the suit. Joy complains that the rights of landowners are infringed upon, but fails to acknowledge compulsory integration, whereby landowners are forced into a lease. If 60 percent of the area around your property is leased to drill a well, a gas company can petition the state to go underneath your property too. His claim of the town attempting to regulate the gas and oil industry is a straw-man argument because the surface impact and the fracking process is a land use issue, not an attempt to supersede the state level regulations. Gas industry jobs are overstated, and Avon has a thriving agricultural economy that will be affected if horizontal fracking is permitted. Why should personal greed- in the guise of personal rights and exposing many to economic risk and health issues- trump the decision of an elected board representing the majority of the town?
State News
National News
Russia, US continue to spy on each other
The embarrassing arrest of a suspected CIA officer in Moscow is the latest reminder that the U.S. and Russia are still engaged in an espionage battle with secret tactics, spying devices and specialized training.

TheOffice

Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.