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

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

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?

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.

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?