Range Resources - Appalachia, LLC v. Salem Township

964 A.2d 869 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 2005, D enacted a general ordinance directed at regulating surface and land development associated with oil and gas drilling operations. Ps commenced an action in the common pleas court, seeking declarations that: the ordinance was invalid due to non-compliance with the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) (Count I); the ordinance's regulations were preempted by Pennsylvania's Oil and Gas Act (Act) (Count II); the regulations were also preempted by other state and federal enactments (Counts III and IV); the regulations violated due process (Count V); and they affected a regulatory taking (Count VI). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In July 2006, while these motions were pending, D enacted, for the first time, comprehensive subdivision and land development legislation, thereby supplanting the earlier ordinance. This new legislation was adopted pursuant to the MPC. It was a wholesale re-enactment of the oil and gas regulations found in the prior legislation. The Ordinance also established a fee for permit applications and provided for criminal penalties upon failure to comply with its terms. The court agreed to rule on the new enactments. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Ps holding that the Act preempted the D's oil and gas regulations. D then appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court issues a comprehensive ruling. The court found that the Ordinance 'places conditions, requirements, or limitations on some of the same features of oil and gas well operations regulated by the Oil and Gas Act.' It ruled that D is foreclosed from exercising that police power because the comprehensive nature of the statutory scheme regulating oil and gas well operations reflects a need for uniformity so that the purposes of the legislature can be accomplished. The Commonwealth Court affirmed. D argued that the trial court should have examined the Ordinance on a provision-by-provision basis to ascertain whether any provisions were severable. The Commonwealth Court affirmed based on the analysis set forth in the trial court's opinion. D appealed.