ShareThis Page

Environmentalists win in court over gas drilling in forests

| Tuesday, June 20, 2017, 6:51 p.m.
Mt. Davis, Forbes State Forest, Somerset County
Guy Wathen | Tribune-Review
Mt. Davis, Forbes State Forest, Somerset County

HARRISBURG — A decision by Pennsylvania's highest court on Tuesday was hailed as a victory by environmental advocates on the use of public natural resources and money from oil and gas drilling in state forests.

Brought originally as a challenge to the state government's unfettered use of money from drilling in publicly owned forests, the state Supreme Court went farther in its effort to strengthen the hand that environmental considerations play in government decisions.

John Dernbach, a professor of environmental law and sustainability at the Widener University Commonwealth Law School, called it a “landmark” decision. It the second major high court decision won by environmental advocacy groups in challenges that grew out of the Marcellus Shale natural gas boom in Pennsylvania.

The biggest victory in the decision is that it cites a 1971 constitutional amendment to require that the state act as a trustee, and not a proprietor, of public natural resources, said John Childe, a lawyer for the nonprofit Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation. That effectively overturns four decades of case law that had weakened what is known as the environmental rights amendment, Childe and others said.

A splintered state Supreme Court in 2013 had relied, in part, on the environmental rights amendment when it struck down a two-year-old law imposing new limits on the power of local governments to determine where the natural gas industry could operate. Just three justices had backed that rationale, leading to arguments that it was not settled law, Dernbach said.

With a five-justice majority now backing a stronger application of the amendment, the court is insisting that environmental rights are on par with other constitutional rights like property rights and free speech, said Jordan Yaeger, a lawyer for the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Pennsylvania Land Trust Association.

“And all branches of government and all levels of government can be held accountable if they take action that would injure our right to a healthy environment,” Yaeger said.

The 45-page decision could make it more difficult to lease state forests for oil and gas drilling, and it could force governments to be more careful about allowing development that would damage public lands, wildlife, groundwater, rivers and air quality.

Gov. Tom Wolf's office would only say it was reviewing the decision. Wolf has backed a moratorium on drilling in state forests.

The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry said it will check with its members on the real-world effect of the decision. The Marcellus Shale Coalition, a major natural gas drilling association, said it viewed the decision solely in the context of its effect on the use of state revenue from drilling in state forests.

The decision will certainly make it more difficult for the state to tap revenue from drilling in state forests. When the state began leasing state forestland anew to take advantage of the drilling boom, it diverted some of the revenue to prop up its recession-wracked finances.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.