Local governments in Pennsylvania are pre-empted by state law from regulating the location of natural gas and oil wells, even if they are in residential developments, the Commonwealth Court ruled Friday.

Overturning the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, a seven-judge panel of the appellate court said the Legislature eliminated municipalities’ authority to restrict well placement when it amended the state Oil and Gas Act in 1992.

The court sent the case back to Allegheny County and directed the Oakmont Borough Council to grant the conditional use permits sought by Huntley & Huntley Inc., an oil and gas exploration company seeking to drill in a residential subdivision.

A lawyer whose firm serves as Oakmont’s solicitor said the ruling leaves local governments virtually powerless to control the growing number of gas and oil wells that are being drilled in many parts of Pennsylvania.

Conversely, municipalities are permitted to use their zoning authority to guide the locations of other environmentally sensitive uses, such as landfills and quarries, said the lawyer, Clifford Levine.

The ruling affects virtually every municipality in the state, said Levine, who specializes in land-use cases for the Pittsburgh law firm Thorp Reed & Armstrong.

Drilling for gas and oil has expanded rapidly throughout the United States as prices and demand have soared. Pennsylvania has more than 67,000 wells in production, including nearly 50,000 gas wells, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The DEP issued a record 7,300 drilling permits last year and more than 3,500 through July 1 of this year, said DEP spokesman Michael Smith.

At issue in Oakmont, the site of this year’s U.S. Open golf tournament, is a gas well that Huntley & Huntley wants to drill in a residential subdivision on two adjoining lots that total 10 acres.

The families that own the lots would be allotted one-quarter of the gas at no charge and share in profits from the well; the rest of the gas would be marketed commercially, according to court papers and a company official.

Opponents, mostly neighbors, objected on grounds that the well violated local zoning laws and that the drilling would create noise and jeopardize public safety.

Michael Hillebrand, vice president of the Monroeville company, acknowledged that the expected 50 days of drilling and associated truck traffic would be disruptive. But he said the well itself would be enclosed by a 20-by-25-foot fence and shielded from public view by landscaping.

“There are nine wells between Oakmont East (public golf course) and Oakmont Country Club, and nobody even noticed them during the U.S. Open,” he said.

In rejecting the proposal, the borough council said it was not pre-empted by the Oil and Gas Act. The county court agreed.

But the appellate panel said Friday that 1992 amendments to the Oil and Gas Act explicitly bar “provisions which impose conditions, requirements or limitations on the same features of oil and gas well operations regulated by this act.”

“The language clearly does not pre-empt all local regulation,” Judge James Gardner Colins wrote in the majority opinion, “because such a conclusion would render meaningless the amendment’s distinction between regulations that do or do not relate to ‘features’ the act addresses.”

The state law imposes few restrictions on well locations, including a 200-foot setback from existing buildings or water wells and 100 feet from streams, springs and wetlands.

Find More Mining News :