Monday a diverse group of 20 business, oil, coal, aggregate, farm, electric power, builder and chambers of commerce wrote to members of the Senate and House saying the PA Supreme Court’s ruling on the Act 13 drilling law and the Environmental Rights Amendment threatens the ability of Pennsylvania to retain and grow existing businesses and attract new ones.

Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment says, "The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people."

While the letter did not call for any specific action by the General Assembly, the letter said what they called the “uncertainty and ambiguity” of the decision will lead to more litigation and “the spectra of multiple levels of government and a myriad of agencies second guessing each other in deciding whether to approve particular developments and how to manage natural resources.”

The opinion, they said, “opens the door to a myriad of litigation, at all levels of government, attempting to thwart virtually any type of industrial, agricultural, commercial or residential facility and development.”

They concluded by saying, “As you consider and seek to address the impact of this court decision, we strongly ask that you give serious consideration to our concerns regarding this important matter.”

The text of the letter follows--

On behalf of a diverse group of interests, including chambers of commerce and associations representing a broad array of businesses and industries throughout Pennsylvania, we are writing to express our serious concerns about the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision regarding Act 13 of 2012 and the plurality opinion’s unprecedently expansive interpretation and use of the Environmental Rights Amendment to strike down state legislation intended to provide a comprehensive, predictable, and rational approach to environmental regulation.

While we had hoped the court would reconsider its original decision on this critical matter and allow a further fact finding process to occur, the recent announcement that the original ruling would stand without additional consideration has only solidified our concerns.

We believe the Court’s December 19, 2013 decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has far-reaching implications that will impact a multitude of industries in Pennsylvania beyond oil and gas extraction and development.

How this decision will be applied in future permitting, development and other matters can be debated. What cannot be debated, however, is the high level of uncertainty and lack of clarity to which Pennsylvania employers are now subjected to as a result of the decision.

The plurality’s opinion has, without a doubt, created more questions than answers, many of which will not be resolved without a long and costly litigation process.

The plurality opinion authored by Chief Justice Castille expands the application of the Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA) in Pennsylvania’s Constitution by ostensibly authorizing every government entity in the state (including the executive branch, the courts, the legislature, and municipalities) to act as a trustee of the Commonwealth’s natural resources, in the manner each entity sees fit.

The opinion undermines the traditional and long-recognized authority of the Legislature to balance environmental and economic interests on a statewide basis, leading to the spectra of multiple levels of government and a myriad of agencies second guessing each other in deciding whether to approve particular developments and how to manage natural resources. This expansive, broad and vaguely case-by-case application of the Environmental Rights

Amendment threatens to reestablish the very uncertainty and ambiguity that Act 13 and many other statutes were originally intended to address through adoption of a holistic, comprehensive regulatory program that carefully balances the Commonwealth twin interests in economic progress and environmental stewardship.

The plurality opinion opens the door to a myriad of litigation, at all levels of government, attempting to thwart virtually any type of industrial, agricultural, commercial or residential facility and development. The affects of this ruling will be felt by employers in all industries and will certainly adversely impact efforts to promote job creation throughout the state.

The intent of Act 13 was to ensure stable and environmentally responsible development of the state’s natural gas industry for the greater benefit of the Commonwealth and, more importantly, the communities in which the development has already occurred.

With the support of entities representing local governments throughout the state, the plan proved we could successfully balance the concerns of our communities while promoting unparalleled economic opportunity.

However, as a result of the court’s decision, the ties that bound Act 13 and met the objectives of protecting the environment, supporting local communities and growing the economy have been severed. In turn, the decision thus forces us now to question how it will affect not only the ability to responsibly grow the state’s natural gas industry, but also the status of other critical environmental safeguards included in the law.

Each of our respective members and their employees has made Pennsylvania their home and has a vested interest in protecting our environment and ensuring safety in our communities. Yet we know that in order to grow our economy and preserve a high-quality standard of living for future generations, there must be a responsible balance between environmental protection, local oversight and economic development.

We believe that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision, because of the uncertainty and ambiguity that it has produced, has serious potential to undermine that balance by presenting new challenges to promoting economic growth and to the state’s ability to attract and retain of employers throughout the Commonwealth.

As you consider and seek to address the impact of this court decision, we strongly ask that you give serious consideration to our concerns regarding this important matter.

The groups signing the letter include: PA Chamber of Business and Industry, Associated Petroleum Industries of PA, PA Manufacturers Association, Associated PA Contractors, Electric Power Generation Association, PA Aggregates and Concrete Association, PA Anthracite Council, PA Farm Bureau, PA Forest Products Association, PA Independent Oil and Gas Association, PA Builders Association, National Federation of Independent Business, Pnn Grad Crude Coalition, Schuylkill Chamber of Commerce, Greater Reading Chamber of Commerce and Industry, West Shore Chamber of Commerce, Hanover Area Chamber of Commerce, Lebanon Valley Chamber of Commerce, Williamsport/Lycoming Chamber of Commerce and Somerset County Chamber.

A copy of the letter is available online.

NewsClips:

Another GOP Lawmaker Backs Drilling Industry Tax

Editorial: Pressure Rises For Fair Tax On Natural Gas

DEP: Wastewater Leaked From Range Drilling Impoundment

DEP Investigates Drilling Wastewater Leak In Washington County

Gas Drilling Wastewater Leak Found In Amwell

4/21/2014