Drilling on the Ballot

Suit pits Peters Township against taxpayers
By Jason Cato, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
About the writer

An Affluent Washington County township could test whether Pennsylvania residents have the legal right to enact referendums to ban drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus shale or elsewhere.

An attorney for Peters Township on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the county board of elections, which approved including on the Nov. 8 ballot a referendum that could amend the township's Home Rule Charter to ban gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, among other measures. A group called Peters Township Marcellus Shale Awareness collected nearly 2,500 signatures calling for such a referendum.

"This is an industrial activity," said Catherine Eddy, 52, a member of the awareness group. "It doesn't belong in this community."

Common Pleas Judge Paul Pozonsky scheduled a hearing for Sept. 28.

Township solicitor William Johnson said the proposed referendum is illegal on several grounds and potentially could expose the township legally and financially. A charter amendment as proposed would violate a number of laws and codes, including the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, he said.

"Clearly, no one wants a drill rig in their front yard," Johnson said. "But this isn't council against its constituents. It isn't adversarial."

Last month, council passed an ordinance with provisions that include restricting drilling to parcels of 40 acres or more along main roadways and requiring pre- and post-drilling tests on soil and water.

Rod Fletcher, 54, another member of the awareness group, called the ordinance a "paper tiger" written to make the council sound tough.

"They don't understand how much the average citizen in Peters Township is against drilling," Fletcher said.

Peters, on Allegheny County's southwest border, has about 21,000 residents. Median home prices in the township are more than $330,000, compared with about $125,000 for the rest of Washington County, according to census figures.

The referendum would have residents vote on a "Peters Township Bill of Rights," which includes rights to water, clean air, peaceful enjoyment of home, natural communities and a sustainable energy future. Provisions of the proposed charter amendment would make it illegal to extract natural gas from Peters -- except from existing wells -- or to deposit, store or transport "frack" water through Peters via land, air or water.

Pittsburgh last year became the state's first municipality to ban shale drilling, and City Council voted in August to amend its Home Rule Charter. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl declined to sign the bill, however, and the Allegheny County Elections Division will not include the issue on November's ballot.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group based in Washington County, considers such local initiatives misguided, said spokesman Travis Windle.

"As a state and a nation, we should be doing all we can to encourage and promote natural-gas resources," Windle said. "Most of these groups are focused ultimately on halting these efforts."

Peters yesterday became the first to challenge the legality of putting such a referendum on the ballot. Other referendums are pending in Warren and Centre counties, said Thomas Linzey, executive director of Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Franklin County nonprofit that is helping the Peters awareness group. The defense fund plans to file a motion to intervene in the Peters lawsuit, Linzey said.

"This is about as anti-democratic a step that I can imagine a municipality taking against their own residents," Linzey said. "And taxpayers' money is being spent to fight their own residents."

Peters Council Chairman Robert Atkinson said the lawsuit is simply to determine whether such a referendum is legal.

"It's not an attack against the voters," Atkinson said. "If it's legal, it will be on the ballot."

Read more: Suit pits Peters Township against taxpayers - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_756627.html#ixzz1Xv2QMZXm

Yes and remember Norman in a democracy it is "One Man One Vote" not "One Acre One Vote".

Judge Rules Marcellus Shale Question to Be Placed on Election Ballots

Washington County Judge Paul Pozonsky said the court lacks jurisdiction to rule on pre-election challenge By Earl Bugaile

October 3, 2011

Barring any appeals, it appears that the question to amend the Peters Township Home Rule Charter will appear on the ballots in the Nov. 8 general election.

Members of the Peters Township Marcellus Shale Awareness and Action Group confirmed late Monday that Washington County Judge Paul Pozonsky ruled in their favor in a decision handed down earlier in the afternoon.

The judge’s decision came earlier than expected.

Pozonsky stated at a hearing last Wednesday that he would accept final briefs from legal counsel on Monday, and render a decision by the end of the week.

There was no immediate comment from Peters Township Solicitor William Johnson or township administration. Attempts to reach township officials at the end of the day were not successful.

The ruling clears the way for the question to appear on the ballot asking voters if the township’s Home Rule Charter should be amended to include a bill of rights and incorporate a ban on gas drilling within township boundaries.

Members of the Marcellus Shale Awareness group filed a petition in August with more than 2,400 names to have the question go before voters.

The township asked the court for an injunction against placing the question on the ballot, saying it would subject the township to lawsuits from individuals and gas companies. In his arguments, Johnson also argued, that if approved, the township would be a violation of the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, as well as causing the township’s drilling ordinance to be nullified.

In his ruling, Pozonsky said the court lacks jurisdiction to rule on pre-election challenges “without an immediate harm caused by the presence of the measure on the ballot.”

PTMSA member Ann Shaner said the ruling was a proper one.

“We’re elated by the decision, because we said all along that the threshold issue was that it was the right of the people to vote,” she said. “You can’t speculate that this might happen or that might happen, or this person might sue. You can’t go on that because it’s all speculation.”

Shaner said she received a call after the lunch hour Monday afternoon that Judge Pozonsky had rendered his decision.

“This gives the people the right to vote. It’s democracy at work,” she said. “Whether we win or lose, it should go to a vote.”

Shaner said she and members of the PTMSA group disagree that the ballot question will nullify the gas drilling ordinance recently passed by council and that lawsuits will result.

“How can you have lawsuits if there are no permits issued?” she asked. “I don’t think anyone can bring a lawsuit for something that doesn’t even exist. People sign gas leases all over the country, but it doesn’t mean gas companies want to drill tomorrow.”

Shaner said she is not opposed to the existing ordinance, but said her group has information that some gas companies already planning challenges to the ordinance.

“Chesapeake Energy says there are about 16 items in the (township) ordinance that they would find objection to,” she said. “The only way the Oil and Gas Act is going to be changed is to chip away at it item by item. We’re going to change it by case law.”

It is not known if the township will appeal Pozonsky’s decision.

He said at the hearing he wanted to make his ruling in time to allow for any appeals that might take place.

According to Washington County Solicitor Mary Lynn Drewitz, the county elections office needed the decision before Oct. 12.

Drewitz, said that the “drop dead date” for a decision is Oct. 17.