<p>In other words, you can’t find anything incorrect/untrue in the junkscience.com article. I don’t care if you respect the site or the author, what he wrote is true.</p>
<p>These rules in Pennsylvania would override all local restrictive ordinances with these scary industry-friendly “regulations”.</p>
<p>
No I heard/read it on NPR. </p>
<p>Also, let’s remain civil. This isn’t a political thread.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with a township banning drilling by local vote. It’s called democracy.</p>
<p>Yet, “snob ordinances” by both local townships, gated communities and the like (against multifamily housing, high-rise housing, etc.) are not banned. Ironic, considering that gas drilling poses more of a threat to the fabric of American society than a multifamily house would.</p>
<p>Was it civil to hijack Ranges Wikipedia page? I appreciate knowing what you are about.</p>
<p>NPR is another piece of work. Industry is looking for a minimum setback of 500 feet, communities want 1000 feet. Our local ordinances are posted online and in the media.</p>
<p>You and others may see nothing wrong with a township voting to ban drilling but it is illegal. Drilling is controlled by the state. If you don’t like the state laws then attempt change at the state level. New York has banned drilling legally at the state level. Pennsylvania has not.</p>
<p>Wait I’m confused, Collegekm: I thought that a big part of the fight in PA is over whether or not drilling will be controlled by the state. I thought from reading the various links posted in this thread that currently the local communities had control over local zoning and useage bylaws. It is my understanding that the drilling companies are trying to get the state to pass uniform regulations to make it more clear what the rules are statewide instead of having to negotiate separately with every town.</p>
<p>That seems like a sensible approach to this outsider. However, the concern, if I understand it correctly, with statewide regulation is that the state will issue less strict rules that do not adequately protect health, human safety and local owners’ property values due to $$$ and lobbying pressure by the industry.</p>
<p>Thanks all for the info presented here. I am clueless concerning this issue but was recently contacted by some attorneys/land companies in PA. Apparently my family has mineral and oil rights of property that we weren’t even aware of from my grandfather and great-grandfather. An offer has been made to lease/purchase them. This info will help as we research options.</p>
<p>Drilling is mainly controlled by the state. Community ordinances are allowed to control any aspect not covered by the state. Some communities have attempted bans which are clearly illegal and have/will be overturned. Some communities have attempted bans by creating ordinances that are so strict that drilling could never occur. These are/will result in law suits. Many communities lack the expertise to craft appropriate ordinances since drilling is relatively new to this area. Our legal community has little experience and outside council are unfamiliar with our local laws and geography.</p>
<p>Currently, there are proposals in Harrisburg to have the state take complete control of the drilling regulations. This would simplify the process for the state and the industry. Local communities are anxious to retain whatever control that they can.</p>
<p>If Evita wrote correct information on the Wikipedia page and backed it up with references, nothing she did was dishonorable. That is the way Wikipedia works. </p>
<p>Private companies are perfectly free to post their own propaganda on their own websites. But if there is a Wikipedia page, they have to realize others can go there and add information. As long as they back it up with citations, it’s OK. It is not dishonorable to write things that the subject of the page might not like, if they are true.</p>
<p>If you think the things she posted are untrue, then go to Wikipedia and fix them, or contact Wikipedia and tell them of the problem. But don’t forget to back up your own claims with facts & footnotes, not propaganda.</p>
<p>As I recall from the tenth amendment, powers not granted to the federal government are allocated among state and local governments.</p>
<p>I don’t remember a constitutional provision for making drilling a purely state-regulated thing. Furthermore, certain communities are more sensitive to drilling than other communities, which is why a uniform state law may not always be appropriate, especially with communities with a high concentration of children, or the elderly.</p>
<p>oh, and it’s new to this area, yet it doesn’t strike you as unjust</p>
<p>Why would there be any legal precedent (applicable to the appropriate jurisdictions) deferring to state control if it is new to the area? </p>
<p>Furthermore, if the law is highly damaging to the interests of individuals and individual communities in the favour of some collective good (funnily enough, the profits from this collective good are all private), then the law must be opposed. Whether by American civil disobedience (the tradition of Thoreau and Emerson) or through the 14th amendment.</p>
<p>What would Jefferson do? I have a hard time believing he would side with the fracking companies, who have committed many violations against American liberty.</p>
<p>P.S. if fracking was suddenly an industry in Maine, I believe local governments have plenty of discretionary power to oppose building in their area.</p>
<p>There is plenty of legal precedent. States controlling the gas industry isn’t anything new. Pa has over 380,000 wells drilled. Pa has nearly 4000 Marcellus wells. This is only new to the less rural communities.</p>
<p>There is a hugh difference between something being damaging to individual interests and NIMBY. Are you against fire hydrants? Nobody wants them in their yard.</p>
<p>It is interesting that you and others have resorted to civil disobedience. How do you heat your home? In SW PA we use natural gas. Even Jefferson kept warm in the winter.</p>
<p>Maine, like Pa, controls drilling on the state level. The local governments power is limited.</p>
<p>"Energy company officials say that standard leases include language that protects landowners. But a review of more than 111,000 leases, addenda and related documents by The New York Times suggests otherwise:</p>
<p>¶ Fewer than half the leases require companies to compensate landowners for water contamination after drilling begins. And only about half the documents have language that lawyers suggest should be included to require payment for damages to livestock or crops.</p>
<p>¶ Most leases grant gas companies broad rights to decide where they can cut down trees, store chemicals, build roads and drill. Companies are also permitted to operate generators and spotlights through the night near homes during drilling.</p>
<p>¶ In the leases, drilling companies rarely describe to landowners the potential environmental and other risks that federal laws require them to disclose in filings to investors.</p>
<p>¶ Most leases are for three or five years, but at least two-thirds of those reviewed by The Times allow extensions without additional approval from landowners. If landowners have second thoughts about drilling on their land or want to negotiate for more money, they may be out of luck.</p>
<p>The leases — obtained through open records requests — are mostly from gas-rich areas in Texas, but also in Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia."</p>