binghamton fracking moratorium

7/28/2019 Binghamton Fracking Moratorium

1/11

Page1of11

AnExplanationoftheStatusoftheCityofBinghamtonsAppealintheJeffreyCase,

IncludingHowandWhytheLowerCourtErredinitsInterpretationofWhattheBelleHarborCase(imminentcrisis/direnecessity)StandsFor,andinitsDecisiontoapply

BelleHarbortotheProtectiveLawBeingChallengedinJeffrey.

ByDavidF.Slottje,SeniorAttorney,CommunityEnvironmentalDefenseCouncil,Inc.

July16,2013

_____________________________________________________________

Lastweek,Helen,JoeHeath,andIfiledinAlbanytheCityofBinghamtonsappellatebriefinthematterofJeffrey,etal.vCityofBinghamton.

TheJeffreycaseinvolvedachallengebycertainpro-frackingparties(collectively,thePetitioners)againsta2011aquiferprotectionlawenactedbyBinghamtonCityCouncil(the

Citys2011Law)thatprohibited(withintheCity)NaturalGasExplorationandExtractionActivities,andcertainrelatedactivitiessuchasfrackingwastepitsanddumps,thespreadingofdrillcoresandsimilarsolidwastesfromthefrackingprocess,undergroundinjectionofliquid

frackingwastes,andundergroundstorageofnaturalgas.TheCitys2011Lawcontainedasunsetclause,andbyitstermsexpiredaftertwoyears.

[[Whenonebringsalawsuit,onearticulatesonesclaimsinadocumentthatiscalledacomplaint,orincertaincircumstances(suchasexistinthisparticularsituation)apetition.

Theclaimsthepersonisbringingarecalledcausesofaction.]]

ThePetitionersinJeffreybroughtthree(andonlythree)causesofaction:(1.)thattheCitys

2011LawshouldhavebeenreferredpriortoenactmenttoBroomeCountyPlanningpursuant

to(state)GeneralMunicipalLaw239-m,wasnot,andthereforeshouldbeinvalidated;(2.)thattheCitys2011LawshouldhavebeenreferredpriortoenactmenttotheCityofBinghamton

PlanningBoardforreview,wasnot,andthereforeshouldbeinvalidated;and(3.)thatany

(otherwiseexisting)legalauthorityoftheCitytopassaprotectivelawsuchastheCitys2011Lawwaspreemptedortakenawaybyastatelaw(ECL23-0303(2))whichreservestothe

Statetheauthoritytoregulatetheoperationsofthegasindustry,andthereforetheCitys2011Lawshouldbeinvalidated.

[[Asageneralmatter,causesofactioninacomplaintorpetitionareevaluatedbyacourtwithinoneoftwoframeworks:(a)technicalorproceduralmatters,or(b)uponthemerits.

Technicalorproceduralmattershavenothingtodowiththesubstanceoftheparticular

dispute(s)betweentheparties,and(bywayofillustration)involvequestionssuchaswhether

thecourtproperlyhasjurisdictionoverthepeopleorthesubjectmatterinvolvedinthedispute,whethertheclaimbeingmadewasbroughtwithintheapplicablestatuteoflimitations,whether

anattorneyforapartyfiledananswerorsomeothercourtpaperscorrectlyorontime,andso

on.


2/11

Page2of11

Incontrast,considerationbythecourtofthemeritsofamatterdoesdealwiththesubstanceofthedispute(s)betweentheparties,andadecisionuponthemeritsreflectstheparticular

courtssubstantiveviewastowhatlawproperlyappliestothedispute(s)involvedinthelawsuit,andwhichpartywinsorlosesoncethatlawhasbeenappliedbythecourttothe

particularsofthedispute.]]ThecourtinJeffreyheldagainstthePetitionersandinfavoroftheCityastoallthreecausesof

actioncontainedinthePetitionerspetition.

ThecourtfoundagainstthePetitionersastotheirfirsttwocausesofactionallegedfailureto

havereferredtheCitys2011LawtoBroomeCountyPlanningandtotheCityofBinghamtonPlanningBoardpriortoenactmentontechnicalorproceduralgrounds,specifically,thatthe

Petitionershadfailedtobringsuchclaimswithintheapplicable(fourmonth)statuteof

limitations.ThecourtalsoheldagainstthePetitionersastotheirthirdandfinalcauseofactionthatlocalgovernmentauthoritytopassprotectivelawssuchastheCityswaspreemptedon

themerits,specificallyholdingthattheCityslegalauthoritytoenactaprotectivelawregardinggasdrillingandspecifieddrilling-relatedactivitieswasnotpreemptedby(statelaw)ECL23-0303(2).

ButremarkablythecourtinJeffreynonethelessthenproceededtoinvalidatetheCitys2011

LawonagroundthatthePetitionershadnotevenincludedasacauseofactionintheirPetition.

Evenmoreremarkably,theCourtrefusedtoallowtheCityslawyerseventobrief(argue/explain)totheCourtwhythecaselawthecourtusedtoinvalidatetheCitys2011

Lawinfactdidnotapply.Andevenmoreremarkablystill,theCourtdidthisby(a)grantingasummaryjudgmentmotion(moreonwhatthatis,below),onthegroundsthattherewereno

materialfactualmattersindispute,and(b)then(inordertoinvalidatetheCitysLaw)resolving

infavorofthePetitionersagainrefusingtoallowtheCityslawyerstobrieftheCityspositionseveralmaterialfactualmattersthatwereverymuchindisputebetweentheparties.

[[Inverybriefsummary,theCourtinvalidatedtheCityspolicepower-based,aquiferprotectionlawonthegroundsthat:(i)accordingtotheCourtBinghamtonslawwasamoratorium;(ii)

accordingtotheCourtforanymoratoriumnotonlythosedealingwithgasdrilling-relatedactivitiestobevalidlyenacted,theremustexistimminentcrisisanddirenecessity;and(iii)

accordingtotheCourtnogasdrilling-relatedmoratoriumcouldpossiblybevalidlyenactedin

NYS,becauseimminentcrisis/direnecessitycouldanddidnotexistsince,accordingtotheCourt(y)nogasdrillingofanytypewasoristakingplaceinNYS(!),and(z)theDECwasnot

andisnotissuinganypermitsforanytypeofgasdrilling(!).]]

NotwithstandingtheCourtsrulinginJeffrey,theCitys2011Lawneverthelessremainsinfull

forceandeffect,becausetheCityhasappealedtheJeffreydecision.

TheremainderofthisMemorandumincludes:

(A)abriefexplanationofcertainlegalconceptsortermsthatsomereadersmayfind

helpful;


3/11

Page3of11

(B)abriefdescriptionofcertainfactsregardingenactmentbytheCityofits2011Law;

(C)abriefdescriptionofsomeofwhatoccurredprocedurallyduringthecourseofthejudicialproceedingwheretheCourtheldthattheCitys2011Lawwasinvalid;and

(D)abriefdiscussionofsomeofthemultiplereasons(morefullysetforthintheCitysappellatebrief)whywebelievethattheCourtinJeffreycommittederror.[Forthose

interested,ourdiscussionofwhytheCourtwaswronginapplyingBelleHarbor(andits

imminentcrisis/direnecessitylanguage)totheCitysLawissetforthatitemD.7.ofthisMemorandum.]

(IamwritingthisMemorandumnowfortworeasons.First,anumberofpeoplehaveexpressed

confusionaboutjustexactlywhattheCourtsaidinJeffreyIbelievethatthisconfusionstems

atleastinpartfromthefactthatthearticulatedlogicbehindtheJeffreydecisionisinternallyinconsistentinanumberofrespectsandhaveaskedforclarification.Second,anumberof

peoplehaveaskedaboutthestatusoftheCitysappealofJeffrey,becausecertain(non-lawyer)pro-frackingelementscontinuetoproffertheimminentcrisis/direnecessityanalysisinaspeciousattempttodissuadelocalmunicipalboardsfromenactingprotectivelawsregarding

gasdrillingandgasdrilling-relatedactivitiessuchasfrackingwastepitsanddumps,thespreadingofdrillcoresandsimilarsolidwastesfromthefrackingprocess,underground

injectionofliquidfrackingwastes,andundergroundstorageofnaturalgas.Icharacterizesuch

attemptsasspeciousbecause,withthepossibleexceptionofthelawyersrepresentingthePetitionersintheJeffreycase,Idonotknowofevenonelawyerwhospecializesin

municipallawwhobelievesthattheCourtinJeffreywascorrectinapplyingtheimminentcrisis/direnecessitystandardtotheparticulartypeoflawthereinvolved.)

A.ABriefExplanationofCertainLegalConceptsorTerms.

Somereadersmayfindthefollowingexplanationofcertainlegalconceptsandtermshelpfulas

theyreadothersectionsofthisMemorandum.

StatuteofLimitations

Astatuteoflimitationsisalawthatrestrictstheperiodoftimewithinwhichparticular

typesoflegalclaimsmaybebrought.Asageneralmatter,statutesoflimitationexistforoneoftworeasons.Firstandforemost,statutesoflimitationsreflectrecognitionbythelegislative

branchthatasthelengthoftimeincreasesbetween(i)whenanallegedinjuryorwrong

occurredand(ii)whensuitiscommencedallegingsuchinjuryorwrong,thereisincreasedpotentialforevidencetobecomelostandfactstobecomeobscure(throughthepassageoftime,

defectivememory,deathoforinabilitytolocatewitnesses,etc.),whichinturnandasamatteroflogiclessenstheconfidencethatsocietycanhavethataparticularjudicialdetermination

(relyinginwholeorinpartonsuchevidenceandfacts)ismorelikelythannottobecorrect.

Thesecondreasonthatalegislatureenactsastatuteoflimitationsistoimplementitsjudgmentthat,asamatterofpolicy,societyisbestservedifthereisanelementoffinalitytocertain

matters(suchascertainactionstakenbylocalgovernments).


4/11

Page4of11

Standing

Forpolicy(andinsomecasesforconstitutional)reasons,personswishingtobringsuittochallengecertaingovernmentalactionsincourtmusthavestandinginordertodoso.

Whenthequestionofstandingisraised,thepersondesiringtobringthesuitmustdemonstratethatthereexistsasufficientconnectiontoandharmfromtheactionbeingchallengedtopermitthatpartysparticipationinthecase.Therulesapplicabletodetermining

theexistence(ornot)ofstandingvary,anddependuponmatterssuchasthenatureofthe

governmentalactionbeingchallenged,whetherthecomplained-ofactionhasinfactactuallyharmedthepetitioner,thenatureofthecomplained-ofharminrelationtothespecific

governmentalactionsoughttobechallenged,andeven(inthecaseofpetitionerswhicharenotnaturalpersons)thetypeoflegalentityinvolvedandsometimestheprovisionsofthatlegal

entitysinternal,constituentdocuments.Butingeneral,inordertodemonstratestanding,

apersonwishingtobringsuittochallengeaparticularactionmustshowthatshehassufferedsomeactualinjuryorinjury-in-fact-asaresultoftheactionbeingchallenged.

SummaryJudgment

(Mostlawsuitsinvolveresolutionofamixoffactualandlegalquestions.AnexampleofafactualquestionwouldbeWhetherthetrafficsignalwasyellow(ratherthanred)whenthe

vehicleenteredtheintersectionwheretheaccidentoccurred?Anexampleofalegalquestion

wouldbeWhetherotherwiseexistinglocalmunicipalauthoritytoenactprotectivelocallawsofgeneralapplicabilityis,inthecontextofprotectivelawsregardinggasdrilling-relatedactivities,

preemptedbythestate-levelOil,Gas,andSolutionMiningLaw?)

Amotionforsummaryjudgmentisaproceduraldevicetypicallyinvokedonlyaftereachparty

haspresentedtothecourt(usuallybyfilinglegalbriefs)thepartysviewofwhatfactsareinvolvedinthecaseandareimportant,andwhatlawthatpartybelievesthecourtshouldapply

tothefactsinvolvedinordertoresolvethelawsuit.

Whenapartymakesamotionforsummaryjudgment,thatparty(themovingparty)issaying

tothecourt,essentially,that(A)thecaseatbarpresentsnofactualquestionsforthecourttoresolve,either(i)becausetherearenomaterialfactsindispute,or(ii)becauseforpurposesof

themotion,themovingpartyisdeemedtohaveconcededwhateverversionofthefactsisor

wouldbemostadvantageoustothenon-movingpartyscase,and(B)thecourtshouldacceptthemovingpartysposition(typicallysetforthinitsbrief)astowhatlawshouldbeappliedto

thosefactsbythecourt,inordertoresolvethelawsuit,and(C)ifthecourtdoesapplythatlaw

tothosefacts,themovingpartyisentitledtobeandthereforshouldbedeclaredtobethewinningpartyinthelawsuit.

BurdenofProof

Theconceptofburdenofproofreferstothedutyplaceduponaparticularpartytoalawsuitorproceedingtoproveordisproveamatterrelatedtotheproceeding.Bywayofexample,ina

criminalproceedinginAmerica,theburdenofprovingadefendantsguiltalwayslieswiththe


5/11

Page5of11

prosecution(thatis,theprosecutionhastheburdenofproof),andmustbeestablishedbeyond

reasonabledoubt.Incivil(thatis,non-criminal)cases,mostofthetimetheplaintifforpetitioner(thatis,thepersonbringingthesuit)hastheburdenofproof,andmustprovehis

casesometimesbeyondareasonabledoubt,andsometimesbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.(Apreponderanceoftheevidenceisamucheasierstandardtosatisfythanthe

beyondareasonabledoubtstandard.)SeparationofPowers

ThedoctrineofseparationofpowersreferstothefactthatundertheUnitedStatesConstitutionandundertheconstitutionofNewYorkandmostotherstates,government

responsibilitiesaredividedamongthreedistinctbranches(legislative,executive,andjudicial),andthateachbranchislimitedinfunctiontoexercisingonlyitsownresponsibilities,andeach

branchisprohibitedfromexercisingthecorefunctionsassignedtoadifferentbranch.(Itisin

relianceupontheseparationofpowersdoctrinethatwehaveconsistentlystatedthatWhattheDECbelievesorforthatmatter,whatanypresentorformerCommissioneroftheDEC

happenstobelieve-astoWhetherlocalmunicipalityauthoritytoenactprotectivelawsregardinggasdrillingactivitiesispreemptedbyECL23-0303(2)?isalegallyirrelevantquestion.TheDECispartoftheexecutivebranchofgovernment,andonlythejudicialbranchhasthe

authoritytointerpretwhatanyparticularstatutemeans.)

B.ABriefDescriptionofCertainFactsRegardingtheCitysEnactmentofits2011Law.

PortionsoftheCityofBinghamtonoverlaytheClintonStreetBallparkAquiferSystem,which

hasbeendesignatedbytheUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)asaSoleSourceAquifer.Inlate2011,theBinghamtonCityCouncil(theCityCouncil)madelegislative

findingsthattheEPAhaddeterminedthatthisaquiferis/wasthesoleorprincipaldrinking

watersourcefortheareaandthatiftheaquiferwerecontaminatedthenasignificanthazardtopublichealthwouldbecreated.

Inmakingitsdetermination,theEPAhadspecificallyconcluded:contaminationofthegroundwaterresourcesbyindustrialchemicalsisaproblemin[...]BroomeCounty.Highlypermeable

soilsextendovertheaquiferandthispermitsanyaccidentalorintentionalchemicaldischargestopercolatedown,thusimpactingthegroundwater.Thegeologicpropertiesofthe

aquiferfacilitaterapidanddirectinfiltration[ofpollutants]intothegroundwaterzone.[and]

Heavypumpingbynumerouswaterwellsintheaquiferhascreatedareversehydraulicgradientwhichallowsriverwatertoflowdirectlyintothe[aquifer.]TheEPAalsofoundthat

contaminationofthispreciousresourcewouldcreateasignificanthazardtothepublichealth

andthattheremovalofchemicalsonalargescale,[even]ifpossible,wouldbeveryexpensiveandthewaterqualitywouldstillbequestionable.TheEPAfurtherfoundthatthereareno

economicallyfeasiblealternativedrinkingwatersourcesthatcouldreplacetheaquiferintheeventofcontamination.

TheCityCouncilalsomadelegislativefindingsthateventhoughnaturalgasexploration,extractionandsupportactivitiesaresubjecttoenvironmentalregulation,thatstateofaffairs

didnotalterthefactthatsuchactivitiesandthewastestheygeneratenonethelesspresent


6/11

Page6of11

somehazardtotheCity.TheCityCouncilmadefindingsthatsuchenvironmentalregulations

seektolimit,butcannoteliminate,pollution.TheCityCouncilfurtherfoundanddeterminedthat[asamatteroflaw]theCityisnotrequiredtodeferactiontoprotectitsresidents,its

property,andthewaterresourceslocatedwithintheCityuntilitisfacedwithaseriousnuisanceorhealthproblem.Furthermore,theCityCouncilalsospecificallyfoundthat

[e]nvironmentalregulationscannotpreventintentionalillegaldumpingof[gasdrillingwastes],thatpetroleumsludgehadinfactrecently(in2011)beendumpedbyanoilandgasworkerinPennsylvaniaonstate-ownedland,andthattheEPAReportspecificallynotedthat

illegaldumpingisalsoapossiblesourceoffurthercontaminationtotheaquifer.Finally,the

CityCouncilmadeaspecificfindingthatenvironmentalregulationscouldnotcontrolthespateofhistoriccrestsof(then)recentfloodevents,andthatfuturefloodeventscouldreleasegas

drillingwastesontothelandorintowaters.

Onthebasisoftheseandvoluminousotherlegislativefindingsanddeterminationsmadebythe

CityCouncil,onDecember21,2011theCityCounciladoptedthelocallawthatbecamethesubjectoftheJeffreysuit.SothattherecouldbeabsolutelynoquestionastothebasisoftheCity

Councilsactioninenactingthe2011Law,thevoluminousfindingsanddeterminationsmadebytheCityCouncilwereattachedasafour-page,singlespacedexhibitto,andwerespecificallyincorporatedinandmadeapartof,theCitys2011Law.

C.ABriefDescriptionofSomeofWhatActuallyOccurredProcedurallyDuringtheJeffrey

Proceeding.

OnMay30,2012-morethanfivemonthsaftertheCityhadenactedtheCitys2011Law-the

PetitionerscommencedtheirlawsuitchallengingtheLaw.Aspreviouslynotedabove,thePetitionersbroughtthree(andonlythree)causesofaction:(1.)thattheCitywasrequiredbut

failedtoreferthe2011LawtoBroomeCountyPlanningpursuantto(state)GeneralMunicipal

Law239-mpriortoenactment;(2.)thattheCitywasrequiredbutfailedtoreferthe2011LawtotheCityofBinghamtonPlanningBoardforreviewpriortoenactment;and(3.)thattheCitys

(otherwiseexisting)legalauthoritytopassaprotectivelawsuchastheCitys2011Lawwas

preemptedortakenawaybyastatelaw(ECL23-0303(2))whichreservestothe Statetheauthoritytoregulatetheoperationsofthegasindustry.

(IntheviewofcounselfortheCity,thePetitioncontainedmereconclusoryandspeculative

allegationsofharmtothePetitionerscausedbytheCitys2011Law,as(forexample)the

Petitionspecificallyspokeintermssuchasseekingtopreservetheoptiontoenterintogasdrillingleasesshouldanopportunitytodosoariseinthefuture,andexpressingconcernsthat

unlesstheCitysLawwasinvalidatedtheeconomyoftheTownofVestalandtheeconomyin

theTownofConklinmight,couldormaypossiblybenegativelyaffected.)

OnJune15,2012,priortoanyresponsivepapershavingbeenfiledbytheCity,thePetitionersfiledanoticeofmotionforsummaryjudgment.OnJuly20,2102,theCityfiledamotionto

dismisstheclaimsofthePetitioners.

TheCitysmotiontodismisswasonthethresholdandlimitedgroundsthatthe

Petitionerslackedstandingastoallthreeoftheircausesofaction,andthatthe


7/11

Page7of11

Petitionersfirsttwocausesofaction(failuretorefertoBroomeCountyPlanning,andto

theCityofBinghamtonPlanningBoard)weretime-barredbecausetheywerenotbroughtwithinthetimerequiredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.

Asitwaslegallyentitledtodo,theCityinitsmotiontodismissdidnotjoinissueor

otherwiserespondonthemeritstoanyofthePetitionersclaims;instead,theCityspecificallyreserveditsrighttofilearesponsivepleading(thatis,tojoinissueorbriefthemeritsofPetitionerscausesofaction)shouldthatbenecessaryfollowingtheCourtsdispositionofthe

Citysmotiontodismissbasedonthresholdmatters.Moreover,theCityexplicitlyobjected

tothePetitionersmotionforsummaryjudgmentonthespecificgroundthatasummaryjudgmentmotionproperlymaybemadeonlyafterissuehasbeenjoined,andthatissue

hadnotbeenjoinedinthiscase.

TheCourtheldahearingonthismatteronJuly27,2012.

AttheJuly27hearingtheCityargued:(i)(again)thatthePetitionersmotionforsummary

judgmentwasprematuresincetheCity(forthereasonsdescribedintheprecedingparagraphsandasitwaslegallyentitledtodo)hadnotjoinedissueorbriefeditspositiononthemeritsofthethreecausesofactionallegedinthePetition,(ii)that(astoallthreecausesofaction)the

PetitionshouldbedismissedbecauseeachofthePetitionerslackedofstanding,and(iii)thatthefirsttwocausesofactionshouldbedismissedastime-barred,becausetheywerebrought

outsideoftheapplicable(fourmonth)statuteoflimitations.

AttheJuly27hearingthePetitionersmadeargumentsonthemeritsoftheirclaims,aswellas

onafourthassertionthathadnotbeenpresentedasacauseofactioninthePetition,namelythattheCitys2011Lawwasinvalidbecauseitwasamoratoriumandfailedtocomply

withtherequirementsofimminentcrisis/direnecessitythat(accordingtocounselforthe

Petitioners)appliedtomoratoria.Thecasethat(accordingtocounselforthePetitioners)supposedlysupportedapplicationoftheimminentcrisis/direnecessitystandardtotheCitys

LawisadecisioncalledBelleHarborvKerr(BelleHarbor);theCourtdeniedtheCityan

opportunitytobrieforexplaintotheCourtwhycounselforthePetitionerswasincorrectintheassertionthatBelleHarborapplied,orforthatmatter,whyBelleHarborinfactdid

notevenstandforwhatcounselforthePetitionerstoldtheCourtthatitstoodfor.

InadecisiondatedOctober2,2012,theCourtgrantedtheCitysmotiontodismissasto

Petitionersfirsttwocausesofaction,findingthatafourmonthstatuteoflimitationsapplied,andthatthePetitionershadfiledtheirpetitionmorethanfivemonthsaftertheCitys2011Law

hadbeenenacted.TheCourtalsorejectedthePetitionersthirdcauseofactioneventhough

(forthereasonsdescribedintheprecedingparagraphs)theCityhadnotevenbriefedoraddressedthematteronthemeritsspecificallyholdingthattheCitysLawwasnotpreempted

byECL23-0303(2).

Nonetheless,asnotedabove,theCourtthenproceededtograntPetitionersmotionfor

summaryjudgmentandheldthattheCitysLawwasinvalid,onthebasisofanassertionthathadnotevenbeenpresentedasa causeofactioninthePetition(thatis,failuretosatisfythe

supposedlyapplicableBelleHarborimminentcrisis/direnecessitystandard).


8/11

Page8of11

Toreachsuchadecision,theCourt:(x)ignoredblackletterlawthatitisandwasthePetitionerswhoproperlyhadtheburdenofprooftoprovethattheCitysLawwasinvalid,(y)instead

assignedtotheCitytheburdenofprooftoprovethattheLawwasnotinvalid,and(z)thenmadeafindingthattheCityhadfailedtocarry(theimproperlyshifted)burden.

Alsotoreachsuchadecision,theCourtapparentlyconcludedthattheCitysomehowwasnotentitledinthecircumstancestohaveanopportunitytobriefwhycounselforthePetitioners

wasincorrectintheassertionthatBelleHarborapplied,orforthatmatter,whyBelleHarborin

factdidnotevenstandforwhatcounselforthePetitionerstoldtheCourtthatBelleHarborstoodfor.(InholdingasdescribedabovethattheCityhadfailedtocarrytheburdenofproof

(improperly)shiftedtotheCity,theCourtapparentlysawnoironyinthefactthatthisfailurewasadirectresultofthefactthattheCourthaddeniedtheCityanopportunitytobriefthe

meritsofthisdispute.)

(IndecidingthatitwasappropriatetograntPetitionersmotionforsummaryjudgment,asa

matteroflawtheCourtwasrequiredtohavefoundthatnoissuesofmaterialfactwereindisputeor,ifanymaterialfactswereindispute,thentheCourtwasrequiredtoconstruethedisputedfactsinwhateverlightwasmostfavorabletotheCity.Instead,theCourt

inappropriatelyresolveddisputedfactsagainsttheCitysposition,andthenincorrectlyappliedBelleHarbortothosedisputedfacts.)

Alsoaspreviouslynoted,notwithstandingtheCourtsrulinginJeffrey,theCitys2011Lawnonethelessremainsinfullforceandeffect,becausetheCityhasappealedtheJeffreydecision.

D.ABriefDiscussionofSomeoftheMultipleReasonsWhytheCityBelievesthatthe

CourtinJeffreyCommittedError.

InthematterbeforethisCourt,Respondents[theCity]havefailedtoprovideany

evidentiaryproofthatwouldprovideajustification,baseduponthehealth andsafetyofthecommunity,forthebanningofgasexploration,storage,and

extraction. (theCourtinJeffrey.)

AsmorefullysetforthintheappellatebrieffiledonbehalfoftheCity,itistheCityscontention

andbeliefthattheCourtinJeffreycommittedmultipleerrorsoflawinthecourseofarrivingatitsdecision.Asummaryof(only)someofthewaystheCourtcommittederrorfollows.

1.Becauseoftheseparationofpowersdoctrineandforotherreasons,theCourtinJeffreywas

requiredtostartfromapresumptionthattheCitys2011Lawwasvalidandtonarrowlylimit

thescopeoftheCourtsreview;theCourtdidnot,andaccordinglytheCourtcommittederror.

2.ItisblackletterlawthatinthecontextofchallengessuchasmadebythePetitionersin


9/11

Page9of11

Jeffrey,theburdenofproofproperlyisontheparty(ies)attackingthelegislativeactinquestion

toovercomethepresumptionofvaliditybeyondareasonabledoubt.Onlybyfaithfuladherencetothisguidingprincipleofjudicialreviewoflegislationisitpossibletopreserveto

thelegislativebranchitsrightfulindependenceanditsabilitytofunction.TheCourtinJeffreyimpermissiblyshiftedtheburdenofprooftotheCity,andaccordinglytheCourtcommitted

error.3.TheCourtinJeffreywasrequiredtostartfromapresumptionthatthelegislativebody(here,

theCityCouncil)hadinvestigatedandfoundtheexistenceofasituationshowingorindicating

theneedforordesirabilityoftheordinanceinquestion,and,ifanystateoffactsknownortobeassumedjustifiesthedisputedmeasure,th[e]courtspowerofinquiryends.TheCourtinJeffrey

didnotaccordtherequisitepresumptionofvaliditytotheCitys2011Law,andaccordinglytheCourtcommittederror.

4.ItisblackletterlawthatinthecontextofchallengessuchasmadebythePetitionersinJeffrey,thescopeofthecourtsreviewdoesnotproperlyincludeorextendtoquestionsofthenecessity,

wisdom,reasons,motives,orexpediencyofthelegislativeact.Itisnotwithinthepowerofthejudiciarytosay...thattherewasnonecessityforthelegislation.Thatwouldbedirectattackbyonedepartmentofthegovernmentonthepowersandfunctionsofanother,andausurpationof

authoritysubversiveoftheprinciplesoftheconstitution.Itisnottheproperroleofcourtstositasasuper-legislaturetoweighthewisdomoflegislation.Itwouldnotmatterwhetherthe

courtsthoughtthelegislationwasunwise,orthatitspurposecouldbetterbeachievedin

anotherway,orthatthemethodchosenwasineffective.Solongasithasarationalbasis,thechoiceoftheparticularcoursetobetakenwasfortheLegislature.TheCourtinJeffrey

improperlysecond-guessedthelegislature(theCityCouncil);ithadnolawfulauthoritytodoso,andaccordinglytheCourtcommittederror.

5.Theseparationofpowers-basedbarriertoacourtengaginginsecond-guessingofthelegislatureextendstolegislativedeterminationsofwhentoact,aswell.Thelawisclearthat

municipalitiesdonotneedtowaituntiladisasteroccursbeforecuringadangerouscondition.

Thefactthatnoinjuryhasoccurredintheparticularcaseisnotdeterminativeastothevalidityofthelaw.Amunicipalityisnotrequiredtodeferenactmentuntilitisfacedwithaserious

nuisanceorhealthproblem.Itisnotalimitationontherighttoadoptpolicepowermeasuresthatthedangerisvigorouslydeniedbysome,andSpeculationonthepoliticalmotivationof

theLegislatureasajudicialconstruct...wouldbeaslipperyanddangerousslope...acourt

cannot[properly]inquireintothemotivesbywhich[the]lawwasproduced.Courtsarelimitedtofindingthelegislationspurposeinitslanguageratherthanintheideasexpressedin

debatebytheintroducerofthebill.TheCourtinJeffreyimproperlysecond-guessedthe

legislature(theCityCouncil);ithadnolawfulauthoritytodoso,andaccordinglytheCourtcommittederror.

6.Asisthecasewithrespecttoalmostanysituationwherejudicialreliefissought,the

thresholdquestioninthecontextofarequestforsubstantivejudicialreviewofalegislative

enactmentisadeterminationastowhetherandafindingthattheplaintiff/petitionerhasallegedanactual,justiciablecontroversyinwhichheorithasademonstrateddirectand

personalstake.Onlythenisitappropriateforthereviewingcourttomoveontoareviewofthe


10/11

Page10of11

substanceofalegislativeenactment.

Thecourtsdonotmakemerehypotheticaladjudications,[]wheretheexistenceofa

controversyisdependentuponthehappeningoffutureevents.(ThePetitionersinJeffreyexpresslystatedintheirpapersthatnogasdrillingpermitscurrentlyexistintheCityandno

gasdrillingpermitscanbeissuedintheCityforhigh-volumehorizontalhydrofracturinguntiltheStatehas:issuedafinalSupplementalGenericEnvironmentalImpactStatement(SGEIS);issuedfinaldrillingregulations;andterminatedthedrillingmoratoriumthathasbeenineffect

statewideforthepastfouryears.)Plaintiffsspeculationaboutthefuturecoursethe[SGEIS

andrelatedregulations]mighttakecannot,under[NYSCourtofAppeals]precedents,supplythemissingingredientofin-factinjury.Wheretheharmsoughttobeenjoinediscontingent

uponeventswhichmaynotcometopass,theclaimtoenjointhepurportedhazardisnonjusticiableaswhollyspeculativeandabstract.Mereperfunctoryallegationsofharmare

insufficienttosupportafindingofstanding,andeachelement[ofstanding]mustbesupported

inthesamewayasanyothermatteronwhichtheplaintiffbearstheburdenofproof.NothinginanyofthePetitionerspapersproperlysupportsafindingthatanyofthePetitionerscarried

hisoritsburdenofprovingthatheoritsufferedaninjury-in-factorotherwisepossessedtherequisitestandingtomaintainthisaction;accordingly,infindingthatatleastoneofthePetitionersdidhavestanding,theCourtcommittederror.

7.Apetitionerwhochallengeslandregulations[asaregulatorytaking]mustsustainaheavy

burdenofproof,demonstratingthatundernopermissibleusewouldtheparcelasawholebe

capableofproducingareasonablereturnorbeadaptabletoothersuitableprivateuse.Onlywheretheevidenceshowsthatthe[entire]economicvalue,orallbutabareresidueofthe

value,oftheparcelhasbeendestroyedhasa[regulatory]takingbeenestablished.Accordingly,itistruethatwhenalegislativeenactmentpermanentlypreventsallbeneficialuse

ofaproperty,theenactmentinquestionproperlycanbesaidtobearegulatorytaking.

Butadifferentruleexistswhereanenactmentonlytemporarily(ratherthanpermanently)

restrictsallbeneficialuseoftheproperty.DespitecounseltothePetitionersassurancestothe

CourtastowhattheBelleHarborcasestandsforandwhereitapplies,BelleHarborinfactdoesnotmeanwhatcounseltothePetitionerssaiditmeans,andinanyeventproperlyhasno

applicationtotheCitys2011Law.BelleHarbor,correctlyread,providesanexceptiontothegeneralrulethatadeprivationofallbeneficialuseofthepropertyinquestionisaregulatory

taking.ThecorrectreadingofBelleHarboristhatalegislativeenactmentthatresultsina

deprivationofallbeneficialuseofapropertyisnotaregulatorytaking,solongasthedeprivationisonlytemporary(suchaswouldbethecasewithamoratoriumorothertypeof

time-limitedlaw)ratherthanpermanent,andsolongasBelleHarborsimminentcrisis/dire

necessitystandardismet.

ThusnotonlydoesBelleHarbornotstandforwhattheCourtinJeffreysaiditstandsfor,BelleHarborinanyeventdoesnotproperlyapplytotheCitys2011Lawatall,becausetheCitys

Lawrestrictstheuseofonlyaverynarrowuniverseofactivities(mostandperhapsallofwhich

werenotallowedbytheCityszoningevenseparateandasidefromenactmentoftheCity2011Law)andsoinanyeventdoesnotconstituteadeprivationofallbeneficialuseoftheproperty

inquestion.


11/11

Page11of11

TheCourtinJeffreyerredinitsinterpretationofwhatBelleHarborstandsfor,anderredinapplyingBelleHarbortoinvalidatetheCitys2011Law.

8.TheCourtinJeffreygrantedsummaryjudgmentagainsttheCitypriortojoinderofissue.The

RecordhereconclusivelydemonstratesthattheCitydidnotbriefanyargumentsonthemeritsofthePetitionerscausesofaction,andintentionallyandpurposely(intheinterestsofjudicialeconomy)limitedtheargumentsinitsmotiontodismisstothethresholdmattersofwhether

thePetitionershadstandingandwhetherthePetitionersfirsttwocausesofactionwerebarred

bythestatuteoflimitationsNoexceptionappliedtothegeneralrulethatsummaryjudgmentliesonlyafterjoinderofissue.TheCourtshouldnothavegrantedsummaryjudgmenttothe

Petitionerspriortojoinderofissue,andtomakemattersworsetheCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentonthebasisofaclaimthatwasnotevenarticulatedasacauseofactioninthe

Petition.Therequirement[]thatissuebejoinedbeforeamotionforsummaryjudgmentis

madeisintendedtoshowthecourtpreciselywhattheparties'positionsare.Tothatend,itisageneralrulethatsummaryjudgmentwillnotbegrantedbasedonacauseofactionordefense

thathasnotbeenpleaded.TheCourtcommittederrorbygrantingsummaryjudgmentinthecaseathand.

___________________________________________

ThenextstepinresolutionofthiscasewillbeforthePetitionerstofilepapers(mostlylikelya

brief)inresponsetotheappellatebrieffiledlastweekonbehalfoftheCity.AfterPetitionersresponsivepapersarefiled,theCitywillthenhaveanopportunitytorespondtothePetitioners

responsivepapers.AfterthosepapersarefiledonbehalfoftheCity,theappellatecourtwillbeinapositiontoscheduleoralargumentonthismatter.

dfs

binghamton fracking moratorium

Documents