When the Millenium pipeline project cut through Harriman State Park a few years back, the swath of scarred landscape was wide and staggered along slopes for miles.
In an August 2011 NY/NJ Trails Council Meeting, the Millenium mediation in Harriman was reported as “satisfactory.” And that kind of glowing report for industry follow-through was given on a gas pipeline expansion nearly 10 years in the making, with buy-in at all levels.
Wait for fracking in the Ramapo Mountains. El Paso Gas subsidiary Tennessee Gas has already proposed a pipeline expansion project that could very well be a precursor to hydraulic fracking, a definite NIMBY issue.
“Nowhere in legislative history provided to the court is there any suggestion that the Legislature intended . . . to encourage the maximum ultimate recovery of oil and gas regardless of other considerations, or to preempt local zoning authority.” — from a recent decision by NY State Supreme Court Justice Phillip Rumsey on a local vs. state rule issue.
Justice Rumsey’s ruling could set a national precedent related to local regulation of gas drilling, essentially giving towns the right to ban drilling despite state regulation asserting otherwise. Fracking may become a NY state issue determined at the local level. And big industry does not like local control, where a planning and zoning board can pass codes or ordinances to bar certain practices. Fracking could eventually come down to decisions made at the village level.
At issue was a zoning law in Dryden, a township adjacent to Ithaca and the Cornell University campus, where drilling companies have leased some 22,000 acres for drilling. In August, Dryden’s town board passed a zoning law that prohibits gas drilling within town limits. The next month, Denver-based Anschutz Exploration Corp. sued the town, saying the ban was illegal because state law trumped the municipal rules.
As Anschutz noted, New York law promotes the development of oil and gas resources in the state. State Supreme Court Justice Phillip Rumsey addressed this point in his decision, writing: “Nowhere in legislative history provided to the court is there any suggestion that the Legislature intended 2014 as argued by Anschutz 2014 to encourage the maximum ultimate recovery of oil and gas regardless of other considerations, or to preempt local zoning authority.”
