Robinson Township v. Commonwealth
623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d 901 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Pennsylvania Constitution's Environmental Rights Amendment (Article I, Section 27) establishes a public trust of which the Commonwealth is trustee, and imposes a fiduciary duty to conserve and maintain public natural resources. A state law that forces all municipalities to adopt uniform zoning ordinances permitting heavy industrial uses, like oil and gas operations, in all zoning districts, regardless of local environmental conditions, violates this constitutional duty.
Facts:
- The Marcellus Shale Formation in Pennsylvania holds significant natural gas reserves, the extraction of which requires industrial processes like hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') and horizontal drilling.
- These unconventional gas operations involve large well sites, heavy truck traffic, noise, lighting, potential air and water pollution, and the construction of industrial facilities like compressor stations and wastewater impoundments.
- Prior to Act 13, Pennsylvania municipalities regulated land use through local zoning ordinances, which typically segregated industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential uses to protect community character and property values.
- In 2012, the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted Act 13, a comprehensive law intended to create uniform, statewide regulation of the oil and gas industry.
- Chapter 33 of Act 13 required every municipality to amend its zoning ordinances to permit oil and gas operations as a use of right in all zoning districts, including residential, agricultural, and commercial zones.
- Act 13 also prohibited municipalities from enacting local environmental regulations or zoning conditions (such as setbacks or hours of operation) that were more stringent than the statewide standards set by the Act.
- Section 3215(b)(4) of the Act mandated that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) grant waivers from minimum water-source setbacks if an operator submitted a plan for alternative protections.
- Several municipalities, local officials (Brian Coppola and David M. Ball), an environmental group (Delaware Riverkeeper Network), and a physician (Dr. Mehernosh Khan) challenged the constitutionality of Act 13.
Procedural Posture:
- Several municipalities, local officials, and citizen groups filed a petition for review in the original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, challenging the constitutionality of Act 13.
- The Commonwealth filed preliminary objections, and both parties filed cross-applications for summary relief.
- The Commonwealth Court, sitting en banc, granted summary relief in part to the challengers.
- The court held that Act 13's uniform zoning provision (Section 3304) violated substantive due process and that its setback waiver provision (Section 3215(b)(4)) was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
- The Commonwealth Court enjoined the application of Section 3304, Section 3215(b)(4), and related enforcement provisions of Chapter 33.
- The court dismissed the challengers' other claims, including those based on the Environmental Rights Amendment.
- Both the Commonwealth and the challengers filed direct cross-appeals to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Act 13 of 2012, by imposing a uniform statewide zoning regime for oil and gas operations that displaces and preempts local zoning ordinances, violate the Commonwealth's duties as trustee of public natural resources under the Environmental Rights Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Castille
Yes, Act 13 violates the Commonwealth's duties as trustee under the Environmental Rights Amendment. Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution establishes a public trust, naming the Commonwealth as trustee and all people, including future generations, as beneficiaries. The trustee has an explicit, self-executing fiduciary duty to 'conserve and maintain' public natural resources such as clean air and pure water. Act 13 breaches this duty by imposing a 'one-size-fits-all' zoning scheme that forces municipalities to allow industrial gas operations in all districts, regardless of local environmental conditions or existing land use plans. This command sanctions the degradation of the environment (the trust corpus) and imposes disparate environmental and habitability burdens on citizens, which violates the trustee's duties of conservation and impartiality. Furthermore, the mandatory setback waiver provision in Section 3215(b)(4) lacks adequate standards to ensure the protection of water resources, thereby failing the Commonwealth's trustee obligations.
Concurring - Justice Baer
Yes, the challenged provisions of Act 13 are unconstitutional, but the proper basis for this holding is substantive due process. Zoning ordinances are the primary mechanism for protecting a property owner's constitutional due process right to the quiet enjoyment of their property by preventing incompatible uses. While the General Assembly has the power to regulate zoning, it cannot force municipalities to violate their duty to protect residents from harm by mandating the allowance of heavy industrial uses in all zones, including residential. Given Pennsylvania's geographic and demographic diversity, a statewide, uniform approach cannot adequately protect local property rights and community character, rendering the law an arbitrary and unreasonable infringement on substantive due process rights.
Dissenting - Justice Saylor
No, Act 13 is a constitutional exercise of legislative power. The Environmental Rights Amendment names the 'Commonwealth,' not individual municipalities, as the trustee of public resources. Municipalities are creatures of the state, and the General Assembly has the power to preempt local zoning authority to achieve a statewide policy goal. The legislature made a rational choice to balance economic development and energy self-sufficiency with environmental protection, and Act 13 contains its own comprehensive set of statewide safeguards. The lead opinion improperly substitutes its own policy preferences for those of the elected legislature, to which the court should grant deference.
Dissenting - Justice Eakin
No, Act 13 should be upheld. The lead opinion improperly grants governmental bodies like municipalities standing to enforce the individual constitutional rights of their citizens against the sovereign state. The balancing of economic, energy, and environmental interests is a quintessentially political question for the legislative branch, not the judiciary. By striking down the law, the court is overstepping its constitutional role and acting legislatively. The gas will be extracted; the legislature's role is to decide 'how,' and it has done so through a comprehensive plan that is not 'clearly, palpably, and plainly' unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision revitalized Pennsylvania's Environmental Rights Amendment, transforming it from a statement of policy into a self-executing, judicially enforceable constitutional right. The ruling establishes that the public trust doctrine imposes substantive limits on the legislature's police power, particularly its ability to preempt local environmental protections. By affirming that the Commonwealth's fiduciary duty to 'conserve and maintain' the environment is a core constitutional command, the case sets a significant precedent empowering citizens and local governments to challenge state laws that mandate environmental degradation for industrial benefit.
