## Facts

- Pennsylvania enacted Act 13 (2012), extensively revising its Oil and Gas Act to regulate unconventional natural gas development.
- Act 13 included provisions preempting local regulation of oil and gas operations (§ 3303) and requiring municipalities to permit oil and gas development as of right across zoning districts through uniform zoning amendments (§ 3304).
- Act 13 also set well site setbacks from certain environmental features and authorized the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to grant waivers under broad terms, limiting municipal and neighbor involvement in some siting decisions (§ 3215(b)(4) and (d)).
- Multiple municipalities, counties, citizens, and environmental organizations challenged these provisions, relying heavily on the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA), Pa. Const. art. I, § 27, and related constitutional constraints.
- The Commonwealth Court granted partial summary relief, holding core zoning mandates unconstitutional on substantive due process grounds, and the case proceeded to direct cross-appeals in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Act 13’s statewide zoning mandate requiring oil and gas operations to be permitted as of right in essentially all zoning districts (§ 3304) violates Pennsylvania substantive due process and/or the ERA.
2. Whether Act 13’s broad preemption of local regulation of oil and gas development (§ 3303) violates the ERA by impairing protection of public natural resources and environmental rights.
3. Whether Act 13’s setback-waiver provisions and related limitations on local and neighbor participation (§ 3215(b)(4) and (d)) violate the ERA and the Commonwealth’s trustee duties.
4. Whether the ERA imposes judicially enforceable public-trust duties on the Commonwealth, including the General Assembly, sufficient to invalidate inconsistent statutes.

## Decision

- A fractured court issued a controlling plurality opinion (Castille, C.J.) that treated the ERA as enforceable constitutional law and applied it to invalidate multiple Act 13 provisions.
- The Court held § 3304 unconstitutional because compelling statewide zoning uniformity and permitting industrial oil-and-gas uses as of right across districts violated substantive due process by disregarding compatibility of uses and neighboring property interests.
- The Court held § 3303 unconstitutional under the ERA because sweeping preemption of local environmental and land-use regulation conflicted with the Commonwealth’s constitutional duties to conserve and maintain public natural resources.
- The Court held § 3215(b)(4) and (d) unconstitutional under the ERA because the setback-waiver scheme and constrained local/neighbor participation permitted decisions affecting sensitive resources without sufficient standards and protections consistent with trustee obligations.
- The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on remaining issues.

## Legal Principles

- The Environmental Rights Amendment, Pa. Const. art. I, § 27, is self-executing and judicially enforceable on par with other Article I rights.
- Article I, § 27 recognizes (1) an individual right to clean air, pure water, and preservation of enumerated environmental values, and (2) a beneficiary interest in a constitutional public trust in “public natural resources” for present and future generations.
- The Commonwealth, including the legislature, acts as trustee of public natural resources and must “conserve and maintain” them; statutes that unreasonably degrade resources or materially impair fulfillment of trustee duties are subject to invalidation.
- Substantive due process principles governing land-use regulation require zoning schemes to protect neighboring property interests and to further legitimate governmental objectives in a reasonable manner; mandated allowance of incompatible industrial uses across zoning districts violates those principles.
- Legislative preemption of local regulation may be constrained where it removes tools necessary for local governments to carry out constitutionally required protection of environmental rights and public natural resources.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s controlling plurality treated the Environmental Rights Amendment as enforceable constitutional law and invalidated Act 13 provisions that imposed statewide zoning mandates, broadly preempted local regulation, and authorized setback waivers without adequate constraints, holding they conflicted with substantive due process and the Commonwealth’s constitutional trustee duties to conserve and maintain public natural resources.


Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013)