LOCAL HYDROFRACKING BANS 649
one of the first states to be part of the gas rush with companies
leasing land from landowners for hydrofracking as early as
2007.^139 From 2008 to 2010 the number of permit applications
increased from 478 to 3,314.^140 The permit application is
supposed to involve a detailed evaluation of water intake and the
process for discharging wastewater for that specific drilling
site.^141 However, due to the overwhelming number of permits,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”)
officials have not been able to properly screen them.^142 This has
led to an approval rate of over 99.5%.^143 While Pennsylvania
does have general legislation to protect water supplies,^144 many
citizens are concerned that there is no appropriate oversight of
the hydrofracking industry.^145 Reports of exploding wells,
contaminated groundwater, and destruction of nearby property
have only increased those fears.^146
Concerns with the state regulatory process have led a
number of Pennsylvania towns to enact their own laws
controlling where hydrofracking may take place.^147 In 2009, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that local municipalities have
the ability to “control the location of wells consistent with
established zoning principles.”^148 Such authority was pursuant to
the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act which expressly preempted
any laws regarding the specific operation of hydrofracking.^149
The Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act did, however, allow
(^139) See WILBER, supra note 53, at 17.
(^140) Id. at 80.
(^141) Grandijan, supra note 138, at 74.
(^142) See WILBER, supra note 53, at 81.
(^143) Id.
(^144) 58 PA. CONS. STAT. § 3218 (2012) (mandating protection of well
water and holding companies liable for replacing any water that they
damage).
(^145) See WILBER, supra note 53, at 80–82.
(^146) See id. at 89–142.
(^147) See Goho, supra note 14, at 6.
(^148) Range Res.-Appalachia LLC v. Salem Twp., 964 A.2d 869, 876 (Pa.
2009).
(^149) 58 PA. CONS. STAT. § 3302 (2012).