LOCAL HYDROFRACKING BANS 669
stricter standards for the sale of sewage cleaning additives.^306
The court looked to the legislature’s intent and to the statutory
scheme.^307 Although the statutory regulatory scheme was very
detailed,^308 the court held that it was not thorough or extensive
enough to have superseded all possible future local regulation.^309
A key reason that the court did not find implied preemption
involved the absence of an express statement from the state of
its intent to preempt.^310 The court also held that implied
preemption could not be found merely because both pieces of
legislation had the same goal.^311 In other cases, the Court of
Appeals has also held that local laws that expand a definition in
state law are not preempted as long as the legislature has not
“evidenced a desire” to preempt.^312
When the Court of Appeals has held local zoning laws are
impliedly preempted, there is often specific language in the bill
itself indicating a desire for preemption.^313 For example, in
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Town of Red Hook,^314
(^306) See id. at 906.
(^307) Id. at 905–07.
(^308) The State law prohibited the sale and use of certain sewage system
cleaning additives in Long Island. It also empowered the State Commissioner
of Environmental Conservation to create regulations forcing manufacturers to
disclose their chemical components and restrict sale of products with
restricted chemical material after investigation and hearing. See id. at 903–
04.
(^309) Id. at 907.
(^310) Id. (“Although an express statement of preemption is not required it is
significant that no such statement appears in the statute... .”).
(^311) Id. (finding that both the local law and state law shared the same goal,
protection of the Long Island water supply).
(^312) N.Y. State Club Ass’n v. City of New York, 505 N.E.2d 915, 920
(N.Y. 1987) (holding that New York City’s narrower definition of what
constituted a private club was not preempted by state antidiscrimination
laws).
(^313) However courts have been more likely to find implied preemption of
local laws not connected to zoning. See Albany Area Builders Ass’n v. Town
of Guilderland, 546 N.E.2d 920 (N.Y. 1989) (holding that a local law setting
up a Transportation Impact Fee was impliedly preempted by the state
regulatory structure regulating highway funds).
(^314) Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Town of Red Hook, 456 N.E.2d 487
(N.Y. 1983).