THE INTEGRATION OF BANKING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS: THE NEED FOR REGULATORY REFORM

(Jeff_L) #1
LOCAL HYDROFRACKING BANS 675

York City,^348 as well as impact tourism and local agriculture.^349
Ensuring that local governments are able to ban hydrofracking
within their communities will provide another level of protection
against any possible dangers from hydrofracking. It will also
allow those communities eager for jobs and economic benefits to
permit hydrofracking. An open debate about the pros and cons
of hydrofracking will increase residents’ knowledge and through
the local political process, individuals will be able to have their
voices heard.
Furthermore, town hydrofracking bans do not present a
NIMBY problem. Unlike a waste reactor, which is often
necessary for the community and needs to be placed somewhere,
hydrofracking does not need to occur. Hydrofracking is not
necessary for a community and while it may bring economic
benefits, those benefits also come with risks. Individual towns
should have the ability to decide for themselves if the costs
outweigh the benefits. Additionally, even if towns are able to
enact hydrofracking bans, it is unlikely that would end
hydrofracking in New York State. Over fifty towns have already
enacted resolutions supporting hydrofracking.^350 The ability of
local governments to ban hydrofracking also appears to be in
line with recent unofficial reports from the DEC indicating that
hydrofracking would only occur in those areas that desire it.^351
Additionally, allowing local governments to ban
hydrofracking will not negatively affect other energy producers
in New York State. The recent Power NY Act of 2011^352
includes express preemption language that creates a “one stop
approval process for new and expanded power plans” including
wind farms.^353 Since the Power New York Act expressly gives


(^348) See Kastenbaum, supra note 58.
(^349) See Gralla, supra note 56.
(^350) Map of Positive Resolutions for Hydrofracking, supra note 120.
(^351) Karlin, supra note 95 (citing recent reports, which the Governor
refuses to deny, indicating that his administration is considering a plan where
hydrofracking would only be permitted in willing communities).
(^352) Power NY Act of 2011, S. 5844, Assemb. 8510, Reg. Sess. (codified
in scattered sections of N.Y. PUB. SERV. LAW).
(^353) New York Legislature Enacts Power Plant Siting Law, Bryan Cave
Bulletin (Bryan Cave, LLP, St. Louis, MO), Aug. 9, 2011, at 1, available at

Free download pdf