Jabberwocky

Posted 2/20/09

The final version of the natural gas drilling regulations of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), still awaiting approval by the commissioners after the postponement of a vote on November 21, …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Jabberwocky

Posted

The final version of the natural gas drilling regulations of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), still awaiting approval by the commissioners after the postponement of a vote on November 21, contains one phrase that we were very happy to see: “Natural gas exploration and extraction activities are deemed incompatible land uses at locations in the UPDE Corridor [Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River Corridor].” The Upper Delaware Council (UDC) is on record interpreting the River Management Plan (RMP) the same way, and to the extent that the DRBC is a member of the council, it is appropriate that it should acknowledge and enshrine this principle in its rule.

Unfortunately, it appears from the ensuing language of section 7.5 that the agency is unwilling to follow this thought to its logical or legal conclusions.

To begin with, we find it baffling that, having conceded that natural gas drilling activities are incompatible with the corridor, the DRBC goes on immediately to say that it will allow them nevertheless via variances, in the phrase: “Accordingly, natural gas development activity is prohibited in such areas without a variance issued in accordance with Section 7.5(d)(2) below.” The RMP, on the basis of which the UDC finds natural gas activities an incompatible use, “stipulates an agreement between all levels of government for implementing the Upper Delaware legislation” (RMP page ii). The DRBC, accordingly, has a commitment to providing the special protections mandated by that act of Congress as specified in the RMP. What makes it think it has the power to make unilateral exceptions?

Perusal of the section that specifies the conditions under which variances can be granted fails to enlighten us. The first criterion is covered by the vague phrase “undue burden on the project sponsor.” The project sponsor being presumably a private company, the corresponding burden would be an impact on profits. What exactly does that have to do with public resource protection?

The second condition says that variances will be granted if “the proposed siting conditions would be equally or more protective of water resources of the basin…. ”

“More protective” than what? The section never specifies. It spells out factors, like spills and endangered species, with respect to which the siting must be more protective. But we are never told what the proposed corridor site is to be compared to.

Imagine that an agency made a rule that Party A must give a writer at The River Reporter $1 million if she writes an article that is “longer,” but proceeded to specify no “than.” Longer than what? Longer than a limerick? Longer than the Encyclopedia Britannica? Longer than a bread box? As long as the rule in question does not specify what the article must be compared with, there is no way to implement it in anything but an arbitrary way. Party A can pick its point of comparison, the writer will pick another, and there is no way within the rule to say who is right.

In the same way, a natural gas drilling company wanting to drill in the river corridor could claim arbitrarily that there is some very sensitive spot within the basin, but outside the corridor, in which it wants to drill, and that it will drill there if the DRBC does not grant it a variance to operate in the corridor. Indeed, it’s hard to see what is to stop a company from picking one such site and using it repeatedly.

The vagueness of the language suggests, in fact, that if the regulations are approved, this section might well be subject to an “arbitrary and capricious” court challenge, whether by the National Park Service, the UDC or any other interested party, the very first time the DRBC grants a variance to drill in the river corridor. Indeed, drilling companies could probably bring a challenge on the same grounds if the request for a variance is refused. Legally, the issue is not a matter of being pro- or anti-drilling; it’s that while a statement of the form “X must be more than y” is well-formed English whose truth value can be objectively determined, a sentence of the form “X must be more” is pure jabberwocky.

That said, we do have a preference for how the section should be rewritten, whether before the rescheduled vote or after it falls to a legal challenge. Here’s our suggestion: put a period after the word “areas” in the sentence starting, “Accordingly, natural gas development activity is prohibited in such areas,” and strike out everything from “without a variance” on. That would be consistent with the DRBC’s obligations as one of the parties responsible for implementing the Wild and Scenic River Act in this area, and would save it the trouble of having to rework that pesky variance section.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here