Standing Motion to Intervene Motion for Reconsideration Fracking Waste
Seneca Resources Corp. v. Township of Highland, PICS Case No. 17-1237(3rd Cir. July 17, 2107) Smith, C.J. (37 pages).
District court did not abuse its discretion in denying citizen and environmental groups' motion for reconsideration of the order denying appellants' motion to intervene because appellants were nonparties and lacked standing to challenge the consent decree. Affirmed.
Appellee sought to convert a natural gas well into an underground injection control well to store fracking waste. Township enacted an ordinance prohibiting disposal injection wells. The EPA issued a permit to appellee to operate the injection well and ap-pellee sued township arguing that the ordinance was invalid. Township adopted a community bill of rights establishing the right to clean air and water and giving any resident the right to enforce the ecosystem's right to exist and made the deposit of oil and gas extraction waste illegal. Appellee challenged the community bill of rights. Appellant citizen and environmental groups filed a motion to intervene. The district court denied the motion to intervene because the township and the board of supervisors adequately represented appellants' interests. Board repealed the community bill of rights, appellee and township filed a stipulation and consent decree, township withdrew its opposition to appellee's DEP permit application and appellee withdrew its counterclaims against township. The district court entered an order adopting the consent decree as the court's findings and opinions. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration of the approval of the consent decree and of the denial of appellants' motion to intervene. Appellants appealed.
Appellants were not parties but argued that they should have been because the district court should have granted their motion to intervene to allow them to defend the community bill of rights. However, since the community bill of rights was repealed, that argument was moot. Additionally, since the consent decree did not bind appellants or deprive them of rights, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion for reconsideration of the denial of intervention to challenge aspects of the consent decree. Since appellants could not intervene, they lacked standing to challenge the consent decree.
Appellants contended their motions were not moot even though the community bill of rights had been repealed because the issue was capable of repetition yet evading review, the lawsuit was a matter of public interest and the resolution on the merits of the intervention issue was clear. The court found that the issue did not "evade review," there was no stand-alone public interest exception to mootness and the court had no authority to give opinions on moot questions.
Appellants also contended they had to be allowed to intervene because the district court order adopted a paragraph of the consent order that established the legality or illegality of appellants' protected rights. Appellants argued that the district court lacked the power to enter the order because the parties were no longer adverse to each other when the consent order was adopted. The district court did not abuse its discretion. The consent decree did not establish appellants' legal rights because appellants were not parties to the consent decree, there were no estoppel consequences, stare decisis did not affect appellants and the consent decree had no contractual consequences for appellants.