Community Rights Counsel Community Rights Counsel Community Rights Counsel Community Rights Counsel

About CRC

Legal Resources

Community Rights Report Newsletter

Support Us

Newsroom

Redefining Federalism

Warming Law Blog


Community Rights Counsel
1301 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 502
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-296-6889
Fax: 202-296-6895


PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY


PROTECTING A VIBRANT WATERSHED  FROM HARMFUL SURFACE MINING


Machipongo Land & Coal Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pa. S. Ct.)

In 1989, the Brisbin Recreation Board and the Locust Grove Sportsmen Club petitioned the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources to protect a stretch of the Goss Run Watershed in Clearfield County from destructive mining practices. Surface coal mining in the Watershed would not only pollute Goss Run, but also increase its acidity and temperature, thereby destroying wild trout populations in the stream and harming a downstream stocked trout fishery at Brisbin Dam. Mining also would threaten drinking water supplies for the Brisbin Dam public park. In 1992, Pennsylvania prohibited mining on 390 acres of the Watershed.

In 2000, a Pennsylvania court ruled that the mining ban constituted a taking even though it applied to only 2-6 percent of the affected landowners' property. Rather than looking at the effect of the mining ban on the landowners' entire parcels as required by longstanding precedent, the court considered only the ban's effect on the tiny affected portion of the property. This affected-portion standard could wreak havoc on routine land-use controls such as setback requirements, height restrictions, historic preservation ordinances, and a host of others, effective requiring a finding of a compensable taking in every case.

On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, CRC assembled a coalition of municipal associations to file an amicus brief in support of the Commonwealth. We demonstrate in the brief that under longstanding rulings of the U.S. and Pennsylvania supreme courts, the mining restriction worked no taking because it has only a miniscule effect on the landowners' property.


Machipongo Land and Coal Co., Inc. v. Department of Envtl. Resources (Pennsylvania Supreme Court)
Clients: Pennsylvania State Assoc. of Township Supervisors, City of Philadelphia, State Assoc. of
             Boroughs, Pennsylvania State Assoc. of Township Commissioners, County Commissioners Assoc.              of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania League of cities and Municipalities
Issues: Parcel as a whole.

CRC's Amicus Brief PDF)

To read the Court's opinion in PDF format, click here.

Back to CRC Home

If you have questions or comments about this website or
Community Rights Counsel email us!

© 2005 Community Rights Counsel. All rights reserved.