Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/21/2016

Home

May 25, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 10 Zoning Bulletin authorization to the holder of the permit to enter upon the property covered by the permit and to drill in search of minerals thereon. No other agency or political subdivision of the [S]tate shall have the authority, and they are hereby expressly forbidden, to prohibit or in any way interfere with the drilling of a well or test well in search of minerals by the holder of such a peiniit." The court also found the Parish's zoning ordinances were unconstitu- tional insofar as they prohibited or interfered with Helis' drilling of the well. The Parish and CCST appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, held that the Parish's zoning ordinances were pre-empted by State law regulating oil and gas activity. The court concluded that the permit issued to Helis by the Com- missioner was therefore valid. On appeal, among other things, the Parish and CCST had argued that: (1) La. R.S. 30:28F could not displace the Parish's authority to regulate land use and zoning within its geographic boundaries —authority be- stowed to the Parish in the Louisiana Constitution (La, Const. Art. VI, § 17); (2) statutory provisions enacted by the legislature in accordance with the constitutional grant of zoning power to municipalities under La. Const. Art. VI, § 17, which mandate uniformity in land use and zoning regulations, precluded the conclusion that La. R.S. 30:28F pre-empted the Parish's zoning ordinances; and (3) the constitutional reservation of police power in La. Const. Art. VI, § 9(B) to the State (including the po- lice powers to regulate oil and gas activity) does not include zoning pow- ers because those powers are constitutionally granted to local governments. In response to those arguments, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that local power, including local zoning power "is not preempted unless it was the clear and manifest purpose of the legislature to do so, or the exercise of dual authority is repugnant to a legislative objective; if there is no express provision mandating preemption, the courts will determine the legislative intent by examining the pervasiveness of the state regula- tory scheme, the need for state uniformity, and the danger of conflict be- tween the enforcement of local laws and the administration of the state program." Here, the court determined that the Parish's zoning ordinances "must yield to state law based on the language set forth in La. R.S. 30:28F, providing that apolitical subdivision is `hereby expressly forbidden. . .to prohibit or in any way interfere with the drilling of a well. . .by the holder of. . .a [duly -authorized] peiinit,' which clearly and manifestly evinces the legislative intent to expressly preempt that area of the law." Moreover, the court found that "the pervasiveness of [State] legislation, which addresses every aspect of oil and gas exploration as well as the 6 © 2016 Thomson Reuters