RIVER VALLEY — According to a press release from the Wayne Land and Minerals Group (WLMG), its lawsuit against the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), which was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Robert D. Mariani on March 23, will proceed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals without first debating the merits of the lawsuit in district court.

The Mariani decision said that a “natural gas well pad, a gas well and related facilities and associated activities,” are a “project” and as such are subject to DRBC jurisdiction.

But the opinion of WLMG is that the matter is not settled, and that issue will be addressed in the appeal. WLMG representative Curt Coccodrilli said, “While the district court did assert any use of land in the basin that involves water is a ‘project’ subject to DRBC review, we are absolutely confident that particular conclusion will be rejected by the Court of Appeals, as the merits of such a conclusion were never argued but will be on appeal. It is simply a matter of time.”

He continued, “We will appeal the part of the court’s ruling adverse to WLMG and are excited that, after a decade-long odyssey, the question of the DRBC’s authority will finally be addressed by the Court of Appeals and, at long last, justice will be served,” he said.

WLMG’s position is that the “district court moved the ball way ahead by effectively granting a motion that was never filed or argued. This provides a unique opportunity to make those arguments sooner rather than later at the Court of Appeals.”

WLMG was critical of the DRBC, whose executive director Steve Tambini took the position during testimony that there was no moratorium on fracking in place in the Delaware River Basin, despite the understanding of most interested parties that there is indeed a de facto moratorium in place.

The court wrote, “Other factors, too, weigh in favor of concluding that this action is ripe for judicial review. Principal among those factors is the DRBC’s somewhat confounding and steadfast refusal to admit in this case, contrary to its conduct throughout the better part of a decade (including multiple determinations from its executive director and the imposition of a moratorium), that it has determined that well pads, exploratory wells, hydraulic fracturing and related activities are subject to its review... The DRBC’s conduct throughout this litigation and over the past decade has been, at best, contradictory and confusing, warranting a clarification of the legal relationship between Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals and the DRBC.”

Coccodrilli said the Court of Appeals examination of the issue “can only lead to one conclusion; treating any land use involving water as a ‘project’ would necessarily lead to absurd results. If the Court of Appeals were to buy that argument, it would effectively be declaring the DRBC is entitled to regulate anything and everything—your farm, your business, your home—solely because you use water. The last thing we need is another layer of government giving itself super-regulatory authority over land use.”

The earlier dismissal of the DRBC lawsuit had been lauded a victory by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, which is an intervener in the lawsuit.