The New York State Court of Appeals decision to uphold "home rule," and the rights of small town officials to pass zoning laws that prohibit hydraulic fracturing (hydro-fracking) in their towns.
Based on cases in central New York towns Dryden and Middlefield, the Court of Appeals ruled the towns acted properly in enacting zoning laws that banned fracking,
The New York State Court of Appeals decision to uphold "home rule," and the rights of small town officials to pass zoning laws that prohibit hydraulic fracturing (hydro-fracking) in their towns.
Based on cases in central New York towns Dryden and Middlefield, the Court of Appeals ruled the towns acted properly in enacting zoning laws that banned fracking,
The New York State Court of Appeals decision to uphold "home rule," and the rights of small town officials to pass zoning laws that prohibit hydraulic fracturing (hydro-fracking) in their towns.
Based on cases in central New York towns Dryden and Middlefield, the Court of Appeals ruled the towns acted properly in enacting zoning laws that banned fracking,
Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or e
publ i cat i on i n t he New Yor k Repor t s. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No. 130 I n t he Mat t er of Mar k S. Wal l ach, as Chapt er 7 Tr ust ee f or Nor se Ener gy Cor p. USA, Appel l ant , v. Town of Dr yden et al . , Respondent s. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No. 131 Cooper st own Hol st ei n Cor por at i on, Appel l ant , v. Town of Mi ddl ef i el d, Respondent . Case No. 130: Thomas S. West , f or appel l ant . Debor ah Gol dber g, f or r espondent s. Town of Ul ysses et al . ; Of f i ce of t he Manhat t an Bor ough Pr esi dent et al . ; New Yor k Far mBur eau; Washi ngt on Legal Foundat i on; I ndependent Oi l and Gas Associ at i on of New Yor k, I nc. ; Amer i can Pet r ol eumI nst i t ut e et al . ; J oi nt Landowner s Coal i t i on of New Yor k, I nc. ; Vi cki Been et al . ; Br ewer y Ommegang Lt d. et al . ; Dr yden Resour ces Awar eness Coal i t i on; Communi t y Envi r onment al Def ense Counci l , I nc. ; Bar bar a Li f t on; Amer i can Pl anni ng Associ at i on et al . , ami ci cur i ae. Case No. 131: Scot t R. Kur koski , f or appel l ant . J ohn J . Henr y, f or r espondent . Town of Ul ysses et al . ; New Yor k Far mBur eau; I ndependent Oi l and Gas Associ at i on of New Yor k, I nc. ; Amer i can Pet r ol eumI nst i t ut e et al . ; Br ewer y Ommegang, Lt d. et al . ; J oi nt Landowner s Coal i t i on of New Yor k, I nc. et al . ; Amer i can Pl anni ng Associ at i on et al . , ami ci cur i ae. GRAFFEO, J . : We ar e asked i n t hese t wo appeal s whet her t owns may ban oi l and gas pr oduct i on act i vi t i es, i ncl udi ng hydr of r acki ng, wi t hi n muni ci pal boundar i es t hr ough t he adopt i on of l ocal zoni ng l aws. We concl ude t hat t hey may because t he super sessi on cl ause - 1 - - 2 - Nos. 130 & 131 i n t he st at ewi de Oi l , Gas and Sol ut i on Mi ni ng Law ( OGSML) does not pr eempt t he home r ul e aut hor i t y vest ed i n muni ci pal i t i es t o r egul at e l and use. The or der s of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on shoul d t her ef or e be af f i r med. I . Mat t er of Wal l ach v Town of Dr yden Respondent Town of Dr yden i s a r ur al communi t y l ocat ed i n Tompki ns Count y, New Yor k. Land use i n Dr yden i s gover ned by a compr ehensi ve pl an and zoni ng or di nance. The under l yi ng goal of t he compr ehensi ve pl an i s t o " [ p] r eser ve t he r ur al and smal l t own char act er of t he Town of Dr yden, and t he qual i t y of l i f e i t s r esi dent s enj oy, as t he t own cont i nues t o gr ow i n t he comi ng decades. " Despi t e t he f act t hat oi l and gas dr i l l i ng has not hi st or i cal l y been associ at ed wi t h Dr yden, i t s l ocat i on wi t hi n t he Mar cel l us Shal e r egi on has pi qued t he i nt er est of t he nat ur al gas i ndust r y. The Mar cel l us Shal e f or mat i on cover s a vast ar ea acr oss sect i ons of a number of st at es, i ncl udi ng New Yor k, Pennsyl vani a, Ohi o and West Vi r gi ni a. Nat ur al gas - - pr i mar i l y met hane - - i s f ound i n shal e deposi t s bur i ed t housands of f eet bel ow t he sur f ace and can be ext r act ed t hr ough t he combi ned use of hor i zont al dr i l l i ng and hydr of r acki ng. To access t he nat ur al gas, a wel l i s dr i l l ed ver t i cal l y t o a l ocat i on j ust above t he t ar get dept h, at whi ch poi nt t he wel l becomes a hor i zont al t unnel i n or der t o maxi mi ze t he number of pat hways t hr ough whi ch t he gas - 2 - - 3 - Nos. 130 & 131 may be r emoved. The pr ocess of hydr aul i c f r act ur i ng - - commonl y r ef er r ed t o as hydr of r acki ng - - can t hen commence. Hydr of r acki ng i nvol ves t he i nj ect i on of l ar ge amount s of pr essur i zed f l ui ds ( wat er and chemi cal s) t o st i mul at e or f r act ur e t he shal e f or mat i ons, causi ng t he r el ease of t he nat ur al gas ( see gener al l y U. S. Dept . of Ener gy, Nat ur al Gas f r omShal e: Quest i ons and Answer s [ Apr . 2013] , avai l abl e at ht t p: / / www. ener gy. gov/ si t es/ pr od/ f i l es/ 2013/ 04/ f 0/ compl et e_br ochur e. pdf [ accessed J une 18, 2014] ) . 1 I n 2006, pet i t i oner Nor se Ener gy Cor p. USA ( Nor se) , t hr ough i t s pr edecessor s, began acqui r i ng oi l and gas l eases f r om l andowner s i n Dr yden f or t he pur pose of expl or i ng and devel opi ng nat ur al gas r esour ces. 2 The Town Boar d t ook t he posi t i on t hat gas ext r act i on act i vi t i es wer e pr ohi bi t ed i n Dr yden because such oper at i ons f el l wi t hi n t he cat ch- al l pr ovi si on of i t s zoni ng or di nance t hat pr ecl uded any uses not speci f i cal l y al l owed. Never t hel ess, t he Town Boar d deci ded t o engage i n a " cl ar i f i cat i on" of t he i ssue. Af t er hol di ng a publ i c hear i ng and 1 Ther e r emai ns an ongoi ng publ i c debat e about t he pot ent i al envi r onment al and saf et y r i sks associ at ed wi t h shal e gas pr oduct i on. Cur r ent l y, t her e i s a st at ewi de mor at or i umon " hi gh- vol ume hydr aul i c f r act ur i ng combi ned wi t h hor i zont al dr i l l i ng" pendi ng f ur t her st udy of t he associ at ed envi r onment al i mpact s ( 9 NYCRR 7. 41 [ Execut i ve Or der No. 41] ; see al so 9 NYCRR 8. 2 [ Execut i ve Or der No. 2] ) . 2 Nor se has si nce i ni t i at ed bankr upt cy pr oceedi ngs and Mar k S. Wal l ach, as bankr upt cy t r ust ee, has been subst i t ut ed as t he pet i t i oner . For ease of r ef er ence, pet i t i oner i n t hi s case wi l l cont i nue t o be r ef er r ed t o as Nor se. - 3 - - 4 - Nos. 130 & 131 r evi ewi ng a number of r el evant sci ent i f i c st udi es, t he Town Boar d unani mousl y vot ed t o amend t he zoni ng or di nance i n August 2011 t o speci f y t hat al l oi l and gas expl or at i on, ext r act i on and st or age act i vi t i es wer e not per mi t t ed i n Dr yden. The amendment al so pur por t ed t o i nval i dat e any oi l and gas per mi t i ssued by a st at e or f eder al agency. I n adopt i ng t he amendment , t he Town Boar d decl ar ed t hat t he i ndust r i al use of l and i n t he " r ur al envi r onment of Dr yden" f or nat ur al gas pur poses " woul d endanger t he heal t h, saf et y and gener al wel f ar e of t he communi t y t hr ough t he deposi t of t oxi ns i nt o t he ai r , soi l , wat er , envi r onment , and i n t he bodi es of r esi dent s. " A mont h l at er , Nor se commenced t hi s hybr i d CPLR ar t i cl e 78 pr oceedi ng and decl ar at or y j udgment act i on t o chal l enge t he val i di t y of t he zoni ng amendment . Nor se asser t ed t hat Dr yden l acked t he aut hor i t y t o pr ohi bi t nat ur al gas expl or at i on and ext r act i on act i vi t i es because sect i on 23- 0303 ( 2) of t he Envi r onment al Conser vat i on Law ( ECL) - - t he super sessi on cl ause i n t he Oi l , Gas and Sol ut i on Mi ni ng Law ( OGSML) - - demonst r at ed t hat t he St at e Legi sl at ur e i nt ended t o pr eempt l ocal zoni ng l aws t hat cur t ai l ed ener gy pr oduct i on. I n r esponse, Dr yden moved f or summar y j udgment , seeki ng a decl ar at i on t hat t he zoni ng amendment was a val i d exer ci se of i t s home r ul e power s. Supr eme Cour t gr ant ed Dr yden' s mot i on and decl ar ed t he amendment val i d wi t h one except i on - - i t st r uck down t he pr ovi si on i nval i dat i ng st at e and f eder al per mi t s. The Appel l at e - 4 - - 5 - Nos. 130 & 131 Di vi si on af f i r med, r ej ect i ng Nor se' s cl ai mt hat t he OGSML pr eempt ed Dr yden' s zoni ng amendment ( 108 AD3d 25 [ 3d Dept 2013] ) . We gr ant ed Nor se l eave t o appeal ( 21 NY3d 863 [ 2013] ) . Cooper st own Hol st ei n Cor por at i on v Town of Mi ddl ef i el d Respondent Town of Mi ddl ef i el d, whi ch i ncl udes a por t i on of t he Vi l l age of Cooper st own, i s l ocat ed i n Ot sego Count y, New Yor k, and i t s pr i nci pal i ndust r i es ar e agr i cul t ur e and t our i sm. I t s l and use i s r egul at ed by a mast er pl an and zoni ng or di nance. Si mi l ar t o Dr yden, t her e has been no oi l or gas pr esence i n Mi ddl ef i el d unt i l 2007, when pl ai nt i f f Cooper st own Hol st ei n Cor por at i on ( CHC) execut ed t wo l eases wi t h a l andowner t o expl or e t he possi bi l i t y of devel opi ng nat ur al gas r esour ces t hr ough hydr of r acki ng. Al t hough t he Town cl ai med t hat i t s zoni ng or di nance al r eady pr ohi bi t ed nat ur al gas expl or at i on on t he basi s t hat i t was not l i st ed as a per mi ssi bl e l and use, i t under t ook a l engt hy and det ai l ed r evi ew of t he i ssue i n 2011. Af t er commi ssi oni ng a st udy t o wei gh t he i mpact s t hat hydr of r acki ng woul d have on Mi ddl ef i el d and conduct i ng publ i c meet i ngs, t he Town Boar d, by a unani mous vot e, amended i t s mast er pl an t o adopt a zoni ng pr ovi si on cl assi f yi ng a r ange of heavy i ndust r i al uses, i ncl udi ng oi l , gas and sol ut i on mi ni ng and dr i l l i ng, as pr ohi bi t ed uses. The Town Boar d r easoned t hat t he " Cooper st own ar ea i s known wor l dwi de f or i t s cl ean ai r , cl ean wat er , f ar ms, f or est s, hi l l s, t r out st r eams, sceni c vi ewsheds, hi st or i c si t es, quai nt vi l l age - 5 - - 6 - Nos. 130 & 131 and haml et s, r ur al l i f est yl e, r ecr eat i onal act i vi t i es, sense of hi st or y, and hi st or y of l andscape conser vat i on, " and concl uded t hat i ndust r i al i zat i on, such as hydr of r acki ng, woul d " el i mi nat e many of t hese f eat ur es" and " i r r ever si bl y over whel mt he r ur al char act er of t he Town. " CHC pr ompt l y br ought t hi s act i on t o set asi de t he zoni ng l aw, cont endi ng t hat i t was pr eempt ed by t he super sessi on pr ovi si on i n t he OGSML. CHC and Mi ddl ef i el d each moved f or summar y j udgment . Supr eme Cour t deni ed CHC' s mot i on and gr ant ed Mi ddl ef i el d' s cr oss- mot i on t o di smi ss t he compl ai nt , uphol di ng t he l egal i t y of t he zoni ng l aw ( 35 Mi sc 3d 767 [ Sup Ct , Ot sego Count y 2012] ) . The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med ( 106 AD3d 1170 [ 3d Dept 2013] ) , and we gr ant ed CHC l eave t o appeal ( 21 NY3d 863 [ 2013] ) . I I . On appeal , Nor se and CHC, suppor t ed by sever al ami ci cur i ae, pr ess t hei r cont ent i on t hat Dr yden and Mi ddl ef i el d ( col l ect i vel y, t he Towns) l acked t he aut hor i t y t o pr oscr i be hydr of r acki ng and associ at ed nat ur al gas act i vi t i es wi t hi n t hei r t own boundar i es. They asser t t hat t he ener gy pol i cy of New Yor k, as exempl i f i ed by t he st at ewi de OGSML, r equi r es a uni f or m appr oach and cannot be subj ect t o r egul at i on by a mel ange of t he St at e' s 932 t owns. They mai nt ai n t hat t he OGSML cont ai ns a super sessi on cl ause t hat expr essl y pr eempt s al l l ocal zoni ng l aws, l i ke t hose enact ed by t he Towns, whi ch r est r i ct or f or bi d - 6 - - 7 - Nos. 130 & 131 oi l and gas oper at i ons on r eal pr oper t y wi t hi n a muni ci pal i t y. The Towns, j oi ned by ot her ami ci cur i ae, r espond t hat t he cour t s bel ow cor r ect l y concl uded t hat t hey act ed wi t hi n t hei r home r ul e aut hor i t y i n adopt i ng t he chal l enged l ocal l aws. They ur ge t hat t he abi l i t y of l ocal i t i es t o r est r i ct t he i ndust r i al use of l and wi t h t he ai ms of pr eser vi ng t he char act er i st i cs of t hei r communi t i es and pr ot ect i ng t he heal t h, saf et y and gener al wel f ar e of t hei r ci t i zens i mpl i cat es t he ver y essence of muni ci pal gover nance. They f ur t her cont end t hat , when anal yzed under t he pr i nci pl es set f or t h i n our pr ecedent , t he OGSML and i t s super sessi on cl ause do not ext i ngui sh t hei r zoni ng power s. Unl i ke our di ssent i ng col l eagues, we bel i eve t hat t he Towns have t he bet t er ar gument . Our anal ysi s begi ns wi t h a r evi ew of t he sour ce of muni ci pal aut hor i t y t o r egul at e l and use and t he l i mi t s t he St at e may i mpose on t hi s power . Ar t i cl e I X, t he " home r ul e" pr ovi si on of t he New Yor k Const i t ut i on, st at es t hat " ever y l ocal gover nment shal l have power t o adopt and amend l ocal l aws not i nconsi st ent wi t h t he pr ovi si ons of t hi s const i t ut i on or any gener al l aw . . . except t o t he ext ent t hat t he l egi sl at ur e shal l r est r i ct t he adopt i on of such a l ocal l aw" ( NY Const , ar t I X, 2 [ c] [ i i ] ) . To i mpl ement t hi s const i t ut i onal mandat e, t he St at e Legi sl at ur e enact ed t he Muni ci pal Home Rul e Law, whi ch empower s l ocal gover nment s t o pass l aws bot h f or t he " pr ot ect i on and enhancement of [ t hei r ] physi cal and vi sual envi r onment " ( Muni ci pal Home Rul e - 7 - - 8 - Nos. 130 & 131 Law 10 [ 1] [ i i ] [ a] [ 11] ) and f or t he " gover nment , pr ot ect i on, or der , conduct , saf et y, heal t h and wel l - bei ng of per sons or pr oper t y t her ei n" ( Muni ci pal Home Rul e Law 10 [ 1] [ i i ] [ a] [ 12] ) . The Legi sl at ur e l i kewi se aut hor i zed t owns t o enact zoni ng l aws f or t he pur pose of f ost er i ng " t he heal t h, saf et y, mor al s, or t he gener al wel f ar e of t he communi t y" ( Town Law 261; see al so St at ut e of Local Gover nment s 10 [ 6] [ gr ant i ng t owns " t he power t o adopt , amend and r epeal zoni ng r egul at i ons" ] ) . As a f undament al pr ecept , t he Legi sl at ur e has r ecogni zed t hat t he l ocal r egul at i on of l and use i s " [ a] mong t he most si gni f i cant power s and dut i es gr ant ed . . . t o a t own gover nment " ( Town Law 272- a [ 1] [ b] ) . We, t oo, have desi gnat ed t he r egul at i on of l and use t hr ough t he adopt i on of zoni ng or di nances as one of t he cor e power s of l ocal gover nance ( see DJ L Rest . Cor p. v Ci t y of New Yor k, 96 NY2d 91, 96 [ 2001] ) . Wi t hout quest i on, muni ci pal i t i es may " enact l and- use r est r i ct i ons or cont r ol s t o enhance t he qual i t y of l i f e by pr eser vi ng t he char act er and desi r abl e aest het i c f eat ur es of [ t he communi t y] " ( Tr ust ees of Uni on Col l . i n Town of Schenect ady i n St at e of N. Y. v Member s of Schenect ady Ci t y Counci l , 91 NY2d 161, 165 [ 1997] [ i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed] ) . And we have r epeat edl y hi ghl i ght ed t he br eadt h of a muni ci pal i t y' s zoni ng power s t o " pr ovi de f or t he devel opment of a bal anced, cohesi ve communi t y" i n consi der at i on of " r egi onal needs and r equi r ement s" ( Mat t er of Ger nat t Asphal t - 8 - - 9 - Nos. 130 & 131 Pr ods. v Town of Sar di ni a, 87 NY2d 668, 683 [ 1996] ; see al so Udel l v Haas, 21 NY2d 463, 469 [ 1968] [ " Under l yi ng t he ent i r e concept of zoni ng i s t he assumpt i on t hat zoni ng can be a vi t al t ool f or mai nt ai ni ng a ci vi l i zed f or mof exi st ence. " ] ) . That bei ng sai d, as a pol i t i cal subdi vi si on of t he St at e, a t own may not enact or di nances t hat conf l i ct wi t h t he St at e Const i t ut i on or any gener al l aw ( see Muni ci pal Home Rul e Law 10 [ 1] [ i ] , [ i i ] ) . Under t he pr eempt i on doct r i ne, a l ocal l aw pr omul gat ed under a muni ci pal i t y' s home r ul e aut hor i t y must yi el d t o an i nconsi st ent st at e l aw as a consequence of " t he unt r ammel ed pr i macy of t he Legi sl at ur e t o act wi t h r espect t o mat t er s of St at e concer n" ( Al bany Ar ea Bl dr s. Assn. v Town of Gui l der l and, 74 NY2d 372, 377 [ 1989] [ i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks, el l i pses and ci t at i on omi t t ed] ) . But we do not l i ght l y pr esume pr eempt i on wher e t he pr eemi nent power of a l ocal i t y t o r egul at e l and use i s at st ake. Rat her , we wi l l i nval i dat e a zoni ng l aw onl y wher e t her e i s a " cl ear expr essi on of l egi sl at i ve i nt ent t o pr eempt l ocal cont r ol over l and use" ( Ger nat t , 87 NY2d at 682) . Awar e of t hese pr i nci pl es, Nor se and CHC do not di sput e t hat , absent a st at e l egi sl at i ve di r ect i ve t o t he cont r ar y, muni ci pal i t i es woul d or di nar i l y possess t he home r ul e aut hor i t y t o r est r i ct t he use of l and f or oi l and gas act i vi t i es i n f ur t her ance of l ocal i nt er est s. They cl ai m, however , t hat t he St at e Legi sl at ur e has cl ear l y expr essed i t s i nt ent t o pr eempt zoni ng l aws of l ocal gover nment s t hr ough t he OGSML' s - 9 - - 10 - Nos. 130 & 131 " super sessi on cl ause, " whi ch r eads: " The pr ovi si ons of t hi s ar t i cl e [ i . e. , t he OGSML] shal l super sede al l l ocal l aws or or di nances r el at i ng t o t he r egul at i on of t he oi l , gas and sol ut i on mi ni ng i ndust r i es; but shal l not super sede l ocal gover nment j ur i sdi ct i on over l ocal r oads or t he r i ght s of l ocal gover nment s under t he r eal pr oper t y t ax l aw" ( ECL 23- 0303 [ 2] [ emphasi s added] ) . Accor di ng t o Nor se and CHC, t hi s pr ovi si on shoul d be i nt er pr et ed br oadl y t o r each zoni ng l aws t hat r est r i ct , or as pr esent ed her e, pr ohi bi t oi l and gas act i vi t i es, i ncl udi ng hydr of r acki ng, wi t hi n muni ci pal boundar i es. We do not exami ne t he pr eempt i ve sweep of t hi s super sessi on cl ause on a bl ank sl at e. The scope of sect i on 23- 0303 ( 2) must be const r ued i n l i ght of our deci si on i n Mat t er of Fr ew Run Gr avel Pr ods. v Town of Car r ol l ( 71 NY2d 126 [ 1987] ) , whi ch ar t i cul at ed t he anal yt i cal f r amewor k t o det er mi ne whet her a super sessi on cl ause expr essl y pr eempt s a l ocal zoni ng l aw. Ther e, we hel d t hat t hi s quest i on may be answer ed by consi der i ng t hr ee f act or s: ( 1) t he pl ai n l anguage of t he super sessi on cl ause; ( 2) t he st at ut or y scheme as a whol e; and ( 3) t he r el evant l egi sl at i ve hi st or y. The goal of t hi s t hr ee- par t i nqui r y, as wi t h any st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on anal ysi s, i s t o di scer n t he Legi sl at ur e' s i nt ent . 3 Bef or e appl yi ng t he t r i par t i t e t est t o 3 I n Fr ew Run, we f ound t hat t he pr eempt i on i ssue was a mat t er of st at ut or y const r uct i on and not a sear ch f or i mpl i ed pr eempt i on because t he Legi sl at ur e had i ncl uded an expr ess super sessi on cl ause wi t hi n t he Mi ned Land Recl amat i on Law, t he r el evant st at ut or y scheme ( see Fr ew Run, 71 NY2d at 130- 131) . - 10 - - 11 - Nos. 130 & 131 t he super sessi on cl ause at i ssue, i t i s necessar y t o di scuss Fr ew Run i n mor e det ai l as t hat pr ecedent bear s di r ect l y on t he out come of t hese cases. At i ssue i n Fr ew Run was t he val i di t y of t he Town of Car r ol l ' s zoni ng or di nance est abl i shi ng a zoni ng di st r i ct wher e sand and gr avel oper at i ons wer e not per mi t t ed. A company seeki ng t o open a sand and gr avel mi ne i n t he t own chal l enged t he zoni ng l aw, ar gui ng t hat i t was pr eempt ed by t he super sessi on cl ause i n t he st at ewi de Mi ned Land Recl amat i on Law ( MLRL) , whi ch, at t he t i me, pr ovi ded: " For t he pur poses st at ed her ei n, t hi s t i t l e shal l super sede al l ot her st at e and l ocal l aws r el at i ng t o t he ext r act i ve mi ni ng i ndust r y; pr ovi ded, however , t hat not hi ng i n t hi s t i t l e shal l be const r ued t o pr event any l ocal gover nment f r omenact i ng l ocal zoni ng or di nances or ot her l ocal l aws whi ch i mpose st r i ct er mi ned l and r ecl amat i on st andar ds or r equi r ement s t han t hose f ound her ei n" ( ECL 23- 2703 [ f or mer ( 2) ] [ emphasi s added] ) . We r ej ect ed t he mi ni ng company' s cont ent i on t hat t he cl ause pr eempt ed t he l and use r est r i ct i on, expl ai ni ng t hat t he pl ai n l anguage of t he phr ase " l ocal l aws r el at i ng t o t he ext r act i ve mi ni ng i ndust r y" di d not encompass zoni ng pr ovi si ons. I nst ead, we hel d t hat t he zoni ng l aw " r el at es not t o t he ext r act i ve mi ni ng i ndust r y but t o an ent i r el y di f f er ent subj ect mat t er and pur pose . . . t he use of l and i n t he Town of Car r ol l " ( Fr ew Run, 71 NY2d at 131 [ i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed] ) . Dr awi ng a di st i nct i on bet ween l ocal r egul at i ons addr essi ng " t he act ual oper at i on and pr ocess of mi ni ng" and - 11 - - 12 - Nos. 130 & 131 zoni ng l aws r egul at i ng l and use gener al l y, we concl uded t hat onl y t he f or mer cat egor y was pr eempt ed by t he MLRL' s super sessi on cl ause ( i d. at 133) . I n ef f ect , l ocal l aws t hat pur por t ed t o r egul at e t he " how" of mi ni ng act i vi t i es and oper at i ons wer e pr eempt ed wher eas t hose l i mi t i ng " wher e" mi ni ng coul d t ake pl ace wer e not ( see i d. at 131) . We f ur t her det er mi ned t hat our pl ai n l anguage const r uct i on of t he super sessi on cl ause i n Fr ew Run was consi st ent wi t h t he MLRL as a whol e and i t s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y - - t he second and t hi r d f act or s. We not ed t hat t he bi nar y pur poses of t he MLRL wer e " t o f ost er a heal t hy, gr owi ng mi ni ng i ndust r y" and t o " ai d i n assur i ng t hat l and damaged by mi ni ng oper at i ons i s r est or ed t o a r easonabl y usef ul and at t r act i ve condi t i on" ( i d. at 132 [ i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed] ) , and t hat t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y r ef l ect ed a goal of pr omot i ng t he " mi ni ng i ndust r y by t he adopt i on of st andar d and uni f or mr est r i ct i ons and r egul at i ons t o r epl ace t he exi st i ng pat chwor k syst emof l ocal or di nances" ( i d. [ i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks, br acket s and ci t at i on omi t t ed] ) . Fr omt he st at ut or y scheme and l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, we di scer ned t hat t he " sol e pur pose" of t he super sessi on cl ause was t o pr event l ocal i t i es f r omenact i ng or di nances " deal i ng wi t h t he act ual oper at i on and pr ocess of mi ni ng" because such l aws woul d " f r ust r at e t he st at ut or y pur pose of encour agi ng mi ni ng t hr ough st andar di zat i on of r egul at i ons per t ai ni ng t o mi ni ng oper at i ons" ( i d. at 133) . I n - 12 - - 13 - Nos. 130 & 131 cont r ast , zoni ng l aws r est r i ct i ng t he l ocat i on of mi ni ng oper at i ons wi t hi n a t own f el l out si de t he pr eempt i ve or bi t of t he cl ause because " not hi ng i n t he Mi ned Land Recl amat i on Law or i t s hi st or y . . . suggest s t hat i t s r each was i nt ended t o be br oader t han necessar y t o pr eempt conf l i ct i ng r egul at i ons deal i ng wi t h mi ni ng oper at i ons and r ecl amat i on of mi ned l ands" ( i d. ) . Gui ded by t hese pr i nci pl es, we now appl y Fr ew Run' s t hr ee- par t i nqui r y t o t he OGSML' s super sessi on cl ause. ( 1) Pl ai n Language The f i r st f act or i n assessi ng whet her a super sessi on pr ovi si on pr eempt s l ocal cont r ol over l and use r equi r es us t o exami ne t he wor ds of t he cl ause i t sel f . And because t he t ext of a st at ut or y pr ovi si on " i s t he cl ear est i ndi cat or of l egi sl at i ve i nt ent " ( Mat t er of Dai ml er Chr ysl er Cor p. v Spi t zer , 7 NY3d 653, 660 [ 2006] ) , t hi s f act or i s most i mpor t ant . The oper at i ve t ext of t he OGSML' s super sessi on cl ause i s qui t e cl ose t o t he pr ovi si on we anal yzed i n Fr ew Run, pr eempt i ng l ocal l aws " r el at i ng t o t he r egul at i on of t he oi l , gas and sol ut i on mi ni ng i ndust r i es" ( ECL 23- 0303 [ 2] ; compar e ECL 23- 2703 [ f or mer ( 2) ] [ pr eempt i ng l ocal l aws " r el at i ng t o t he ext r act i ve mi ni ng i ndust r y" ] ) . Based on t he si mi l ar i t i es bet ween t he t wo st at e st at ut es, we decl i ne t he i nvi t at i on of Nor se and CHC t o ascr i be a br oader meani ng t o t he l anguage used i n t he OGSML. To t he cont r ar y, t he di st i nct i on we dr ew i n Fr ew Run appl i es wi t h equal f or ce her e, such t hat ECL 23- 0303 ( 2) i s most - 13 - - 14 - Nos. 130 & 131 nat ur al l y r ead as pr eempt i ng onl y l ocal l aws t hat pur por t t o r egul at e t he act ual oper at i ons of oi l and gas act i vi t i es, not zoni ng or di nances t hat r est r i ct or pr ohi bi t cer t ai n l and uses wi t hi n t own boundar i es. Pl ai nl y, t he zoni ng l aws i n t hese cases ar e di r ect ed at r egul at i ng l and use gener al l y and do not at t empt t o gover n t he det ai l s, pr ocedur es or oper at i ons of t he oi l and gas i ndust r i es. Al t hough t he zoni ng l aws wi l l undeni abl y have an i mpact on oi l and gas ent er pr i ses, as i n Fr ew Run, " t hi s i nci dent al cont r ol r esul t i ng f r omt he muni ci pal i t y' s exer ci se of i t s r i ght t o r egul at e l and use t hr ough zoni ng i s not t he t ype of r egul at or y enact ment r el at i ng t o t he [ oi l , gas and sol ut i on mi ni ng i ndust r i es] whi ch t he Legi sl at ur e coul d have envi si oned as bei ng wi t hi n t he pr ohi bi t i on of t he st at ut e" ( Fr ew Run, 71 NY2d at 131) . Never t hel ess, Nor se and CHC, r el yi ng on t he secondar y cl ause i n t he OGSML' s super sessi on pr ovi si on - - pr eser vi ng " l ocal gover nment j ur i sdi ct i on over l ocal r oads or t he r i ght s of l ocal gover nment s under t he r eal pr oper t y t ax l aw" ( ECL 23- 0303 [ 2] ) - - cont end t hat t he oper at i ve t ext cannot be l i mi t ed t o l ocal l aws t hat pur por t t o r egul at e t he act ual oper at i ons of oi l and gas compani es. They submi t t hat t he secondar y cl ause' s exempt i on of l ocal j ur i sdi ct i on over r oads and t axes makes sense onl y i f t he pr eempt i ve span of t he oper at i ve t ext i s br oader t han we have al l owed because r oads and t axes ar e not associ at ed wi t h " oper at i ons. " Consequent l y, t hey ar gue t hat t her e woul d have - 14 - - 15 - Nos. 130 & 131 been no need f or t he Legi sl at ur e t o excl ude t hemf r omt he oper at i ve l anguage i f super sessi on was l i mi t ed t o l ocal l aws ai med at oi l and gas oper at i ons. We f i nd t hi s t ext ual ar gument mi spl aced because l ocal r egul at i on of r oads and t axes can f ai r l y be char act er i zed as t ouchi ng on t he oper at i ons of t he oi l and gas i ndust r i es and woul d have been pr eempt ed absent t he secondar y savi ngs cl ause. The St at e Legi sl at ur e' s deci si on t o pr eser ve " l ocal gover nment j ur i sdi ct i on over l ocal r oads" was appr opr i at e gi ven t he heavy t r uck and equi pment t r af f i c t ypi cal l y associ at ed wi t h oi l and gas pr oduct i on, i ncl udi ng wat er and wast ewat er haul i ng. Local l aws di ct at i ng t he number of dai l y t r uck t r i ps or t he wei ght and l engt h of vehi cl es bear di r ect l y on i ndust r y oper at i ons and woul d ot her wi se be pr eempt ed absent t he secondar y cl ause. Si mi l ar l y, t he pr eser vat i on of " t he r i ght s of l ocal gover nment s under t he r eal pr oper t y t ax l aw" must be r ead i n conj unct i on wi t h sect i on 594 of t he Real Pr oper t y Tax Law, whi ch al l ows muni ci pal i t i es t o i mpose t axes on oi l and gas busi nesses. Because t hese speci al t axes ar e based on t he l evel of pr oduct i on, t hey can be vi ewed as af f ect i ng t he oper at i ons of t he oi l and gas i ndust r y, such t hat i t was r easonabl e f or t he Legi sl at ur e t o car ve out an except i on f r omt he pr eempt i ve scope of t he oper at i ve t ext . We ar e t her ef or e unper suaded by t he cl ai mof Nor se and CHC t hat t he pl ai n l anguage of ECL 23- 0303 ( 2) as a whol e suppor t s pr eempt i on - 15 - - 16 - Nos. 130 & 131 of t he Towns' zoni ng l aws. 4 I ndeed, i t i s i nst r uct i ve t o compar e t he OGSML' s super sessi on cl ause t o ot her st at ut es t hat cl ear l y pr eempt home r ul e zoni ng power s. Unl i ke ECL 23- 0303 ( 2) , such pr ovi si ons of t en expl i ci t l y i ncl ude zoni ng i n t he pr eempt i ve l anguage empl oyed by t he Legi sl at ur e ( see e. g. ECL 27- 1107 [ pr ohi bi t i ng muni ci pal i t i es f r omr equi r i ng " any appr oval , consent , per mi t , cer t i f i cat e or ot her condi t i on i ncl udi ng conf or mi t y wi t h l ocal 4 Nor se and CHC al so asser t t hat we shoul d not f ol l ow Fr ew Run because of a di f f er ence bet ween t he l anguage used i n t he super sessi on cl ause i n t hat case and t he OGSML' s super sessi on pr ovi si on. They poi nt out t hat t he savi ngs por t i on of t he MLRL cl ause di scussed i n Fr ew Run expl i ci t l y pr eser ved t he abi l i t y of muni ci pal i t i es t o enact " l ocal zoni ng or di nances" ( ECL 23- 2703 [ f or mer ( 2) ] ) and cont end t hat , had t he Legi sl at ur e i nt ended t o r eser ve l ocal zoni ng power s i n t he OGSML' s super sessi on cl ause, i t woul d have si mi l ar l y i ncl uded t hose power s i n t he secondar y exempt i on l anguage. But Nor se' s and CHC' s posi t i on does not wi t hst and cl oser scr ut i ny. The savi ngs cl ause i n Fr ew Run di d not br oadl y pr ot ect al l l ocal zoni ng l aws; r at her , i t r eser ved onl y " l ocal zoni ng or di nances or ot her l ocal l aws whi ch i mpose st r i ct er mi ned l and r ecl amat i on st andar ds or r equi r ement s t han t hose f ound [ i n t he MLRL] " ( ECL 23- 2703 [ f or mer ( 2) ] [ emphasi s added] ) . I n Fr ew Run, we expl ai ned t hat al t hough t he pr eempt i ve r each of t he oper at i ve t ext pr ecl uded any l ocal l aw pur por t i ng t o r egul at e t he oper at i ons of mining act i vi t i es, t he l i mi t ed car ve- out al l owed muni ci pal i t i es t o adopt mor e st r i ngent r equi r ement s f or di st i nct reclamation oper at i ons, a r esul t t hat was " consi st ent wi t h t he st at ut e' s over - al l ai mof pr ot ect i ng t he envi r onment " ( Fr ew Run, 71 NY2d at 133) . Cont r ar y t o t he suggest i on of Nor se and CHC, we di d not uphol d t he t own' s zoni ng r est r i ct i on i n Fr ew Run based on t he secondar y savi ngs cl ause - - i t di d not f al l wi t hi n t hat pr ovi si on because i t was not ai med at r ecl amat i on pr oj ect s. Rat her , we hel d mor e gener al l y t hat t he pr eempt i ve t ext si mpl y di d not encompass t he zoni ng l aw i n t he f i r st pl ace. So t oo wi t h t he oper at i ve por t i on of t he OGSML' s super sessi on pr ovi si on. - 16 - - 17 - Nos. 130 & 131 zoni ng or l and use l aws and or di nances" f or t he si t i ng of hazar dous wast e f aci l i t i es] ; Ment al Hygi ene Law 41. 34 [ f ] [ " A communi t y r esi dence est abl i shed pur suant t o t hi s sect i on and f ami l y car e homes shal l be deemed a f ami l y uni t , f or t he pur poses of l ocal l aws and or di nances. " ] ; Raci ng, Par i - Mut uel Wager i ng and Br eedi ng Law 1366 [ " Not wi t hst andi ng any i nconsi st ent pr ovi si on of l aw, gami ng aut hor i zed at a l ocat i on pur suant t o t hi s ar t i cl e shal l be deemed an appr oved act i vi t y f or such l ocat i on under t he r el evant ci t y, count y, t own, or vi l l age l and use or zoni ng or di nances, r ul es, or r egul at i ons. " ] ) . Fur t her , t he l egi sl at i ve schemes of whi ch t hese pr eempt i on cl auses ar e a par t t ypi cal l y i ncl ude ot her st at ut or y saf eguar ds t hat t ake i nt o account l ocal consi der at i ons t hat ot her wi se woul d have been pr ot ect ed by t r adi t i onal muni ci pal zoni ng power s ( see e. g. ECL 27- 1103 [ 2] [ g] [ r equi r i ng t he Depar t ment of Conser vat i on t o consi der t he " i mpact on t he muni ci pal i t y wher e t he f aci l i t y i s t o be si t ed i n t er ms of heal t h, saf et y, cost and consi st ency wi t h l ocal pl anni ng, zoni ng or l and use l aws and or di nances" ] ; Ment al Hygi ene Law 41. 34 [ c] [ al l owi ng muni ci pal i t i es a means of obj ect i ng t o t he pl acement of communi t y r esi dent i al f aci l i t i es] ; Raci ng, Par i - Mut uel Wager i ng and Br eedi ng Law 1320 [ 2] [ mandat i ng t he consi der at i on of l ocal i mpact s and communi t y suppor t i n t he si t i ng of gami ng f aci l i t i es] ) . Nor se and CHC ar e unabl e t o poi nt t o any compar abl e measur es i n t he OGSML t hat account f or t he sal i ent - 17 - - 18 - Nos. 130 & 131 l ocal i nt er est s i n t he cont ext of dr i l l i ng and hydr of r acki ng act i vi t i es. I n sum, t he pl ai n l anguage of ECL 23- 0303 ( 2) does not suppor t pr eempt i on wi t h r espect t o t he Towns' zoni ng l aws. ( 2) St at ut or y Scheme The second f act or r el evant t o di scer ni ng whet her a super sessi on cl ause pr eempt s l ocal zoni ng power s i nvol ves an assessment of t he cl ause' s r ol e i n t he st at ut or y f r amewor k as a whol e. We t her ef or e t ur n t o t he OGSML - - ar t i cl e 23 of t he Envi r onment al Conser vat i on Law. The st at ed pur poses of t he OGSML ar e f our f ol d: ( i ) " t o r egul at e t he devel opment , pr oduct i on and ut i l i zat i on of nat ur al r esour ces of oi l and gas i n t hi s st at e i n such a manner as wi l l pr event wast e" ; ( i i ) " t o aut hor i ze and t o pr ovi de f or t he oper at i on and devel opment of oi l and gas pr oper t i es i n such a manner t hat a gr eat er ul t i mat e r ecover y of oi l and gas may be had" ; ( i i i ) t o pr ot ect t he " cor r el at i ve r i ght s of al l owner s and t he r i ght s of al l per sons i ncl udi ng l andowner s and t he gener al publ i c" ; and ( i v) t o r egul at e " t he under gr ound st or age of gas, t he sol ut i on mi ni ng of sal t and geot her mal , st r at i gr aphi c and br i ne di sposal wel l s" ( ECL 23- 0301) . I n f ur t her ance of t hese goal s, t he OGSML set s f or t h a det ai l ed r egi me under whi ch t he New Yor k St at e Depar t ment of Envi r onment al Conser vat i on i s ent r ust ed t o r egul at e oi l , gas and sol ut i on mi ni ng act i vi t i es and t o pr omul gat e and enf or ce - 18 - - 19 - Nos. 130 & 131 appr opr i at e r ul es. I n par t i cul ar , t he Depar t ment i s empower ed t o " [ r ] equi r e t he dr i l l i ng, casi ng, oper at i on, pl uggi ng and r epl uggi ng of wel l s and r ecl amat i on of sur r oundi ng l and i n accor dance wi t h t he r ul es and r egul at i ons of t he depar t ment " ( ECL 23- 0305 [ 8] [ d] ) ; ent er and pl ug or r epl ug abandoned wel l s when t he owner has vi ol at ed Depar t ment r egul at i ons ( ECL 23- 0305 [ 8] [ e] ) ; compel oper at or s t o f ur ni sh t he Depar t ment wi t h a bond t o ensur e compl i ance ( ECL 23- 0305 [ 8] [ k] ) ; or der t he i mmedi at e suspensi on of dr i l l i ng oper at i ons t hat ar e i n vi ol at i on of Depar t ment r egul at i ons ( ECL 23- 0305 [ 8] [ g] ) ; r equi r e oper at or s t o f i l e wel l l ogs and sampl es wi t h t he Depar t ment ( ECL 23- 0305 [ 8] [ i ] ) ; gr ant wel l per mi t s f or oi l and gas dr i l l i ng ( ECL 23- 0501) ; i ssue or der s gover ni ng t he appr opr i at e spaci ng bet ween oi l and gas wel l s t o pr omot e ef f i ci ent dr i l l i ng and pr event wast e ( ECL 23- 0503) ; over see t he i nt egr at i on of oi l and gas f i el ds t o pr event wast e ( ECL 23- 0701, 23- 0901) ; execut e l eases on behal f of t he St at e f or oi l and gas expl or at i on and pr oduct i on ( ECL 23- 1101) ; and i ssue per mi t s f or under gr ound st or age r eser voi r s ( ECL 23- 1301) . Based on t hese pr ovi si ons, i t i s r eadi l y appar ent t hat t he OGSML i s concer ned wi t h t he Depar t ment ' s r egul at i on and aut hor i t y r egar di ng t he saf et y, t echni cal and oper at i onal aspect s of oi l and gas act i vi t i es acr oss t he St at e. The super sessi on cl ause i n ECL 23- 0303 ( 2) f i t s comf or t abl y wi t hi n t hi s l egi sl at i ve f r amewor k si nce i t i nval i dat es l ocal l aws t hat woul d - 19 - - 20 - Nos. 130 & 131 i nt r ude on t he Depar t ment ' s r egul at or y over si ght of t he i ndust r y' s oper at i ons, t her eby ensur i ng uni f or mexpl or at or y and ext r act i on pr ocesses r el at ed t o oi l and gas pr oduct i on. Si mi l ar t o t he scope of t he MLRL i n Fr ew Run, we per cei ve not hi ng i n t he var i ous pr ovi si ons of t he OGSML i ndi cat i ng t hat t he super sessi on cl ause was meant t o be br oader t han r equi r ed t o pr eempt conf l i ct i ng l ocal l aws di r ect ed at t he t echni cal oper at i ons of t he i ndust r y. And cont r ar y t o t he posi t i on advanced by Nor se and CHC, we see no i nconsi st ency bet ween t he pr eser vat i on of l ocal zoni ng aut hor i t y and t he OGSML' s pol i ci es of pr event i ng " wast e" and pr omot i ng a " gr eat er ul t i mat e r ecover y of oi l and gas" ( ECL 23- 0301) , or t he st at ut e' s spaci ng pr ovi si ons f or wel l s ( see ECL 23- 0501, 23- 0503) . Wast e i s used as a t er mof ar t i n t he OGSML meani ng, among ot her t hi ngs, t he " i nef f i ci ent , excessi ve or i mpr oper use of , or t he unnecessar y di ssi pat i on of r eser voi r ener gy" and t he " l ocat i ng, spaci ng, dr i l l i ng, equi ppi ng, oper at i ng, or pr oduci ng of any oi l or gas wel l or wel l s i n a manner whi ch causes or t ends t o cause r educt i on i n t he quant i t y of oi l or gas ul t i mat el y r ecover abl e" ( ECL 23- 0101 [ 20] [ b] , [ c] ) . The OGSML' s over r i di ng concer n wi t h pr event i ng wast e i s l i mi t ed t o i nef f i ci ent or i mpr oper dr i l l i ng act i vi t i es t hat r esul t i n t he unnecessar y wast e of nat ur al r esour ces. Not hi ng i n t he st at ut e poi nt s t o t he concl usi on t hat a muni ci pal i t y' s deci si on not t o per mi t dr i l l i ng equat es t o wast e. The OGSML' s - 20 - - 21 - Nos. 130 & 131 r el at ed goal of ensur i ng a " gr eat er ul t i mat e r ecover y" and i t s wel l - spaci ng pr ovi si ons - - desi gned t o l i mi t t he number of wel l s t hat may be dr i l l ed i nt o an under gr ound pool of oi l or gas - - ar e l i kewi se di r ect l y r el at ed t o t he concept of wast e pr event i on and do not compel a di f f er ent r esul t . As t he Appel l at e Di vi si on bel ow apt l y obser ved i n t he Dr yden case: " t he wel l - spaci ng pr ovi si ons of t he OGSML concer n t echni cal , oper at i onal aspect s of dr i l l i ng and ar e separ at e and di st i nct f r oma muni ci pal i t y' s zoni ng aut hor i t y, such t hat t he t wo do not conf l i ct , but r at her , may har moni ousl y coexi st ; t he zoni ng l aw wi l l di ct at e i n whi ch, i f any, di st r i ct s dr i l l i ng may occur , whi l e t he OGSML i nst r uct s oper at or s as t o t he pr oper spaci ng of t he uni t s wi t hi n t hose di st r i ct s i n or der t o pr event wast e" ( 108 AD3d at 37) . Consequent l y, our i nt er pr et at i on of t he OGSML' s super sessi on cl ause i s consi st ent wi t h t he over ar chi ng st at ut or y st r uct ur e. 5 ( 3) Legi sl at i ve Hi st or y The t hi r d and f i nal f act or f or r evi ew i n deci di ng whet her t he super sessi on cl ause pr eempt s l ocal zoni ng power s 5 Nor se and CHC al so cl ai mt hat t he OGSML' s pol i cy of pr ot ect i ng cor r el at i ve r i ght s ( see ECL 23- 0301) mi l i t at es i n f avor of a br oader r eadi ng of t he super sessi on cl ause. But t he concept of cor r el at i ve r i ght s - - under whi ch " each l andowner i s ent i t l ed t o be compensat ed f or t he pr oduct i on of t he oi l or gas l ocat ed i n t he pool beneat h hi s or her pr oper t y r egar dl ess of t he l ocat i on of t he wel l t hat ef f ect s i t s r emoval " - - i s not synonymous wi t h t he r i ght t o dr i l l ( Mat t er of West er n Land Ser vs. , I nc. v Depar t ment of Envt l . Conser vat i on of St at e of N. Y. , 26 AD3d 15, 17 [ 3d Dept 2005] ) . Mor eover , our r eadi ng of t he super sessi on cl ause i s i n accor d wi t h ECL 23- 0301' s st at ed pur pose of ensur i ng t he r i ght s of t he " gener al publ i c. " - 21 - - 22 - Nos. 130 & 131 r equi r es t hat we exami ne t he OGSML' s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y. The r oot s of t he OGSML ext end back t o t he I nt er st at e Compact t o Conser ve Oi l and Gas, a mul t i - st at e agr eement cr eat ed i n 1935 and sanct i oned by Congr ess t o addr ess t he nat i onal pr obl emof over pr oduct i on of oi l and gas pool s and t he r esul t i ng wast e caused by unchecked, unspaced and i nef f i ci ent dr i l l i ng. I n 1941, New Yor k j oi ned t he I nt er st at e Compact , whose sol e pur pose was " t o conser ve oi l and gas by t he pr event i on of physi cal wast e t her eof f r omany cause" ( ECL 23- 2101 [ codi f i cat i on of t he I nt er st at e Compact ] ) . Mor e t han 20 year s l at er , i n conj unct i on wi t h New Yor k' s par t i ci pat i on i n t he I nt er st at e Compact , t he St at e Legi sl at ur e enact ed a compr ehensi ve st at ut or y f r amewor k f or pr omot i ng t he conser vat i on of oi l and gas r esour ces - - t he f or er unner t o t he OGSML - - i n sect i on 70 et seq. of t he f or mer Conser vat i on Law ( L 1963, ch 959) . As or i gi nal l y enact ed, t he st at ut e' s st at ed pol i cy was, i n par t , " t o f ost er , encour age and pr omot e t he devel opment , pr oduct i on and ut i l i zat i on of nat ur al r esour ces of oi l and gas i n t hi s st at e i n such a manner as wi l l pr event wast e" ( f or mer Conser vat i on Law 70) . 6 I n 1978, t he St at e Legi sl at ur e amended t he OGSML t o 6 I n 1972, t he r el evant por t i ons of t he Conser vat i on Law wer e r epl aced wi t h t he Envi r onment al Conser vat i on Law, and sect i on 70 et seq. of t he Conser vat i on Law was r ecodi f i ed at sect i on 23- 0101 et seq. of t he Envi r onment al Conser vat i on Law ( L 1972, ch 664, 2) . A year l at er , t he st at ut or y r egi me was denomi nat ed t he OGSML by t he Legi sl at ur e ( L 1973, ch 922, 2; see al so ECL 23- 0102) . - 22 - - 23 - Nos. 130 & 131 modi f y i t s pol i cy by r epl aci ng t he phr ase " t o f ost er , encour age and pr omot e t he devel opment , pr oduct i on and ut i l i zat i on of nat ur al r esour ces of oi l and gas i n t hi s st at e i n such a manner as wi l l pr event wast e" wi t h " t o r egul at e t he devel opment , pr oduct i on and ut i l i zat i on of nat ur al r esour ces of oi l and gas i n t hi s st at e i n such a manner as wi l l pr event wast e" ( ECL 23- 0301, as amended by L 1978, ch 396, 1 [ emphasi s added] ) . The l egi sl at i on al so t r ansf er r ed t he t ask of encour agi ng and pr omot i ng t he pr udent devel opment of New Yor k' s ener gy r esour ces t o t he Ener gy Law ( see Ener gy Law 3- 101, as amended by L 1978, ch 396, 2) f or t he pur pose of est abl i shi ng " t he Ener gy Of f i ce as t he St at e agency pr i mar i l y r esponsi bl e f or pr omot i ng t he devel opment of ener gy r esour ces" and r emovi ng " such pr omot i onal r esponsi bi l i t i es f r omt he Depar t ment of Envi r onment al Conser vat i on whi ch woul d, however , r et ai n r egul at or y r esponsi bi l i t i es over such r esour ces" ( Gover nor ' s Pr ogr amBi l l Mem, Bi l l J acket , L 1978, ch 396) . Subsequent l y, t he super sessi on cl ause at i ssue was adopt ed by t he St at e Legi sl at ur e i n 1981 i n conj unct i on wi t h amendment s t o var i ous st at ut es such as t he Fi nance Law, t he ECL and t he Real Pr oper t y Tax Law ( L 1981, ch 846) . The 1981 amendment s al so i mposed new dr i l l i ng f ees ( see ECL 23- 1903, as added by L 1981, ch 846, 14) , cr eat ed monet ar y sanct i ons f or vi ol at i ons of t he OGSML ( see ECL 71- 1307, as added by L 1981, ch 846, 17) , and set up an oi l and gas f und. The l egi sl at i ve - 23 - - 24 - Nos. 130 & 131 hi st or y r ef l ect s t hat , pr i or t o t he amendment s, t he Depar t ment of Envi r onment al Conser vat i on had been unabl e " t o ef f ect i vel y r egul at e and ser vi ce t he i ndust r y" because r ecent gr owt h i n dr i l l i ng had exceeded t he Depar t ment ' s capabi l i t i es ( Sponsor ' s Mem, Bi l l J acket , L 1981, ch 846) . Expl ai ni ng t hat t he Depar t ment was f i ndi ng i t di f f i cul t t o f ul f i l l i t s " r egul at or y r esponsi bi l i t i es" under i t s exi st i ng f undi ng and power s, Gover nor Hugh Car ey conf i r med t hat t he amendment s wer e needed t o pr ovi de t he Depar t ment wi t h t he moni es r equi r ed t o i mpl ement i t s " updat ed r egul at or y pr ogr ams" as wel l as " addi t i onal enf or cement power s necessar y t o enabl e i t t o pr ovi de f or t he ef f i ci ent , equi t abl e and envi r onment al l y saf e devel opment of t he St at e' s oi l and gas r esour ces" ( Gover nor ' s Appr oval Mem, Bi l l J acket , L 1981, ch 846) . The l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, however , sheds no addi t i onal l i ght on t he super sessi on cl ause, r ef er enci ng i t onl y once wi t h no el abor at i on ( see Budget Repor t on Bi l l s, Bi l l J acket , L 1981, ch 846 [ " The exi st i ng and amended oi l and gas l aw woul d super sede al l l ocal l aws or or di nances r egul at i ng t he oi l , gas, and sol ut i on mi ni ng i ndust r i es. " ] ) . Not hi ng i n t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y under mi nes our vi ew t hat t he super sessi on cl ause does not i nt er f er e wi t h l ocal zoni ng l aws r egul at i ng t he per mi ssi bl e and pr ohi bi t ed uses of muni ci pal l and. I ndeed, t he per t i nent passages make no ment i on of zoni ng at al l , much l ess evi nce an i nt ent t o t ake away l ocal l and use power s. Rat her , t he hi st or y of t he OGSML and i t s pr edecessor - 24 - - 25 - Nos. 130 & 131 makes cl ear t hat t he St at e Legi sl at ur e' s pr i mar y concer n was wi t h pr event i ng wast ef ul oi l and gas pr act i ces and ensur i ng t hat t he Depar t ment had t he means t o r egul at e t he t echni cal oper at i ons of t he i ndust r y. I n sum, appl i cat i on of t he t hr ee Fr ew Run f act or s - - t he pl ai n l anguage, st at ut or y scheme and l egi sl at i ve hi st or y - - t o t hese appeal s l eads us t o concl ude t hat t he Towns appr opr i at el y act ed wi t hi n t hei r home r ul e aut hor i t y i n adopt i ng t he chal l enged zoni ng l aws. We can f i nd no l egi sl at i ve i nt ent , much l ess a r equi si t e " cl ear expr essi on, " r equi r i ng t he pr eempt i on of l ocal l and use r egul at i ons. I I I . As a f al l back posi t i on, Nor se and CHC suggest t hat , even i f t he OGSML' s super sessi on cl ause does not pr eempt al l l ocal zoni ng l aws, i t shoul d be i nt er pr et ed as pr eempt i ng zoni ng or di nances, l i ke t he t wo her e, t hat compl et el y pr ohi bi t hydr of r acki ng. I n t hei r vi ew, suppor t ed by t he di ssent , i t may be val i d t o r est r i ct oi l and gas oper at i ons f r omcer t ai n r esi dent i al ar eas of a t own - - much l i ke t he zoni ng l aw i n Fr ew Run - - but an out r i ght ban goes t oo f ar and cannot be seen as anyt hi ng but a l ocal l aw t hat r egul at es t he oi l and gas i ndust r y, t her eby r unni ng af oul of t he super sessi on cl ause. But t hi s cont ent i on i s f or ecl osed by Mat t er of Ger nat t Asphal t Pr ods. v Town of Sar di ni a ( 87 NY2d 668 [ 1996] ) , our deci si on f ol l owi ng Fr ew Run. - 25 - - 26 - Nos. 130 & 131 I n Ger nat t - - deci ded af t er t he Legi sl at ur e had codi f i ed Fr ew Run' s hol di ng i n an amendment t o t he MLRL' s super sessi on cl ause - - t he Town of Sar di ni a amended i t s zoni ng or di nance t o el i mi nat e al l mi ni ng as a per mi t t ed use t hr oughout t he t own. A mi ni ng company chal l enged t he zoni ng l aw under t he MLRL' s super sessi on cl ause and, i n an ar gument mi r r or i ng t he one advanced by Nor se and CHC, asser t ed t hat Fr ew Run l ef t " muni ci pal i t i es wi t h t he l i mi t ed aut hor i t y t o det er mi ne i n whi ch zoni ng di st r i ct s mi ni ng may be conduct ed but not t he aut hor i t y t o pr ohi bi t mi ni ng i n al l zoni ng di st r i ct s" ( Ger nat t , 87 NY2d at 681 [ emphasi s i n or i gi nal ] ) . We squar el y r ej ect ed t hi s cr amped r eadi ng of Fr ew Run, r ei t er at i ng t hat " zoni ng or di nances ar e not t he t ype of r egul at or y pr ovi si on t he Legi sl at ur e f or esaw as pr eempt ed by t he Mi ned Land Recl amat i on Law; t he di st i nct i on i s bet ween or di nances t hat r egul at e pr oper t y uses and or di nances t hat r egul at e mi ni ng act i vi t i es" ( i d. at 681- 682 [ emphasi s omi t t ed] ) . We hel d t hat not hi ng i n Fr ew Run or t he MLRL obl i gat ed a t own t hat " cont ai ns ext r act abl e mi ner al s . . . t o per mi t t hemt o be mi ned somewher e wi t hi n t he muni ci pal i t y" ( i d. at 683) . Put di f f er ent l y, i n a passage t hat has par t i cul ar r esonance her e, we expl ai ned: " A muni ci pal i t y i s not obl i ged t o per mi t t he expl oi t at i on of any and al l nat ur al r esour ces wi t hi n t he t own as a per mi t t ed use i f l i mi t i ng t hat use i s a r easonabl e exer ci se of i t s pol i ce power s t o pr event damage t o t he r i ght s of ot her s and t o pr omot e t he i nt er est s of t he communi t y as a whol e" ( i d. at 684) . - 26 - - 27 - Nos. 130 & 131 Mani f est l y, Dr yden and Mi ddl ef i el d engaged i n a r easonabl e exer ci se of t hei r zoni ng aut hor i t y as cont empl at ed i n Ger nat t when t hey adopt ed l ocal l aws cl ar i f yi ng t hat oi l and gas ext r act i on and pr oduct i on wer e not per mi ssi bl e uses i n any zoni ng di st r i ct s. The Towns bot h st udi ed t he i ssue and act ed wi t hi n t hei r home r ul e power s i n det er mi ni ng t hat gas dr i l l i ng woul d per manent l y al t er and adver sel y af f ect t he del i ber at el y- cul t i vat ed, smal l - t own char act er of t hei r communi t i es. And cont r ar y t o t he di ssent ' s post ur e, t her e i s no meani ngf ul di st i nct i on bet ween t he zoni ng or di nance we uphel d i n Ger nat t , whi ch " el i mi nat e[ d] mi ni ng as a per mi t t ed use" i n Sar di ni a ( i d. at 683) , and t he zoni ng l aws her e cl assi f yi ng oi l and gas dr i l l i ng as pr ohi bi t ed l and uses i n Dr yden and Mi ddl ef i el d. Hence, Nor se' s and CHC' s posi t i on t hat t he t own- wi de nat ur e of t he hydr of r acki ng bans r ender ed t hemunl awf ul i s wi t hout mer i t , as ar e t hei r r emai ni ng cont ent i ons. I V. At t he hear t of t hese cases l i es t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he St at e and i t s l ocal gover nment subdi vi si ons, and t hei r r espect i ve exer ci se of l egi sl at i ve power . These appeal s ar e not about whet her hydr of r acki ng i s benef i ci al or det r i ment al t o t he economy, envi r onment or ener gy needs of New Yor k, and we pass no j udgment on i t s mer i t s. These ar e maj or pol i cy quest i ons f or t he coor di nat e br anches of gover nment t o r esol ve. The di scr et e i ssue bef or e us, and t he onl y one we r esol ve t oday, i s - 27 - - 28 - Nos. 130 & 131 whet her t he St at e Legi sl at ur e el i mi nat ed t he home r ul e capaci t y of muni ci pal i t i es t o pass zoni ng l aws t hat excl ude oi l , gas and hydr of r acki ng act i vi t i es i n or der t o pr eser ve t he exi st i ng char act er of t hei r communi t i es. Ther e i s no di sput e t hat t he St at e Legi sl at ur e has t hi s r i ght i f i t chooses t o exer ci se i t . But i n l i ght of ECL 23- 0303 ( 2) ' s pl ai n l anguage, i t s pl ace wi t hi n t he OGSML' s f r amewor k and t he l egi sl at i ve backgr ound, we cannot say t hat t he super sessi on cl ause - - added l ong bef or e t he cur r ent debat e over hi gh- vol ume hydr of r acki ng and hor i zont al dr i l l i ng i gni t ed - - evi nces a cl ear expr essi on of pr eempt i ve i nt ent . The zoni ng l aws of Dr yden and Mi ddl ef i el d ar e t her ef or e val i d. * * * Accor di ngl y, i n each case, t he or der of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on shoul d be af f i r med, wi t h cost s. - 28 - Mat t er of Wal l ach, et c. v Town of Dr yden, et al . Cooper st own Hol st ei n Cor por at i on v Town of Mi ddl ef i el d No. 130 & 131 - EFP - J une 24, 2014 - DOWN PI GOTT, J . ( di ssent i ng) : Envi r onment al Conser vat i on Law 23- 0303 ( 2) st at es t hat " [ t ] he pr ovi si ons of t hi s ar t i cl e shal l super sede al l l ocal l aws or or di nances r el at i ng t o t he r egul at i on of t he oi l , gas and sol ut i on mi ni ng i ndust r i es; but shal l not super sede l ocal gover nment j ur i sdi ct i on over l ocal r oads or t he r i ght s of l ocal gover nment s under t he r eal pr oper t y t ax l aw" ( emphasi s suppl i ed) . Muni ci pal i t i es may wi t hout a doubt r egul at e l and use t hr ough enact ment of zoni ng l aws, but , i n my vi ew, t he par t i cul ar zoni ng or di nances i n t hese cases r el at e t o t he r egul at i on of t he oi l , gas and sol ut i on mi ni ng i ndust r i es and t her ef or e encr oach upon t he Depar t ment of Envi r onment al Conser vat i on' s r egul at or y aut hor i t y. For t hi s r eason, I r espect f ul l y di ssent . The zoni ng or di nances of Dr yden and Mi ddl ef i el d do mor e t hat j ust r egul at e l and use, t hey r egul at e oi l , gas and sol ut i on mi ni ng i ndust r i es under t he pr et ext of zoni ng ( see Zoni ng Or di nance of t he Town of Dr yden 2104 [ 1] [ Pr ohi bi t ed Uses: ( 1) Pr ohi bi t i on agai nst t he Expl or at i on f or or Ext r act i on of Nat ur al Gas and/ or Pet r ol eum] and Zoni ng Or di nance of t he Town of Mi ddl ef i el d, Ar t i cl e I I [ B] [ 7] and Ar t i cl e V [ a] [ " Pr ohi bi t ed Uses: Heavy i ndust r y and al l oi l , gas or sol ut i on mi ni ng and - 1 - - 2 - No. 130 & 131 dr i l l i ng ar e pr ohi bi t ed uses" ] ) . I n Mat t er of Fr ew Run Gr avel Pr ods. v Town of Car r ol l ( 71 NY2d 126 [ 1987] ) - - a case i nvol vi ng a super sessi on cl ause cont ai ned i n t he Mi ned Land Recl amat i on Law ( " MLRL" ) ( see f or mer ECL 23- 2703 [ 2] ) 1 - - we made cl ear t hat t her e i s a di st i nct i on bet ween zoni ng or di nances t hat r egul at e l and use and l ocal or di nances t hat r egul at e t he mi ni ng i ndust r y. The f or mer , whi ch i nvol ve t he di vi si on of t he muni ci pal i t y i nt o zones and t he est abl i shment of per mi t t ed uses wi t hi n t hose zones, r el at e not t o t he ext r act i ve mi ni ng i ndust r y, but r at her , t o t he r egul at i on of l and use gener al l y ( see Fr ew Run, 71 NY2d at 131) . The or di nances her e, however , do mor e t han j ust " r egul at e l and use gener al l y" ( i d. ) , t hey pur por t t o r egul at e t he oi l , gas and sol ut i on mi ni ng act i vi t i es wi t hi n t he r espect i ve t owns, cr eat i ng a bl anket ban on an ent i r e i ndust r y wi t hout speci f yi ng t he zones wher e such uses ar e pr ohi bi t ed. I n l i ght of t he l anguage of t he zoni ng or di nances at i ssue - - whi ch go i nt o gr eat det ai l concer ni ng t he pr ohi bi t i ons agai nst t he st or age of gas, pet r ol eumexpl or at i on and pr oduct i on mat er i al s and equi pment i n t he r espect i ve t owns - - i t i s evi dent t hat t hey go above and beyond zoni ng and, i nst ead, r egul at e t hose i ndust r i es, whi ch i s 1 Thi s st at ut e pr ovi ded t hat t he MLRL " shal l super sede al l st at e and l ocal l aws r el at i ng t o t he ext r act i ve mi ni ng i ndust r y, pr ovi ded, however , t hat not hi ng i n t hi s t i t l e shal l be const r ued t o pr event any l ocal gover nment f r omenact i ng l ocal or di nances or ot her l ocal l aws whi ch i mpose st r i ct er mi ned l and r ecl amat i on st andar ds or r equi r ement s t hat t hose f ound her ei n. " - 2 - - 3 - No. 130 & 131 excl usi vel y wi t hi n t he pur vi ew of t he Depar t ment of Envi r onment al Conser vat i on. I n t hi s f ashi on, pr ohi bi t i on of cer t ai n act i vi t i es i s, i n ef f ect , r egul at i on. Unl i ke t he si t uat i on i n Mat t er of Ger nat t Asphal t Pr ods. v Town of Sar di ni a ( 87 NY2d 668 [ 1996] ) - - whi ch i nvol ved a zoni ng or di nance t hat el i mi nat ed mi ni ng as a per mi t t ed use i n al l di st r i ct s - - t he or di nances i n t hese appeal s do mor e t han j ust del i neat e pr ohi bi t ed uses. Wher e zoni ng or di nances encr oach upon t he DEC' s r egul at or y aut hor i t y and ext end beyond t he muni ci pal i t y' s power t o r egul at e l and use gener al l y, t he or di nances have r un af oul of ECL 23- 0303 ( 2) . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * For Each Case: Or der af f i r med, wi t h cost s. Opi ni on by J udge Gr af f eo. Chi ef J udge Li ppman and J udges Read, Ri ver a and Abdus- Sal aamconcur . J udge Pi got t di ssent s i n an opi ni on i n whi ch J udge Smi t h concur s. Deci ded J une 30, 2014 - 3 -