Wayne Land & Mineral Grp. LLC v. Del. River Basin Comm'n
894 F.3d 509
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- The Delaware River Basin Compact (1961) created the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and authorizes the Commission to review any "project" that will have a "substantial effect on the water resources" of the Basin; the Compact defines "project," "facility," and "water resources."
- DRBC staff issued moratoria (2009, 2010) asserting that well pads, exploratory wells, hydraulic fracturing, and related activities in certain Basin areas require prior Commission approval; no final fracking regulations have been adopted.
- Wayne Land & Mineral Group owns acreage partly within the Basin and seeks to build a well pad, drill exploratory wells, and (if viable) hydraulically fracture for gas; Wayne sued for a declaratory judgment that its proposed activities are not a "project" under §3.8 of the Compact.
- The District Court found jurisdiction (ripeness and standing) but dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding the Compact unambiguously treats Wayne’s proposed fracking-related activities as a "project." Wayne appealed.
- The Third Circuit held jurisdiction was proper (ripeness, standing); but found the Compact’s use of "project" ambiguous and vacated the dismissal, remanding for fact-finding on the drafters’ intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness | Wayne: pre-enforcement declaratory relief is ripe because DRBC moratorium and possible fines create concrete hardship and the dispute is primarily legal | DRBC: Wayne should seek an administrative jurisdictional determination first; suit is premature | Third Circuit: Claim is ripe — adversity, conclusiveness, and utility favor judicial review |
| Standing | Wayne: moratorium and asserted jurisdiction caused economic injury and regulatory burden | DRBC: alleged injury speculative until administrative action | Held: Wayne has Article III standing (concrete injury, causation, redressability) |
| Final agency action / exhaustion | Wayne: this is a Compact-contract interpretation; final-agency/action-exhaustion doctrines do not bar declaratory relief | DRBC: no final determination; Wayne must exhaust administrative remedies and wait for DRBC action | Held: APA finality/exhaustion not dispositive here; court may decide Compact interpretation now |
| Merits — meaning of "project" under Compact §3.8 | Wayne: "project" requires undertaking FOR the conservation/utilization/management of water resources — fracking uses water incidentally to capture gas and thus is not a "project" | DRBC: fracking deliberately uses and affects water (consumption, withdrawal, storage, wastewater) and cumulative effects justify treating fracking as a "project" | Held: Term "project" is ambiguous on the record; dismissal on the merits was premature — remand for fact-finding on drafters' intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Marathon Petroleum Corp. v. Sec'y of Fin. for Del., 876 F.3d 481 (3d Cir.) (ripeness factors for declaratory relief)
- Surrick v. Killion, 449 F.3d 520 (3d Cir. 2006) (ripeness/adversity inquiry)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1967) (ripeness fitness/hardship framework)
- Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. 614 (U.S. 2013) (interstate compacts construed as contracts; look to drafters' intent)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (Article III standing elements)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (final agency action test under APA)
- Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 324 F.3d 726 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (pre-enforcement declaratory-judgment ripeness analysis)
- Tracinda Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler AG, 502 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2007) (contract-interpretation standards: ambiguity -> factfinder)