Drilling case still pending
Bortz:?‘It might be ugly’By DEAN WELLS dwells@timesobserver.com
A decision regarding drilling in the Allegheny National Forest is still pending in U.S. District Court and a Warren County Commissioner sees no resolution in the very near future.
An evidentiary hearing was held in August in U.S. District Court in Erie before Judge Sean McLaughlin regarding a preliminary injunction filed by Minard Run Oil, Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association (POGAM), the Allegheny Forest Alliance and Warren County.
The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction against a settlement in a prior lawsuit that called for the U.S. Forest Service to agree to perform the appropriate level of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis before approving future oil and gas development projects on the National Forest.
Warren County joined the oil and gas interests in the lawsuit for an injunction, arguing that a moratorium on drilling will have a devastating impact on the local economy.
The defendants in the lawsuit are the Forest Service, the agency's local and national leaders, the Allegheny Defense Project, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics and the Sierra Club.
McLaughlin heard testimony for three days at the end of August from the defendants in favor of dismissing the suit and the plaintiffs arguing in favor of a preliminary injunction. McLaughlin concluded the hearing by giving attorneys 20 days after the official transcript was released to file post-hearing submissions.
Warren County Commissioners John Bortz speculated in October that McLaughlin would make his decision by the end of the month, but that never happened. Now, Bortz doesn't foresee a decision being handed down in 2009.
"We were supposed to hear something before the end of the year," Bortz said. "I personally don't expect to see anything before the end of January."
While trying to remain optimistic, Bortz said he doesn't see a happy ending for the plaintiffs. "I don't think it's going to be good," he said. "It might be ugly."
Bortz added, "While I'm an ardent supporter of capitalizing on our natural assets, I do not support drilling at any cost or irresponsible activity in the forest. Those guys who are being responsible and respecting the forest, I don't have any problem with that. Those guys who are saying, 'I'm going to get what's coming to me, I don't care what the Forest Service says,' I don't agree with that at all."
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
|
bowhunter
|
|
|---|---|
|
12-15-09 5:13 PM
|
Haha, Environmentalist, you're funny. You might want to wait until you read tomorrow's headlines before making any conclusions about the outcome of this lawsuit.
|
|
Environmentalist
|
|
|
12-11-09 12:38 PM
|
Well, for one, the Bradford Era is much more biased on the side of the oil producers than the WTO is. And Bradford is having a lot more trouble with "bad oil drillers" than the Warren area is, so the paper wants to "play down" the bad news for the oil producers. Don't it seem strange that John Bortz has some kind of "inside information" on the outcome of this lawsuit? Almost like he may have been "tipped off" before any official announcement has been made publicly? What's up with that?
|
|
garypayton
|
|
|
12-11-09 12:13 PM
|
A newspaper can edit any article. Perhaps the flippity-flop of a warren county commissioner isn't important to readers in another county. Maybe John Bortz should further clarify his position or, should I say, new postion on the issue. What is this lawsuit going to cost us anyway?
|
|
Milkman
|
|
|
12-11-09 8:41 AM
|
...gentlemen, this same article by Dean Wells is in today's (12/11) Bradford Era. However the last (and most significant) paragraph has been ommitted by the Era. Anyone care to speculate what that is all about?
|
|
fivealive
|
|
|
12-10-09 3:05 PM
|
Bortz was the front man on this lawsuit. Look back at the articles and his comments in the WTO. He was plenty happy to grandstand when it was going well. If he truly believed in the merits of the filing, why isn't he decrying the injustice now? His career maybe on a downward slide. Hmmm. I think I now understand why Dave Bauer has suddenly begun to rise from the ashes...
|
|
Riggle
|
|
|
12-10-09 2:27 PM
|
Actually, many county residents I know feel that the County had no business entering into this lawsuit. What would I have Bortz do? Stay out of this mess altogether. Like others, I just hope the citizens of Warren County don't end up paying legal fees for this. If my memory serves me, Enviro is correct. Bortz was the front person for Forest Service issues and the lawsuit, according to what was reported in the WTO. No comment on Bortz' political future.
|
|
Environmentalist
|
|
|
12-10-09 1:45 PM
|
Actually wasn't it Bortz who pushed the commissioners to join the lawsuit that really they had no business signing on to? And didn't he and those in the oil industry tell us they were going to WIN the suit? They were that confident just a few months ago. Now he seems resigned to the fact they may in fact loose the case. It is just another glaring example as to why he and others like him shouldn't be representing the people of Warren. I personally wouldn't trust him to change a lightbulb. We need working lights in the courthouse! Let's just hope the taxpayers of Warren don't end up paying court costs and legal fees of those who win the suit!
|
|
Deslock
|
|
|
12-10-09 1:05 PM
|
Riggle, I'm not defending Bortz. God knows, he's his own worst enemy. But your question is kind of ridiculous. Why do we let him speak for Warren County? Because he was elected warren County commissioner. That's HIS JOB. Like it or not, that's what those people are elected to do. What do you want him to do? Change light bulbs at the courthouse and lock the jail's doors at night? Seriously. It was a silly statement on your part.
|
|
garypayton
|
|
|
12-10-09 12:02 PM
|
John Bortz has no political career. He took care of that with his escapades with his lady friend(s). He may try to ride the Warren County GOP bandwagon to higher office, but that would be foolish. His closet of skeletons is deep and dark. He can't be trusted. My opinion.
|
|
Riggle
|
|
|
12-10-09 11:00 AM
|
Enviro--Worse yet--Bortz is speaking for Warren County, so Warren County residents are their own worst enemy. Why do we let him speak for all of us to benefit his political career? I ask you.
|
|
Environmentalist
|
|
|
12-10-09 9:01 AM
|
WTF are all you people talking about? The two sides of the argument are "the drillers or oil producers should follow all existing, reasonable laws VS they can't be bothered in any way, by any law, whatsoever". That is it in a nutshell. It's "do we apply reasonable environmental laws, or no laws at all". Why didn't the writer point out to MR Bortz that HIS SIDE IS SAYING "I'm going to get what's coming to me, I don't care what the Forest Service says". THAT is exactly what his side is saying by their lawsuit! THAT IS HIS SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT! THAT IS WHAT HIS LAWSUIT IS CONTENDING! WTF? People are fed up with what is happening to our natural resources and John Bortz once again is trying to pull off an amazing flip-flop. And like all his past attempts he will only fool his closest allies.
|
|
Riggle
|
|
|
12-10-09 8:40 AM
|
Dear John, Too late. It is already ugly, thanks (in part) to politicians like you.
|
|
fivealive
|
|
|
12-10-09 7:30 AM
|
Sounds like Bortz is back-peddling a bit. Previously he has been all for mineral owners' rights, with no quantifiers. He was enthusiastic about this lawsuit before...now that it looks a little less hopeful, he's a bit less enthusiastic.
|