United States: Ohio Supreme Court Strikes Down A Municipality's Efforts To Regulate Oil And Gas Production

Last Updated: March 6 2015
Article by Michael R. Gladman, David A. Kutik, Roy A. Powell and Jeffery D. Ubersax
Most Read Contributor in United States, September 2019

The rise of oil and gas production in the Utica and Marcellus shale plays, encouraged by state policies, has led many municipalities to seek to exert some control over oil and gas drilling within their borders. In the past two years, the highest courts in Pennsylvania and New York have sided with municipalities and have upheld municipal zoning ordinances against challenges that such ordinances were preempted by state regulation.

The Ohio Supreme Court has weighed into this controversy, striking down a municipality's zoning and oil and gas ordinances on preemption grounds. The case produced five opinions, including a lead opinion signed by only three justices and concurred in by another. Because of the breadth of the ordinance at issue and the limited holding by the majority of justices, the Ohio court's decision leaves open the possibility that more traditional zoning approaches limiting drilling could be upheld. 

In State ex rel.Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp., Slip Op. No. 2015-Ohio-485 (Feb. 17, 2015)

On February 17, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in In State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp,1 holding that several municipal ordinances were preempted by Ohio's oil and gas wells and production operations statute, Chapter 1509 of the Ohio Revised Code. The decision was split, with four of seven justices in favor of striking the ordinances. Three justices joined in the lead opinion. The concurring opinion agreed with the result because the ordinances at issue set up a parallel licensing and permitting scheme that conflicted with the licensing and permitting scheme set forth in Chapter 1509. Notably, however, the concurring justice, drawing on recent decisions in New York and Pennsylvania, appeared to favor allowing municipal ordinances reflecting traditional zoning concerns that would indirectly prohibit oil and gas drilling. Thus, the Beck decision leaves open the possibility that municipal zoning ordinances that have the effect of prohibiting oil and gas drilling could be upheld. 

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

Beck Energy Corporation ("Beck Energy"), an Ohio oil and gas driller, entered into a lease agreement with a landowner who owned several acres of property within the corporate limits of the City of Munroe Falls (the "City").2 Pursuant to that agreement, Beck Energy acquired the right to produce any natural gas under the landowner's property.3 In 2011, Beck Energy obtained a permit from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources ("ODNR") to begin drilling operations.4 The permit was issued pursuant to Section 1509.02 of the Ohio Revised Code.5 

Amended in 2004 to provide "uniform statewide regulation"6 of oil and gas well operations, Section 1509.02 provides that the ODNR "has sole and exclusive authority to regulate the permitting, location, and spacing of oil and gas wells and production operations within the state...with respect to all aspects of the locating, drilling, well stimulation, completing, and operating of oil and gas wells within this state..."7 Further, "Nothing in this section affects the authority granted to...local authorities in section 723.01 or 4513.34 of the Revised Code, provided that the authority granted under those sections shall not be exercised in a manner that discriminates against, unfairly impedes, or obstructs oil and gas activities and operations regulated under this chapter."8 

After Beck Energy began surface activities related to drilling, the City served Beck Energy with a stop-work order and filed a complaint for injunctive relief.9 The complaint alleged that Beck Energy violated several municipal ordinances related to oil and gas drilling and zoning. The oil and gas ordinances established a local permitting process, including a public hearing requirement, with fines and penalties attached for failure to comply.10 The zoning ordinances required the issuance of general and conditional use zoning certificates prior to the commencement of drilling and incorporated the permitting process set forth in the oil and gas ordinances.11 On May 3, 2011, the trial court granted the City's request for injunctive relief until Beck Energy complied with the City's ordinances.12 On appeal, the appellate court reversed and held that the ordinances at issue could not be enforced because they were "in direct conflict" with Section 1509.02.13 

Lead Opinion 

In its lead opinion written by Justice Judith French and joined by two other justices, the Court held that the Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution did not grant the City the power to enforce the ordinances under review. The Home Rule Amendment provides that "Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws."14 Ordinances in conflict with a state law, however, are preempted. Specifically, a "municipal ordinance must yield to a state statute if (1) the ordinance is an exercise of the police power, rather than of local self-government, (2) the statute is a general law, and (3) the ordinance is in conflict with the statute."15 

The lead opinion observed that the ordinances constituted an "exercise of police power," stating that the "[ordinances] prohibit—even criminalize—the act of drilling for oil and gas without a municipal permit."16 The lead opinion also stated that Section 1509.02 was a general law that operated uniformly throughout the State because it "imposes the same obligations and grants the same privileges to anyone seeking to engage in oil and gas drilling" anywhere in Ohio.17

Justice French reasoned that the ordinances conflicted with Section 1509.02 in two ways. First, the ordinances prohibited what the statute permitted: "state-licensed oil and gas production within Munroe Falls."18 She said: "This is a classic licensing conflict under our home-rule precedent. We have consistently held that a municipal-licensing ordinance conflicts with a state licensing ordinance if the 'local ordinance restricts an activity which a state license permits'."19 

Second, the lead opinion observed that the ordinances conflicted with Section 1509.02 because the language of the statute demonstrated that "the General Assembly intended to preempt local regulation on the subject."20 The lead opinion noted that by designating ODNR as the "sole and exclusive authority to regulate the permitting, location and spacing of oil and gas wells" and by reserving to the State "all aspects" including "permitting" relating to the location, drilling and operation of oil and gas wells, the General Assembly intended to preempt any local regulation of the same.21 In concluding that such a "double licensing" scheme was impermissible, the lead opinion cautioned, however, that its review was "limited to the five municipal ordinances at issue in this case."22 

The City had argued that no conflict existed "because the statute and the ordinances regulate two different things," i.e., the ordinances supposedly addressed "traditional concerns of zoning" while the statute related to "technical safety and correlative rights topics."23 This argument drew on recent decisions in New York and Pennsylvania for support. In Wallach v. Dryden,24 the Court of Appeals of New York held that local zoning ordinances that in effect prohibited "all oil and gas exploration, extraction and storage activities" within a municipality's corporate limits were not preempted by New York's oil and gas statute.25 As that Court further held, New York's oil and gas statute preempted "only local laws that purport to regulate the actual operations of oil and gas activities, not zoning ordinances that restrict or prohibit certain land uses within town boundaries."26 The zoning ordinances at issue did not run afoul of this distinction because they were "directed at regulating land use generally and do not attempt to govern the details, procedures or operations of the oil and gas industries."27

Similarly, in Huntley & Huntley v. Borough of Oakmont28, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a local zoning ordinance which had the effect of restricting the site selection of oil and gas wells was not preempted by Pennsylvania's Oil and Gas Act.29 The Huntley court noted that the intent behind the ordinance was to promote "the safety and welfare of [the Borough's] citizens, encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the borough [and] conserving the value of property."30 The Huntley court also reasoned that while government interests regarding oil and gas development and land-use control may on occasion overlap, those interests are at base distinct.31 The state's interest in oil and gas development seeks to further the efficient use of natural resources while a municipality's interest in "land-use control ... is one of orderly development and use of land in a manner consistent with local demographic and environmental concerns."32 

Justice French derided the City's argument and the notion that zoning ordinances could survive a preemption challenge because they dealt with an area that was different than the subject addressed by oil and gas statutes and regulations. Specifically, she called this alleged distinction "fanciful":33 "The ordinances and R.C. 1509.02 unambiguously regulate the same subject matter—oil and gas drilling—and they conflict in doing so."34 

Concurring Opinion 

In a separate opinion concurring in the judgment only, Justice Terrence O'Donnell agreed that the City had created a "parallel municipal permitting process for oil and gas wells" that conflicted with Section 1509.02, a general law, whereby the City's oil and gas and zoning ordinances were preempted.35 The concurring opinion, however, emphasized "the limited scope of our decision,"36 i.e., to wit:

This appeal does not present the question whether R.C. 1509.02 conflicts with local land use ordinances that address only the traditional concerns of zoning laws, such as ensuring compatibility with local neighborhoods, preserving property values, or effectuating a municipality's long-term plan for development.37 [Further] "it remains to be decided whether the General Assembly intended to wholly supplant all local ordinances limiting land uses to certain zoning districts" that did not regulate the "details of oil and gas drilling expressly addressed" by Section 1509.02.38 

The concurring opinion noted that under Ohio law "municipalities have...authority to regulate land uses within zoning districts to promote the public health, safety convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare"39 and the zoning ordinances enjoy a "strong presumption ... of ... validity."40 Justice O'Donnell stated that while the statute vests ODNR with "sole and exclusive authority" regarding the location and spacing of oil and gas wells, the lead opinion purportedly ignores the fact that "'location' and 'spacing' have specialized, technical meanings in oil and gas law."41 "Scientific expertise" is thus required for the proper placement of oil and gas wells, thereby requiring special regulations directed to their location and spacing.42 "In contrast, that same scientific and regulatory expertise is not required to determine whether an oil and gas well is compatible with the character and aesthetics of a particular zoning district, such as a residential neighborhood, and we generally presume that zoning authorities are far more familiar with local conditions and therefore are better able to make land use decisions."43 

In contrast to the lead opinion, the concurring opinion relied on Dryden and Huntley to support the proposition that "Courts of last resort in other jurisdictions have declined to view preemptive language in oil and gas statutes that preclude all local regulation of oil and gas drilling as irreconcilable with local zoning laws."44 The concurring opinion further observed that the Ohio legislature enacted Chapter 1509 to "preempt the inconsistent patchwork of local health and safety regulations governing the technical aspects of drilling...."45 Unlike other Ohio statues which expressly preempt local zoning ordinances, such as laws dealing with hazardous waste facilities, casinos, or public utilities, Chapter 1509 does not do so. "Nothing in R.C. Chapter 1509 expressly addresses zoning or requires ODNR to regulate the location of oil and gas wells to ensure compatibility with local land use, preserve property values, effectuate a municipality's long-term plan for development, or uphold any of the other traditional goals of zoning."46 


Municipal ordinances that directly attempt to regulate the means or manner of oil and gas drilling are now not permitted in Ohio. Given the limited nature of the majority holding, however, Beck expressly leaves open the question of whether a zoning ordinance that bans or limits oil and gas drilling using more traditional zoning concepts would be permitted.


1 Slip Op. No. 2015-Ohio-485 (Feb. 17, 2015).

2 Appellees' Merit Br. at 2 (Oct. 23, 2013).

3 Id.

4 Beck Energy at 2, ¶3.

5 Id.

6 Id. citing Legislative Service Commission Bill Analysis, Sub H.B. No. 278 (2004).

7 R.C. 1509.02.

8 .Id. Section 723.01 grants municipalities "special power" to regulate public rights of way and Section 4513.34 vests municipalities with the authority to grant permits regarding the operation of heavy vehicles on local highways.

9 Beck Energy at 4, ¶7.

10 Id. at ¶9.

11 Id. at¶¶8; 37.

12 The State of Ohio ex. rel. Jack Morrison, Jr., Law Director of Munroe Falls, Ohio v. Beck Energy Corp., Case No. 2011-04-1897 at 3-4 (Summit Cty. C.P. May 3, 2011).

13 The State of Ohio ex. rel. Jack Morrison, Jr., Law Director of Munroe Falls, Ohio v. Beck Energy Corp., Case No. 25953 at 2 (Summit Cty. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2013).

14 Ohio Const., Article XVIII, Section 3.

15 Beck Energy at 6, ¶15, citing Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33, 2008-Ohio-270, ¶17.

16 Id. at ¶18.

17 Id. at 8, ¶23.

18 Id. at 9, ¶25.

19 ¶26 citing Ohio Assn. of Private Detective Agencies, Inc. v. N. Olmsted, 65 Ohio St.3d 242, 245 (1992); Anderson v. Brown, 13 Ohio St.2d 53, 58 (1968).

20 Id. at 11, ¶29 citing Westlake v. Mascot Petroleum Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 161, 164 (1991).

21 Id. at ¶¶29-30.

22 Id. at 12-13, ¶33.

23 Id. at 10, ¶28.

24 23 N.Y. 3d 728 (2014).

25 Id. at 739.

26 Id. at 746.

27 Id.

28 600 Pa. 207 (2009).

29 Id. at 217; 224.

30 Id. at 224.

31 Id.

32 Id. at 225. The Huntley court, however, affirmed the appellate court's holding that the Borough had improperly denied the driller a conditional use certificate. See id. at 226-230.

33 Id.

34 Id.

35 Id. at 13-14, ¶36.

36 Id. at 14, ¶38.

37 Id.

38 Id. at 15, ¶39.

39 Id. at ¶41.

40 Id. at 16, ¶42.

41 Id. at ¶43.

42 Id. at 17, ¶44.

43 Id.

44 Beck Energy at 17-18, ¶45.

45 Id. at 18, ¶46.

46 Id. at 19, ¶47.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions