FRACKING INJUNCTION

The main thing I’m trying to do with this is keep it as simple as possible –this is under one page, now– and not come off as “fracktivists.”  I don’t want to go to court as either pro- or anti-fracking, but simply as a large number of people who are erring on the side of caution.

I am hoping that this will end up as a “template” for further action.  The state has already declared that “every well is different,” so our approach will be to file this suit against one named well at a time, one county at a time, whenever a permitted well is being prepared for fracking.

One last thing –I’m looking for Tribal people to sign on to one set of lawsuits, non-Natives for another set.  The Tribal “template” (not posted here) will also contain references to the 2007 Inland Consent Decree and the Tribal/State Water Accord.

FRACKING INJUNCTION

Philip C. Bellfy, Article32.org, (your name here) v. Michigan DEQ

Our argument for an injunction is simple (and neither pro- nor anti- fracking):

1. As to the “chemical and metallic composition of the “perforating gun assemblies” that were used to Hydraulically fracture (frack) the Beaver Creek 1-23HD1 well in Kalkaska County, the DEQ has stated: “That is information we don’t ask for and don’t have in our files.” See Exhibit A.
2. Consequently, pursuant to Section 1701(2)(b) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Plaintiffs ask that the Court declare that the non-existent “standard” that will be used to insure that the “fracking” of [insert name of well, here] does not result in the “pollution, impairment, or destruction” of the “the air, water, and other natural resources” of the area, or the areas near or connected to, the [name of well] to be “deficient,” and grant Plaintiffs “declaratory and equitable relief for environmental protection” until such time that the metallic and chemical composition of the perforating gun assemblies are made public, and that the public be given sufficient time to seek an independent evaluation of the metallic and chemical composition of the perforating gun assemblies in order to insure that the use of such materials to “frack” [insert name of well, here] will not result in the “pollution, impairment, or destruction” of the “the air, water, [or] other natural resources.”

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994 —  324.1701 Actions for declaratory and equitable relief for environmental protection; parties; standards; judicial action.

Sec. 1701. — The attorney general or any person may maintain an action in the circuit court having jurisdiction where the alleged violation occurred or is likely to occur for declaratory and equitable relief against any person for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction.
(2) In granting relief provided by subsection (1), if there is a standard for pollution or for an antipollution device or procedure, fixed by rule or otherwise, by the state or an instrumentality, agency, or political subdivision of the state, the court may:
(a) Determine the validity, applicability, and reasonableness of the standard.
(b) If a court finds a standard to be deficient, direct the adoption of a standard approved and specified by the court.