The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania last month issued its decision in Kiskadden v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, copy of opinion here: Kiskadden. Kiskadden claims that chemicals from Range Resources’ Yeager wells, located about a half-mile from Kiskadden’s water well, contaminated his well. One judge dissented. The Commonwealth Court is an intermediate court of appeals in Pennsylvania, so Kiskadden can appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The case began with Kiskadden’s complaint to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP conducted an investigation and held a hearing and concluded that Kiskadden’s well was not contaminated by Range’s operations. Kiskadden appealed to the Board of the DEP. The parties conducted extensive discovery. Kiskadden refused to produce a list of all products and the composition of products used at the Yeager drillsite, but Range refused to produce that information. The Board then ruled that it would grant a “rebuttable presumption” that the chemicals found in Kiskadden’s water well were presumed to be present at the Yeager drillsite. In effect, this shifted the burden of proof to Range to show that it had not contaminated the well. After a hearing before the Board, it issued extensive findings and conclusions and affirmed the conclusion of the Department that chemicals spilled at Range’s site were not the source of the contamination of Kiskadden’s well. Continue reading →