The unconventional natural gas industry grew in the United States in a boom-like fashion. Between 2007 and 2014, unconventional natural gas production grew by 51 percent per year. Because of the swift pace of development, the areas in which wells were being developed, and the lack of experience municipalities had dealing with the activity, local officials encountered difficulties when trying to manage the bourgeoning industry ^[1][10].

The rapidity with which unconventional natural gas grew across the United States and within communities left public officials unprepared. In some states during the initial boom period, thousands of wells were spudded in a single year ^[2][40]. At the municipal level, governmental bodies often received hundreds of permit applications at one time. A close review of every application was nearly impossible for local governments with a small staff and part-time public officials ^[3][5]. Furthermore, many communities lacked the technical expertise to critically review the permits (some municipalities lacked a planner on staff, let alone an engineer or geologist). The ongoing deluge of applications did not allow public officials to regulate proactively, only to police retroactively ^[4][11]. As city councils, county commissions, and township managers struggled to keep up, firms continued to enter the market. Consequently, local public officials found themselves in the uncomfortable position of learning about, permitting, and regulating an entire industry simultaneously ^[5][41].

The fact that the industry seemed to expand in predominantly rural and suburban areas further complicated matters. Many communities ripe for unconventional natural gas development were zoned primarily for agricultural or residential uses ^[6][28]. Current zoning for heavy industry or other similar uses was mainly non-existent. Public officials hesitated to allow well completions in non-industrial areas given the scarcity of information about the industry’s daily operations and long-term impacts on citizens, livestock, and property ^[7][42]. Citizens and public officials alike questioned the compatibility of well pads in agricultural and residential areas. In response, public officials felt compelled to revisit comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances amidst the influx of applications for unconventional natural gas wells ^[8][31].

Apart from the swift pace and rural/suburban nature of development, many local officials struggled to manage unconventional natural gas development at the onset because they lacked a context for the type of development they were experiencing ^[9][6]. In a series of in-depth interviews with public officials in Texas, Edwards (2019) concluded that local government representatives voiced great uncertainty in crafting policies that regulated shale gas development in their communities. Public officials explained that the industry and its rapid development were novel and that there was no guidance or resource regarding regulations or best practices ^[10][43]. With little experience or background to apply to the seemingly novel industry, local public officials were unsure how to proceed with regulations for operators in their communities. In Pennsylvania, researchers found that public officials were often confused about how current laws could or should be applied to the industry ^[8][31].

The speed, location, and nature of unconventional natural gas development put local public officials at a disadvantage. With few staff members, many local officials attempted to learn as much about the industry as possible while simultaneously developing rules and regulations managing it. These unique circumstances challenged most local government officials and made regulating the industry much more difficult.

In addition to the industry’s newness, local government officials struggled to make sense of the regulatory framework in which unconventional natural gas operated ^[11][44]. Multiple state agencies were responsible for permitting and regulating various aspects of unconventional natural gas development. Determining what rules applied to the industry and whether local governments could develop guidelines proved complicated ^[11][44]. Furthermore, in several cases, states preempted local decisions, which sewed doubt in the minds of local officials who wished to develop regulations ^[12][45]. The lack of clarity and threat of preemption hobbled local government decision making.

Most states with unconventional natural gas development had statutes on oil and natural gas extraction before the boom in unconventional natural gas began in 2008. After all, many had at least a few conventional wells in operation for several years ^[13][3]. Such laws gave the state almost all control over the location and operation of conventional wells and provided direct reporting and inspection procedures for the industry. However, when unconventional well applications began to appear, the applicability of existing laws and regulations was unclear ^[14][46]. The new wells involved natural gas extraction, but the methods and well locations preferred by operators were very different. Municipal officials were unsure if the same rules applied, the extent to which they had authority over various aspects of development, and how to implement changes effectively ^[6][15][28,33].

Across the country, local governments began establishing rules and regulations that dictated where an unconventional natural gas well could be established and how it operated (operating hours, truck routes, wellpad access points, etc.) ^[12][16][45,47]. However, some states attempted to preempt local governments by limiting their ability to regulate the industry and/or invalidating local laws on unconventional natural gas development ^[17][32]. In addition to the lack of clarity surrounding existing laws and regulations, the threat of preemption hindered management efforts.

Two states serve as examples of this struggle—Pennsylvania and Colorado. In Pennsylvania, lawmakers preempted local rules and regulations with the passage of Act 13, which established an impact fee on unconventional natural gas wells. Under the legislation, municipalities were expressly forbidden from regulating the establishment of wells and could be barred from receiving revenue from the impact fee if they attempted to dictate locations and operating protocols. A municipality later challenged the legislation, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately overturned the provision that barred the application of land use controls to the industry ^[15][33].

In Colorado, several municipalities attempted to restrict or even ban unconventional natural gas development in their respective jurisdictions. The Colorado Oil and Gas Association filed suit against the municipalities, and the cases eventually reached the Colorado Supreme Court. On 2 May 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court decided that state law preempted the ability of citizens to restrict unconventional natural gas development ^[17][32]. In both cases, state preemption muddied the waters for local control. Even after the court resolutions, confusion over local abilities to govern the industry continued ^[18][7].

The lack of clarity in regulatory controls and state preemption hindered local public officials’ abilities to regulate unconventional natural gas development. Municipalities struggled to identify what could and could not be done locally and feared that the state could preempt whatever regulations they implemented. Such confusion put local officials at a great disadvantage in regulating the industry.

Local government officials were also at an information disadvantage when unconventional natural gas operators began to apply for permits to establish wells. As previously discussed, municipal governments were overwhelmed by the boom and the pace of development. However, municipalities faced another challenge: the knowledge gap between operators and public officials. While producers and industry representatives were generally aware of prime production areas and the methods/technology needed to extract natural gas, public officials were not. As a result, municipal leaders lacked the information necessary to make optimal decisions for their communities ^[19][48].

When firms began to flood local governments in search of property records to execute leases and apply for well permits, they generally knew where they wanted to establish wells and begin production. Their research made them aware of local geologies, including where extraction was most feasible and what type of gas and natural gas liquids were available ^[20][49]. Conversely, most citizens and local government officials were unaware of the shale beneath their communities and the amount of natural gas available. Many locales were in the precarious position of relying almost entirely on information provided by companies of the industry and not independent third parties. The information gap led some communities to become overly accommodating and allow permits out of fear that the industry might go elsewhere. Therefore, many communities permitted wells they may not have allowed had they had more or better information ^[21][50].

Furthermore, few local officials completely understood the hydraulic fracturing process and everything it entailed. As the first wells were permitted and spudded, officials were surprised to learn how intensive the process was. At the well pad, crews would work around the clock using heavy equipment and noisy machinery. Hundreds of heavy tanker trucks drove on local roads to deliver hundreds of thousands of gallons of water to the site ^[22][20]. Temporary workers overran local hotels, motels, mobile parks, and apartments ^[9][6]. None of these impacts were expected until they were observed in real time by local communities. Consequently, few public leaders had the foresight to post and bond roads, prepare for an influx of workers, or support local services strained by the growth ^[23][51].

The distrust of the industry grew as the boom in unconventional natural gas wells progressed. Citizens and public officials became concerned about the industry’s lack of transparency, perceived litigiousness, and questionable motives ^[24][52]. As a result, local governments became less comfortable trusting information that the industry shared and were hesitant to establish local regulations for fear of operators filing suits ^[15][33].

Early on, some citizens and local government officials lost trust in unconventional natural gas operators ^[20][49]. In many cases, the catalyst for this erosion was the composition of fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Some suspected the fluids were highly toxic and damaging to the environment and human health ^[25][53]. The industry contended that the fluids comprised well-contained standard chemicals that posed little risk. Despite the industry’s reassurances, few operators offered chemical disclosures to citizens and public officials ^[26][54]. Protected by state laws, operators claimed that the fluids were proprietary and that divulging them would give away trade secrets ^[27][12]. Without operator disclosures, communities had little or no information about what was being pumped underground to release the natural gas from the shale formations.

The unwillingness of the industry to disclose the composition of fluids led many communities to believe that operators were not transparent. Questions about transparency in other aspects of the industry, such as lease terms and payments, began to take hold soon after ^[20][49]. The perceived lack of transparency led to an erosion of trust in many communities and established an adversarial relationship between some public officials and operators. Such a relationship made local governance more difficult because municipalities felt that they could not trust the information they relied on from the industry.

A sense of distrust in the industry continued to grow as operators began to file suit against municipalities that enacted laws that banned unconventional natural gas development outright or severely restricted the ability of operators to establish wells in certain areas ^[16][28][47,55]. Numerous suits were brought against local municipalities throughout the United States. The suits challenged local permitting procedures, land use controls, and provisions of environmental regulations. In many cases, the industry won, and the municipalities were forced to overturn local laws and pay exorbitant legal fees ^[29][56]. As cases against local governments and their regulations proliferated, public officials began to doubt their ability to establish local laws for operators in their communities.

The new untrusting and even adversarial nature of the relationship between local governments and operators was not conducive to collaboration or management. With trust in the industry diminished or lost entirely, public officials hesitated to rely on operator information to establish rules and guidelines for the operators in their communities. Furthermore, with the threat of lawsuits, some communities declined to establish new regulations entirely.

Views of unconventional natural gas development vary considerably within and across communities. Some citizens and public officials support the industry and hope to see the activity expand, while others vehemently oppose it. Typically, those supporting the industry gain the most through employment or leases. They are more willing to tolerate the negative aspects of the industry, including traffic and noise, because they are benefiting economically. However, those who oppose the industry are less likely to benefit from it and more likely to express annoyance or concern about the nuisances associated with the industry and its potential negative long-term impacts ^[30][31][57,58]. Across communities hosting unconventional natural gas development, public officials were in the crosshairs of a debate between those who wanted wells and those who did not.

Some citizens have supported the industry across states with large natural gas reserves. Studies reveal that counties with unconventional natural gas wells generally tend to see employment and income gains, albeit by varying degrees ^[32][59]. In addition, local landowners stand to gain financially from the leases they sign with unconventional natural gas operators and royalties they collect from extraction. Income generated by leases and royalties collected by the landowners circulate through local economies and positively impact ancillary businesses and local tax collections ^[33][34][35][21,29,35]. In some cases, landowners have become millionaires from their payments ^[2][40]. Given the economic rewards, some citizens defend the industry and oppose any regulation encroaching on local extraction efforts.

Conversely, many citizens vehemently oppose the industry. Research suggests that those less likely to benefit from jobs or payments and more likely to encounter the nuisances of production tend to speak out against unconventional natural gas development ^[30][57]. Citizens against unconventional natural gas development often cite the environmental and health consequences, noise, smells, and traffic associated with the industry as significant inconveniences and reasons to restrict or ban the industry in their communities ^[12][45]. Others complain that unconventional natural gas wells negatively impact land values in their communities ^[36][60]. These citizens are equally as quick to mobilize to oppose any industry expansion in their communities.

With many citizens having starkly different views of the industry, local government officials were in the middle of the conflict. Any regulation that addressed the negative externalities of development was viewed as an assault on citizens with jobs in the industry or leases with operators. Meanwhile, a lack of rules and regulations on the industry was viewed as a lack of care for the health, safety, and welfare of the rest of the community. Thus, municipal officials encountered another challenge while trying to govern unconventional natural gas development.

Finally, local government officials struggled to make sense of the deluge of information about the economic, environmental, and health impacts of the industry released at the time ^[10][43]. Research proliferated, analyzing the new industry and its impacts. Many of the findings were conflicting. Some studies showed positive economic effects, while others showed negative impacts because of infrastructural stresses and public costs (e.g., road and bridge repairs, crime increases, and labor market changes) ^[37][61]. Public health reports showed dire environmental and health consequences in communities with extraction ^[38][62]. The conflicting information and ambiguities in the research led to confusion amongst public officials at the local level.

Multiple studies over the past decade suggest that unconventional natural gas development can be an economic boon for communities in the United States. In many rust belt towns, for example, unconventional natural gas development has facilitated economic growth during a period of stagnation. Once extraction begins, jurisdictions may enjoy a host of benefits, including population growth, increased employment, higher wages, injections of capital into the local economy, increased rents, greater profits among firms, and income from royalties collected on land leases ^[2][39][40][40,63,64].

Studies on the adverse economic effects of unconventional natural gas development suggest that economic gains, such as employment and wage increases, may be negated by stresses on infrastructure and services caused by the industry, however ^[37][41][4,61]. The heavy equipment producers use, which must be transported via local roadways to the well pads, can cause significant damage to local infrastructure, which local governments are responsible for repairing ^[22][20]. Communities may need to expand or enhance infrastructure to accommodate the industry, as wells are constructed in previously undeveloped areas. In addition, unconventional natural gas development may put stress on local services. As the industry grows in a region, it often necessitates service expansions in administrative services, public safety, health, and public works as labor moves in to build the well pads ^[34][29].

The research on unconventional natural gas development’s environmental and human health effects contends that the industry is highly harmful to both. Completing and operating wells can lead to deforestation, habitat fragmentation, and pollution ^[42][65]. Multiple studies suggest that impoundment ponds pollute local water bodies, and the motors powering the well equipment reduce localized air quality ^[43][16]. Reductions in water and air quality can negatively impact human health. Long-term health impacts can be both acute and chronic. Common impacts include but are not limited to short-term breathing issues, asthma, long-term lung damage, cancer, and endocrine system disruption ^[44][45][66,67]. Despite the evidence, most researchers contend that more data must be collected and that many long-term impacts remain unknown ^[46][68].

Given the economic benefits discussed here, many jurisdictions consider unconventional natural gas development advantageous. However, the environmental and human health impacts are considerable. With new studies released showing new information with starkly different conclusions, local leaders found a straightforward narrative in favor of or in opposition to the industry challenging to find.