Cecil: Seismic Testing Company Request 'Premature and Unripe'

’s solicitor on Tuesday filed the municipality’s opposition to a —saying the court filing was “premature and unripe.”

Cecil solicitor John Smith argued in the Washington County Court filing that Dawson Geophysical failed to set for “reasons why expedited relief is needed.”

The Texas-based company with an office in Southpointe had filed the request for injunctive relief in Washington County Court Friday, a move that sought “to bar Cecil Township from enforcing (its ordinance) to prohibit the use of vibration trucks on township roads.”

The 71-page complaint also alleged that the regulations in place fail to conform with the state constitution and other laws.

Approved by supervisors in 2010, the township’s seismic testing ordinance calls for applicants such as Dawson that seek to use municipal roads to go through a public hearing process—and if approved, give notice of its activities to Cecil officials, as well as its affected residents.

“The requested relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Dawson, should it be prohibited unlawfully from conducting its seismic testing,” the company said in the court filing.

But in its opposition, Cecil solicitor John Smith argued that the township never denied Dawson’s application to perform seismic testing on local roads, adding that the company’s application to do so was made just a day before it sought relief through the court.

“Quite simply, (Dawson) has not given (Cecil Township) enough time to consider the July 5 application and allow the board of supervisors to make a determination, either granting or denying its request,” Smith argued in the court filing. “The board of supervisors will conduct a special meeting prior to its regularly scheduled August meeting to entertain the requested relief to utilize township roads.”

Smith also argued that injunctive relief and an expedited hearing as requested by Dawson is also improper because the state Oil and Gas Act—which governs seismic testing—“vests jurisdiction in Commonwealth Court.”

Editor's Note: To read the entire opposition, click the attached PDF.