Indiana joins Asian carp lawsuit

IL Staff
February 22, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Attorney General is joining in the legal dispute over Asian carp in Lake Michigan. Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed an amicus brief on Friday in the lawsuit with the United States Supreme Court in Michigan's lawsuit against Illinois and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Zoeller's 26-page brief sides with Michigan, which filed the suit in December to require Illinois and the Corps of Engineers to try to prevent Asian carp from migrating from Illinois waterways into Lake Michigan. The carp have been detected within a few miles of the lake.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Michigan's request for a preliminary injunction, but the underlying issue of the state's request for a court order for closure of the locks linking the waterways with Lake Michigan is still alive. Zoeller's brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to reopen the original case so that every state's interests can be resolved.

Asian carp - also known as bighead carp and silver carp - aren't native to the area and compete for food sources with native fish and are known to hurl themselves out of the water, possibly injuring boaters. Zoeller said Indiana is impacted because the state's 40 miles of southern Lake Michigan shoreline are the first part of the lake to thaw in the spring and that area's fish could be decimated by an Asian carp invasion. Also, sport fishing on Lake Michigan brings in nearly $5 million to Indiana.

Zoeller doesn't endorse Michigan's suggestion of closing the locks and canals to block the carp because it would impact Indiana's commerce that relies on barge shipping. He wants the nation's highest court to exercise its original jurisdiction in state-v.-state issues and appoint a special master to hear evidence quickly but methodically to make a recommendation on the proper remedy to stop the nuisance.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit