ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT