ILNews

COA affirms conservancy district

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals had the opportunity to determine whether construction of a bridge and road is permitted under Indiana Code when establishing a conservancy district, but didn't rule on the issue because taxpayers wouldn't be responsible for paying for construction.

In In re: Petition for the establishment of the Millpond Conservancy District, No. 76A03-0711-CV-536, remonstrators argued the trial court erred in establishing a conservancy district initiated by the Town of Hamilton. They claim because the construction of a road and bridge in the proposed project underlying the district doesn't appear in the statute that lists permissible purposes for the establishment of a conservancy district, Indiana Code Section 14-33-1-1, the project should have been scrapped.

Hamilton wanted the district to make improvements to a dam and spillway on Hamilton Lake, as well as a new bridge and road. At a hearing held by the Natural Resources Commission on Hamilton's petition for the district, representatives for the Department of Natural Resources testified that the Indiana Department of Transportation would pay all costs for the bridge and road. Eventually, the trial court approved the petition.

I.C. Section 14-33-1-1(a) lists the reasons for establishing a conservancy district, with Hamilton's amended petition for the establishment of the conservancy district listing subsection 9(a) - "operation, maintenance, and improvement of: a work of improvement for water based recreational purposes."

Whether the construction of a road or bridge falls under that subsection or any of the other ones listed in the statute is an important question worthy of debate, wrote Judge Patricia Riley. However, the court didn't address the issue because the remonstrators wouldn't be financially responsible for the construction of the bridge and road.

The remonstrators' argument against the conservancy district is they don't want to be taxed to pay for construction, just for flood prevention and control. Since INDOT is paying for the construction, the appellate court doesn't need to determine whether that portion of the project is a permissible purpose for creating a conservancy district under I.C. Section 14-33-1-1, wrote the judge. As a result, the Court of Appeals affirmed the establishment of the district.
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. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT