COA affirms Avon ordinance invalid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Town of Avon’s attempt to regulate by ordinance a township and conservancy district’s ability to remove and sell groundwater located in a park failed because the ordinance violated Indiana law, the Indiana Court of Appeals held today.

The West Central Conservancy District was in the process of studying and attempting to provide a water supply based on the discovery of water aquifers under Washington Township’s Community Park when Avon enacted an ordinance to control and regulate taking of water from a watercourse. The ordinance gave Avon the exclusive right to control and regulate water within 10 miles of the town’s municipal limits and only the town could sell and distribute water. The ordinance defined watercourses, but the statute the ordinance relies on doesn’t mention groundwater, aquifers, or any water that is below ground.

The WCCD and township sued claiming the ordinance violated the Home Rule Act because only state agencies can regulate surface and groundwater. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of WCCD and the township.

Avon can regulate watercourses, but its regulation in the instant case hinges on whether an aquifer is a “watercourse” under Indiana law. In Town of Avon v. West Central Conservancy District, et al., No. 32A05-1003-PL-149, the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, finding aquifers are not considered a “watercourse” under Indiana Code Section 36-5-2-10.

“More particularly, the Park’s aquifers and groundwater are not lakes, rivers, or streams, and the definition of ‘watercourse' in Indiana Code section 36-9-1-10 necessarily includes only bodies of water like lakes, rivers, and streams. Indeed, the General Assembly would have simply used the term ‘water’ or even ‘aquifers’ or ‘groundwater’ in the Watercourse Statutes if it intended such a broad sweep,” wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

Because an aquifer is not a watercourse, Avon has no authority to restrict what the WCCD and township choose to do with the groundwater in the aquifers.

In addition, the appellate court held the Home Rule act doesn’t grant Avon the authority to regulate in accordance with its inherent police powers and the town lacks the authority to review, regulate, or impose duties on the WCCD or township’s exercise of power to sell the groundwater under the Park Resource Statute. Avon can’t interfere with WCCD and the township’s common law right to use the groundwater in its aquifers as it sees fits, wrote the chief judge.


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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?