ILNews

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.
 

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT