ILNews

City, operator charged with violating CWA

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The City of Madison and a wastewater treatment plant operator have been charged with negligently violating the Clean Water Act.

The U.S. Attorney Office filed charges Nov. 3 against the City of Madison and David W. Hawkins regarding a June 2007 incident. Hawkins, superintendent of the city's wastewater treatment plant, contacted the Indiana Department of Environmental Management in June 2007 for assistance when the wastewater plant began experiencing significant problems. IDEM officials said the biologic organisms weren't providing treatment and Hawkins should immediately remove 90,000 gallons of water into a separate tank in order to reseed the treatment system with live biologic organisms.

Instead, Hawkins left for the weekend without taking any actions. Partially treated and untreated waste and sewage got into the Ohio River June 8-10, 2007, according to the charging information filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana.

Hawkins faces up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Madison faces a term of five years probation and up to a $150,000 fine. A hearing hasn't been set.

Also filed Tuesday in the New Albany Division were guilty plea agreements from Hawkins and Madison. As part of his agreement, Hawkins will surrender his Class III wastewater treatment operator license. The agreements are currently before the court for review.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT