Commission OK to rule on territory dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed an order by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, finding the commission had the authority to hear a dispute between a town and a water company.

At issue in Town of Chandler, Indiana v. Indiana-American Water Co., and Town of Newburgh, Indiana, No. 93A02-0801-EX-00005, is Indiana Code Section 8-1-2-86.5, which defines when the commission may determine a territorial dispute within a 4-mile area regarding water utilities.

The town of Chandler owns and operates a water utility for the delivery of water within and around the corporate limits of the town. The town adopted an ordinance that stated it would be the only provider of water within the 4-mile area surrounding the town. Indiana-American Water Co. filed a complaint with the regulatory commission, requesting that it determine the unincorporated areas in the 4-mile area surrounding the town were open competition for water customers.

There was also a dispute involving the town of Newburgh, because it passed a similar ordinance and some of its 4-mile area overlapped with the surrounding Chandler area.

The commission issued an order denying Chandler's second motion to dismiss the complaint and granted Indiana-American's requested relief and ruled that Indiana-American could provide water service to a prospective customer within the 4-mile area, regardless of Chandler's ordinance.

The Court of Appeals examined the construction of I.C. Section 8-1-2-86.5 to determine whether the commission had the authority to determine a territorial dispute. Chandler argued that the commission can't determine a territorial dispute because the statute only applies to the municipalities that meet the conditions of subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2), and since Newburgh doesn't meet those conditions, the commission can't settle the dispute.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with Chandler's arguments, finding the plain reading of the statute leads the court to conclude the exception to the exception, which allows the commission to determine disputes between two municipalities located within the same 4-mile area, applies whenever the territorial dispute concerns an area located within more than one 4-mile area of any municipality, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

The appellate court also found the commission's treatment of Chandler didn't violate Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution because a municipal corporation isn't a citizen of Indiana and the section is inapplicable to its case.


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?