ILNews

Court: EPA approval required for expansion

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A Porter County sewer company must receive prior approval from the Environmental Protection Agency per a federal consent decree in order to be able to expand its services, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

The appeal from the Indiana Regulatory Commission, Application of South Haven Sewer Works, Inc., City of Portage v. South Haven Sewer Works, Inc., No. 93A02-0703-EX-204, came before the court because the City of Portage believed the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission's grant of a certificate of territorial authority to South Haven was an error as a matter of law.

South Haven owns and operates a wastewater collection and treatment system in Porter County. It wanted to expand into a territory that ran west from Bay Road, which is the boundary of its existing CTA, a mile-and-a-half to Willowcreek Road, and in the north from County Road 700 North, south to State Road 130. The company filed a verified petition with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, in which the commission issued a final order concluding South Haven met all statutory and regulatory requirements.

The city appealed, arguing an agreement between South Haven and the EPA required South Haven to have EPA approval before expanding its sewer territory. South Haven and EPA entered into a consent decree to settle a lawsuit filed by the EPA, in which the agency sought injunctive relief and civil penalties as a result of the company's violations of various environmental regulations.

Section V(8)(a) of the decree stated, "... South Haven shall not expand its sewer connections or service area unless, for each proposed expansion, it demonstrates to the EPA that ...." It also defined service area as "all areas in which South Haven is authorized to collect and convey sewage."

Portage argues these sections are unambiguous and mandates South Haven has EPA approval prior to expanding its service territory.

The commission found the provisions in the consent decree to be ambiguous and granted South Haven the power to expand. However, the Court of Appeals found the consent decree's language to be unambiguous, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

"By defining service area as the area South Haven was providing sewer service to at the time of executing the consent decree, any future 'proposed expansion' of the service area requires EPA's approval pursuant to Section V(8)(a)," she wrote. "Accordingly, as South Haven proposed to expand its original CTA by filing a petition with the Commission, it should have requested EPA's prior approval."

South Haven and the commission argued requiring prior EPA approval for South Haven expansion means the EPA will have power over state matters. However, South Haven voluntarily entered into the consent decree with the EPA. Even after receiving EPA approval, it is still up to the commission to determine whether to grant South Haven's request for expansion, wrote Judge Riley. Therefore, the commission erred as a matter of law when it determined South Haven had lawful authority to expand its geographic service territory.
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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT