ILNews

Drought fuels renewed drive for a statewide water policy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce is finding that there is nothing quite like a dry, arid, hot summer to spark people’s interest in water.

Vince Griffin, vice president of energy and environmental affairs at the chamber, has been busy in recent months meeting with different groups around the state who have invited him to talk about the need for a statewide water policy. His main point is that water and electricity are the backbone of the economy and without either, the economy will not exist.

stemler Stemler

The chamber’s focus on water is nothing new. It has been calling for legislative action for some time and is again listing the crafting of a water policy as one of its top legislative priorities for the 2013 session.

Water has always been a sleeper issue, Griffin said. The drought of 2012, called the worst in 100 years, just woke people up and may provide the impetus for the Indiana General Assembly to act.

However, what the content of any potential water legislation would be and even if any bills will be introduced is unknown. The Water Resources Study Committee did examine the impact of the drought and water management but was unable to adopt recommendations or file a final report because it had a lack of quorum at its last meeting.

Still, Rep. Steve Stemler, D-Jeffersonville, has stated he anticipates introducing a bill addressing water accessibility. Also, Gov.-elect Mike Pence specifically highlighted in his Roadmap for Indiana that his policies will include directing state agencies to establish a plan for managing the state’s water resources and for accelerating the effort to clean the state’s waterways.

Stemler and other members of the water resources committee were unavailable for comment.

In general, Griffin said, the questions are simple: Where is the water? Who’s going to need the water? And how are we going to get the water there?

The answers, on the other hand, will be much more difficult.

Running dry

During the 2012 session, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 132 which directed water utilities in the state to report annually to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission the types of use and the operations and maintenance costs. The IURC will then submit a summary of the data to the Legislature in the first quarter of 2013.

John Hardwick, chair of the Water Utility Council Committee of the Indiana Section of the American Water Works Association and retired director of the Valparaiso City Utilities, believes that data will provide a clear direction for water policy and planning.

Unless the state takes water concerns seriously, Indiana will not be able to sustain its drinking water supply, Hardwick said. He believes many aquifers around the state are not refreshing themselves as fast as they once did.

The worst case scenario he presents is even more frightening.

“Without planning, there may be individual pockets around the state that run out of water,” Hardwick said.

Already have statutes

Jack Wittman, director of geosciences at Layne Christensen Co., is optimistic both the incoming governor and the Legislature are serious about tackling the water issues. It is, he said, a purely bipartisan topic.

He sketched a series of water policies that he touts as creating a win-win situation for industry, farmers and municipalities. Among his proposals are:

• River bank filtration which would pump the shallow groundwater near rivers. These sources of water are drought resistant and offer the quality of groundwater but with the limited impacts of surface water diversion.

• Aquifer storage which would put water back into the aquifer. Regulations should encourage storing water and not place too many limits on what water (drinking or runoff) is allowed in. The natural ecosystem will cleanse the contaminants and bacteria.

• Conservation which would reduce the waste of water resources.

Daniel McInerny, a partner in the environmental law and agribusiness groups at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, has represented parties in water disputes and noted often tensions arise over whose priority is more important.

Indiana common law and the statutes in place have been able to address these water issues, which makes him question the push for additional policies and regulations.

“Is there a need for something else?” McInerny asked. “I don’t know.”

A key statute governing water usage in the state is the Emergency Regulation of Ground Water Rights, I.C. 14-25-4. This provision protects owners of small-capacity wells from significant water-level declines and failures caused by large users. These large users are defined as entities that withdraw at least 100,000 gallons of water per day.

Through this statute, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Water investigates complaints and, if it determines the large user is impairing the water level, has the authority to restrict the pumping of water and seek compensation for the small-well owner.

Appeals of the findings can be made to the Natural Resource Commission. In 2012 no appeals were filed, which is significant in light of the number of complaints and, some say, indicates the statute is resolving issues.

In June and July, the period when many systems were running full tilt, the DNR Water Division investigated 150 to 200 claims, said Mark Basch, head of the Water Rights and Use Section of the DNR Division of Water. In a normal year, the division investigates an average of 100 complaints over the course of an entire 12 months.

The problems this year were no different than past years, Basch said. The well failures happened in the same areas that typically have chronic supply issues during the summer.

Basch agrees the water statutes are working, but he does not think that is enough reason to not take a deeper look. Specifically, it would be helpful if the Legislature would make an assessment of the groundwater and surface water resources in the state to determine if those resources will meet future needs.

Timing and location

Indiana, as a whole, has plenty of water, Wittman said. The problem is timing and location because while water is plentiful, it is not always available where it needs to be.

Such a situation can hinder energy production and economic growth. Businesses looking to start big operations want to know the location will provide adequate power and water.

One area currently seen as ripe for economic development is the southwestern section of the state along the new portion of Interstate 69. That area can grow quickly, Griffin said, but it has a limited water supply and raises the concern of how to get more water there.

“If we continue to have drought years, we’re going to have trouble because we haven’t figured out a way to get water to where it needs to be,” Wittman said.

Although any proposal to transfer water usually raises howls, he advocates for an infrastructure and policies that allow for moving water but with the caveat that water will never be taken from anyone who is using it.

Under his proposal, the state would invest in building system pipelines that tap into new, more drought-resistant sources like the Wabash and Ohio rivers. This would not divert water from a source that is already being used but rather it would add to the total amount available to residents.

“What we’re talking about isn’t for today,” Wittman said. “It’s for 20 years from now.” •

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT