ILNews

Environmental groups lob new suit at I-69 work

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana environmental group once again is attempting to stop construction of the Interstate 69 extension between Evansville and Indianapolis by filing suit in federal court.

The Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads brought their complaint Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis seeking to overturn a permit the Army Corps of Engineers issued for the $3 billion project.

The groups say the agency failed to comply with a section of the Clean Water Act because it approved a permit to discharge about 225,000 cubic yards of fill material into wetlands and streams in Greene and Monroe counties without considering less-damaging alternatives.

“In its own rules, the Corps has determined that 'most wetlands constitute a productive and valuable resource, the unnecessary alteration or destruction of which should be discouraged as contrary to the public interest,’” the environmental groups argue in their suit.

A spokeswoman for the Louisville division of the Army Corps of Engineers said the agency is aware of the lawsuit but cannot comment on pending litigation.

The complaint targets what’s known as Section 4 of I-69, which extends 26 miles from the Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center to Bloomington. Construction on the stretch is under way and should be finished by the end of 2014 at an estimated cost of at least $532 million.

The portion of roadway will cross 18 waterways, affecting about 88,000 linear feet of water and filling more than 9 acres of wetlands, the groups argue.

The odds of halting work on the new terrain route appear long, however. Three sections of I-69 extending from Evansville to Crane already are finished.

In addition, the latest lawsuit is the Hoosier Environmental Council's third legal attempt to halt construction on the 142-mile link.

In February 2011,  and again the following October, HEC filed similar suits seeking to halt work on two now-finished sections of the interstate.

Last July, federal Judge Larry J. McKinney denied the first challenge. HEC since has appealed the judge’s decision to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago.

A decision on the second suit is on hold pending the outcome of the appeal.

Once the section to Bloomington is finished, work is set to begin on the two remaining sections stretching from Bloomington to Interstate 465 on the south side of Indianapolis.   

A lack of funding threatens completion of the remaining sections, though. The southernmost part of the road has been funded in part from proceeds of the $3.8 billion lease of the Indiana Toll Road.

The Indiana Department of Transportation has designated more than one-third of its entire federal highway aid this year toward building the 27 miles between Crane and Bloomington.

A report INDOT filed with the Federal Highway Administration states that 36 percent — or $281.3 million — of the $791 million Indiana will receive this year in federal road funding has been allocated to this stretch of I-69 in 2013.

That’s in addition to the $70 million in state highway funds budgeted in 2013 for Section 4.
 
 

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. 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