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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT