ILNews

Federal judge rules against environmental groups in I-69 suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The two environmental organizations challenging the construction of Interstate 69 in southern Indiana lost in federal court Tuesday. The lawsuit filed by Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads dealt with the stretch of the interstate from Washington, Ind. to Scotland, Ind.

The alignment of the road selected by the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration in this portion, called Section 3, would affect nearly 5 acres of various types of wetlands, nearly 2 acres of open ponds and roughly 1,000 linear feet of streams within the right-of-way to be relocated.

The interstate is being constructed in tiers. The first tier decided what general route to use from Indianapolis to Evansville. The second tier provides for more specific locations of sections of the highway.

Instead of the United States Army Corps of Engineers issuing one Section 404 permit for discharge of pollutants under the Clean Water Act for the entire project, it decided to have an application for each segment of the highway. In order to qualify for a permit, the project must, among other things, be the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.”

The Corps issued a permit to INDOT regarding Section 3, allowing INDOT to discharge dredged and fill material into the waters of the United States.

The plaintiffs sued in the Southern District of Indiana, seeking a declaration that the Corps violated Section 404 of the Clean Water Act by issuing a permit for the work on Section 3 without fulfilling Section 404’s requirements, and to prevent further construction of that section or the remainder of the interstate until the Corps complied with Section 404.

They maintain that the CWA requires the Corps to undertake an analysis of whether there is a less damaging practicable alternative for the entire interstate project, not just the section at issue, and that the tiering process lets INDOT work around the CWA.

Judge Larry J. McKinney rejected that argument.

“If granting a permit for one section of the route proved impossible under strictures of the CWA, then it is possible that INDOT and the FHWA might have (to) re-evaluate overall alignment alternatives, but there is no CWA requirement that the Corps must take it upon itself to examine alternatives to a project for which no permit is sought,” he wrote.

The plaintiffs also claimed the Corps public interest review for the Section 3 permit was inadequate because it failed to examine the probable negative impacts of the entire interstate project.

The judge pointed out that the Corps only has the authority to permit or regulate project activity that occurs in the navigable waters of the U.S. He also held the Corps did weigh each of the required general factors and several other specific factors with regards to Section 3, and its public interest review was not arbitrary, capricious, in violation of the law, or contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence.

McKinney granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.  

 

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT