ILNews

IDEM's application of new antidegradation rule raising ire

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

After more than 10 years of protracted and, at times, contentious debate, Indiana finalized protections for some of its most clean waters. But less than a year after taking effect, a short letter denying an antidegradation application has unleashed criticism that the state is not implementing the rule as intended.

The dispute between the Allen County community of Huntertown and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management arises from what is believed to be the first time the state has applied the new water antidegradation rule.

devoe DeVoe

Indiana’s statewide water antidegradation rule took effect in June 2012 and received approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the following September. Every state is obligated by the federal Clean Water Act to formulate and institute such a rule.

The Hoosier state compiled a history of starts and stops before finally emerging with written definitions, conditions and instructions for protecting pristine water resources from being degraded, namely by a new discharge. The antidegradation rule governs discharges into streams, rivers and other bodies of water whose quality and purity is higher than what the state deems as clean water.

Martha Clark Mettler, IDEM deputy assistant commissioner for the Office of Water Quality, explained the goal of the rule is to preserve as much of the pristine quality as possible while realizing that people have to live on the planet as well.

Different groups came together during the rulemaking to help develop the language and conditions while also protecting their interests.

Jeffrey Hyman, staff attorney with the Conservation Law Center and faculty member at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, was a member of the environmental coalition that participated in the rulemaking. Fredric Andes, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Chicago office, represented the interests of industry and municipalities.

Although the discussions sometimes became heated, Hyman described the overall process as good, with IDEM making a tremendous effort to ensure that the many interests and perspectives were heard.

Still, many of the participants had reservations about the rule when it was finished.

“Nobody got everything they wanted out of this process,” Andes said. “At this point, the rule is done and it’s being implemented. The focus has shifted to, ‘Let’s see how this works.’”

Social and economic factors

That focus is now on Huntertown.

Currently, the municipality pipes its sewage 13 miles to the wastewater treatment plant in neighboring Fort Wayne. However when Fort Wayne decided to charge the small community retail rates instead of wholesale rates, Huntertown thought the best way to resolve the dispute was to build its own treatment plant.

That decision is not without controversy. Environmental groups and residents have questioned the wisdom of Huntertown building and operating such a facility. Even so, town officials moved forward with the process and notified IDEM for the first time in 2008 of its intention to disconnect from Fort Wayne and build its own treatment plant.

Two years later as the process got under way, IDEM indicated Huntertown would be required to submit an antidegradation demonstration.

Numerous comments and responses later, IDEM issued a tentative decision to deny the antidegradation application in August 2012. The final denial came in October and left attorneys representing Huntertown claiming the agency is pulling a reason from thin air.

Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP attorneys S. Curtis DeVoe and Amy Romig filed a petition for administrative review with the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication on behalf of Huntertown. DeVoe is confident Huntertown will prevail on its petition, but if the environmental adjudicator agrees with IDEM, DeVoe said his client will appeal to the state courts.

IDEM’s denial letter is just two pages and devotes the most space to describing the appeals process. Most bewildering to DeVoe is the explanation the agency gives for turning down the demonstration.

The letter states that the commissioner’s decision to deny Huntertown’s antidegradation demonstration “is primarily based upon a finding that cost effective measures are reasonably available that would prevent or minimize the proposed significant lowering of water quality in Geller Ditch.”

Based on that written communication, DeVoe charges IDEM is not implementing the antidegradation rule correctly.

The language in the final rule states the IDEM commissioner shall deny an application for degradation on the grounds “it is not necessary because cost-effective measures that would prevent or minimize the proposed lowering of water quality are reasonably available ... .”

DeVoe argues because “cost-effective” and “reasonably available” are not clearly defined, IDEM must consider social and economic factors that the rule requires antidegradation demonstrations to analyze. The ambiguous terms are, in fact, defined by those additional considerations.

andes Andes

“They have denied this without addressing any factors in our very detailed antidegradation demonstration,” DeVoe said, calling IDEM’s decision “arbitrary, capricious and illegal.”

Moreover, by using the “necessary” provision as a kind of gatekeeper, requiring that antidegradation demonstrations first pass that test before looking at the other factors, the state agency is ignoring the complexity of the rule, he said.

IDEM’s Clark Mettler would not characterize the “necessary” clause as the gatekeeper provision. However, she did maintain that determining if a discharge is necessary is a significant question that has to be answered first.

Then, if the discharge meets the necessity test, the state agency will move on to decide if the degradation is justified by the social and economic benefit.

Discretion

Disagreement over how the rule is being implemented highlights the discretion contained in the document. IDEM does retain a great deal of ability to choose and decide. Both Hyman and Andes shared concerns about the amount of leeway the rule gives the state agency.

Yet the groups conceded the need for balance between flexibility and certainty. The discretion is the key to how the rule will be applied, and although some members of the rulemaking group would have liked to have included more specific language, that was not the outcome.

Clark Mettler reiterated the point of striking a balance, noting the agency has to have some freedom to avoid being boxed into a corner.

“If you’re too prescriptive, you always run the risk of not thinking of something,” she said. “Since this was a long rulemaking, you want to be careful.”

Some insight into how the rule was crafted comes from the de minimus provision. The rulemaking body spent a great deal of time on what constituted a de minimus, or discharge that has such a small impact it does not significantly degrade the quality of the water.

Environmental groups and industrial groups disagreed over what level of impact is insignificant.

Andes explained that the industry representatives agreed that a significant discharge of effluent should undergo an antidegradation review but were concerned the time spent on little projects will limit the time spent on bigger projects. It is an issue, he said, of focus and priority.

The rule defines de minimis, Clark Mettler said, and spells out how to calculate the standard.

And it will put all discharges through an antidegradation review. The rule provides that every increase or new discharge will have some level of review.

“It’s a stringent rule that business and communities in Indiana are definitely going to have to take careful note of and make sure any new project meets the requirements,” Andes said. •

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT