ILNews

Judges split on district's need to pay for new water main

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split today on whether a school district was required to pay for the installation of a new water main as opposed to privately putting in its own water service line to connect to a new school.

The majority agreed with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s determination that the Indianapolis Department of Waterworks rules don’t prevent the Southern Hancock School Systems from connecting a service pipe to its new school from an existing main instead of paying to install a new water main.

In Department of Waterworks for the Consolidated City of Indianapolis v. Community School Corp. of Southern Hancock County, No. 93A02-1002-EX-218, the school system is building a new school and wanted to run a service pipe to a water main that runs along County Road 600 West, which services two other schools. The water company argued that the school needed to pay for a new water main along County Road 200 South in order to have adequate water for the school. The cost would be around $330,000. The school could install a service pipe and connect to the existing water main for around $170,000.

The informal disposition of the Consumer Affairs Division of the IURC concluded the water company provided sufficient reasoning to request the installation of a water main. The IURC reversed and held the school should be allowed to connect to the existing main.

The judges split not only on whether the school is required to install a new water main, but also on the standard of review that should be applied. Chief Judge John Baker and Judge Paul Mathias decided the standard of review should be a “multiple tiered review” focused on the facts with a “high level of deference,” as outlined in NIPSCO v. U.S. Steel Corp., 907 N.E.2d 1012, 1018 (Ind. 2009). Judge Patricia Riley in her dissent instead would rely on a passage from Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana v. NIPSCO, 485 N.E.2d 610, 612-13 (Ind. 1985), which says agency action reviews are limited to whether the commission stayed within its jurisdiction and conformed to the statutory standards and legal principles involved in its ruling.

At issue is the water company’s Rule 7(J), which states “A service pipe which is irregularly located shall, at [the Water Company’s] expense, be relocated and connected to a new main abutting the premises when subsequently installed for other purposes. [The Water Company] shall not be under any obligation to permit connection or to supply service to any customer whose premises does not abut a main.”

The majority found the water company’s proposition that each “new premise” has to be served by a main extension directly contradicts with the definition of premises that explicitly contemplates multiple premises or buildings on a single parcel or contiguous parcels of real estate being connected to the same main and each served by a separate service pipe, wrote Chief Judge Baker.

“In essence, none of the rules allows the Water Company to deny a connection to an existing main abutting a customer’s property and force a main extension because it can get a new main closer to the premises,” he wrote.

Judge Riley believed the IURC misinterpreted Rule 7(J) and exceeded its jurisdiction. The new school will be built on its own parcel of land within the school corporation’s campus.

“As far as I can discern, this new construction is not attached to any existing building but is an independent structure at the far end of the campus. Mindful of the rule and its accompanying definitions, the new school should be considered a ‘premise,’ pursuant to Rule 7(J), and thus it would be appropriate to require the School to pay for a new main extension,” she wrote.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  2. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

  3. Both sites mentioned in the article appear to be nonfunctional to date (March 28, 2017). http://indianalegalanswers.org/ returns a message stating the "server is taking too long to respond" and http://www.abafreelegalasnswers.org/ "can't find the server". Although this does not surprise me, it is disheartening to know that access to the judicial branch of government remains out of reach for too many citizens (for procedural rather than meritorious reasons) of Indiana. Any updates regarding this story?

  4. I've been denied I appeal court date took a year my court date was Nov 9,2016 and have not received a answer yet

  5. Warsaw indiana dcs lying on our case. We already proved that in our first and most recent court appearance i need people to contact me who have evidence of dcs malpractice please email or facebook nathaniel hollett thank you

ADVERTISEMENT