ILNews

Supreme Court rules town can regulate aquifer's water use

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Underground aquifers are “watercourses” as defined by state law and as a result the Indiana Supreme Court says community officials have the ability to reasonably regulate how that water is taken out and used by other local governments.

The justices issued a decision Tuesday in Town of Avon v. West Central Conservancy District, Washington Township, et. al., No. 32S05-1104-PL-217, ruling on a water control case involving an aquifer located in Avon from which a township and conservancy district want to withdraw water.

Avon passed an ordinance in 2008 that exercised the town’s power to “establish, maintain, control, and regulate the taking of water, or causing or permitting water to escape, from a watercourse both inside and within 10 miles of the municipal limits.” The ordinance prohibited anyone from taking water for retail, wholesale or other mass distribution unless done by or on behalf of Avon. Within that definition of “watercourse,” the town included lakes, rivers, aquifers, groundwater and other water bodies above or below ground. Washington Township and the WCCD started exploring in 2005 the possibility of drilling wells into the underground water source known as the White Luck Creek Aquifer and then withdrawing and selling water to third parties. The two entities opposed Avon’s ordinance.

The township and conservancy district argued that Avon’s ordinance is invalid because it conflicts with state statutes that do not include aquifers in the definition of a “watercourse.” Both also contended that Indiana’s Home Rule Act and other state regulations pre-empt the town’s ordinance and that they have the common law right to withdraw the groundwater from the Avon aquifer.

Hendricks Superior Judge Mark Smith denied summary judgment for Avon and found in favor of Washington Township and WCCD, and last year the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. But the Supreme Court disagreed, reversing the trial court’s findings and holding that the Home Rule Act does permit Avon to regulate another political unit’s attempt to withdraw water from an aquifer that is a “watercourse.”

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard authored the 15-page unanimous ruling, which looked at the critical question of whether an aquifer is a “watercourse.” Indiana Code 36-9-1-10 defines that term as including "lakes, rivers, streams, and any other body of water.”

Shepard wrote that the statutory phrase “any other body water” refers to anything that satisfies the common law definition of a watercourse – specifically a water body that has defined banks, bottom and channel. The court also looked at the fact-specific nature of the particular water source, such as its design, flow and history.

“While we stop short of declaring a bright-line rule that all aquifers are watercourses, we must reject the demand for a bright-line rule to the contrary,” Shepard wrote, saying that the White Lick Creek Aquifer is a watercourse under Indiana law.

Avon argued it has the authority to enact a generally applicable regulation about the aquifer and impose duties through that ordinance on other political subdivisions, and the justices agreed the state’s Home Rule Act doesn’t prevent that. Other state law, known as the Park Resources Statutes, seems to conflict but the justices read them together in order to harmonize the effects of both.

As a result, the township retains the power to sell, lease or enter into a royalty contract with respect to the aquifer as long as it has Avon’s approval, Shepard wrote. Avon has not yet established its permitting process so the court can’t determine whether any additional regulations are reasonable and logically consistent with the rest of the state statutes.

The court also found that state agencies and departments can engage in regional or statewide regulation of water bodies at the same time as local government units have authority over watercourses in their own jurisdictions.

 

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. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT