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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT