Environmentalists concerned about Indiana agenda

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One of Indiana's largest environmental groups said Friday it was concerned that this year's General Assembly may weaken Hoosiers' ability to protect themselves from pollution and other health risks.

Hoosier Environmental Council Executive Director Jesse Kharbanda said the group is trying to find out whether an executive order setting a moratorium on new regulations applies to rules regarding the environment and public health. Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed the order, which is intended to attract new business investment to Indiana, on his first day in office.

"If they are exempt we are less worried; if they are not exempt, we are very worried," Kharbanda said during a telephone conference with reporters. He said the group was in discussions with the administration trying to determine how broad the moratorium was.

The council is also wary of a measure that would require a cost/benefit analysis after the first three years of any new regulation, Kharbanda said. The costs of new regulations tend to be felt early, he said, while benefits such as improved health or safety don't become apparent until later.

"It presents a very skewed view of the benefits and cost of the regulation," he said.

The group also wants to make sure officials consider health benefits when they calculate a regulation's cost. And they want to make sure that any spending reductions don't impede the ability of the state Department of Environmental Management and Department of Natural Resources to do their jobs.

A spokeswoman for Pence did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Another raft of bills could strip local communities and individuals of the power to protect themselves from water pollution and related health risks, particularly those posed by massive industrial-style livestock farming, said Kim Ferraro, the council's director of water and agriculture policy.

The broadest measure is a bill pushed by Pence and authored by Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, that would make those on the losing end of lawsuits pay all of the legal fees. If passed, Ferraro said, such a rule could make residents endure water pollution, odor and other health risks rather than risk going broke fighting people with much deeper pockets.

"For people of modest means who are already hesitant to bring such a lawsuit, they would now have a significant deterrent," Ferraro said.

Other proposals apply specifically to concentrated animal-feeding operations, or CAFOs. One bill authored by Sen. Jim Banks, R-Columbia City, would effectively shut neighbors out of setting standards for such factory farms, Ferraro said. Instead, standards would be decided by Purdue University and industry representatives.

"The first provision of this bill would allow industry to write its own standards," Ferraro said. The proposal also would give CAFOs "almost virtual immunity from lawsuits, as long as they were in compliance with the regulations they wrote," she added, and prohibit local health departments and planning commissions from passing any local ordinances regulating livestock operations.

"In other words, completely disarming local communities and people from protecting themselves," Ferraro said.

A joint resolution winding through the Senate and the House would go even further and declare farming a constitutional right. That, Ferraro said, could make all laws regulating agricultural operations unconstitutional.

The Associated Press left messages seeking comment from the legislators involved in the proposals criticized by the council.


  • no shame...
    ...these Republicons have NO shame at all, they care more about the $$$ in their bank account than the quality of life and health of the humans who live here...how are Hoosiers so ignorant to elect phony Christians like Pence and then be surprised to see him do the bidding of his TRUE masters!
  • Cost/benefit
    A cost/benefit analysis can be a very useful tool in determining the true cost of environmental and other regulations. However, it is a very difficult and expensive process to do an accurate cost/benefit analysis. The costs are easy to determine. The benefits may be difficult to determine accurately if the benefits are spread over hundreds of thousands of people. Young people may benefit more than old people; people with preexisting health problems may benefit more than the healthy. The what is the value of a human life question enters the picture. What state agency does the administration expect to do the analysis or is it to be contracted out, if so at what cost and what benefit?
  • Hmmm...
    Wait until someone sets up an animal factory upwind of Geist or Carmel. We'll see how long what now passes for "farming" remains a "constitutional right".
  • from the back pocket dwellers
    " 'In other words, completely disarming local communities and people from protecting themselves,' " No, they would still let people keep their assault guns and ammo. "A joint resolution winding through the Senate and the House would go even further and declare farming a constitutional right. That, Ferraro said, could make all laws regulating agricultural operations unconstitutional." This is crazy but probably to be expected.

Post a comment to this story

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 IBJ 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

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.