IBJNews

Indiana panel passes new water quality rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana regulatory panel passed new rules Wednesday aimed at protecting the quality of the state's waterways.

The Indiana Water Pollution Control Board met Wednesday afternoon in Indianapolis to approve the state's new anti-degradation rules. The new rules are aimed at lowering the levels of pollutants released into waterways by companies.

Kim Ferraro of the Hoosier Environmental Council said that under the previous system, when someone applied for a permit to release wastewater into Indiana waterways, there were blanket limits on the levels of pollutants companies could release. The rule didn't take into account what may have already been in the waterway.

The new rule will require the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to consider whether what's discharged will push levels of the chemical in the waterway to a dangerous or polluting level.

Ferraro said her group was pleased with IDEM's proposed rule.

"It's rare for environmentalists to rally behind something backed by IDEM," Ferraro said.

After months of public comment and board consideration, the approved rule now heads to the attorney general's office for review before being sent to Gov. Mitch Daniels to be signed.

The rules have been in the works since IDEM issued a permit allowing BP to increase its discharges of pollutants after expanding its Whiting oil refinery. Daniels then ordered an independent review, which found Indiana's anti-degradation rules were too vague.

After the uproar over the permit, BP said it would keep the expanded plant's discharges to the same limit of the previous permit. The $3.8 billion Whiting expansion is expected to open next year.

IDEM Commissioner Thomas Easterly said, however, the state has been trying to create an anti-degradation rule for decades.

"For 37 years, Indiana has been required to have these rules but has not had them," Easterly said.

Board chairman Gary Powdrill said the effort to create clearer anti-degradation rules is akin to what he says the state was trying to accomplish with its right-to-work legislation this year — making the state more attractive for businesses that wish to relocate here.

Before this clearer standard, Powdrill said, companies may have looked to states with better permitting procedures.

Easterly received written comments on the rule from 15 different groups prior to Wednesday's meetings. Many criticized the rule as vague, though Easterly said IDEM opted to keep the language less specific to allow regulators to adapt it to a range of permit applicants.

He said the rule was far from perfect, but was a good starting point for the state.

"We're going to find something to change, but we're getting closer," Easterly said.

But Dennis Wene, of aluminum manufacturer Alcoa, said he worried the language was too vague, which he said would make it ineffective. He introduced two amendments to add more specific language and definitions, but both were struck down by the board.

"We want to ensure the rule is applied correctly," Wene said. "There's a lot more work that needs to be done."

Ferraro said ambiguous language in anti-degradation rules can also make them targets for litigation, but she said IDEM's years of consideration were a sign that all the issues had been thoroughly considered.

"This is what can happen when all the stakeholders come together and talk about something," Ferraro said. "This is a really good rule. That doesn't happen often."

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 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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT