IBJNews

Interstate 69 opponents target another section of project

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two environmental groups have filed a second lawsuit in federal court in an ongoing battle to halt construction of Interstate 69 in southern Indiana.

The Hoosier Environmental Council and Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads, or CARR, allege in a lawsuit filed late last week that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated the federal Clean Water Act in issuing a permit for construction of 29 miles of I-69 between Oakland City and Washington, known as Section 2.

The suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana is similar to one the groups filed in February regarding the Corps’ permitting of Section 3, a 26-mile segment between Washington and Crane.

The new case involves a permit the Corps issued allowing 644,802 cubic yards of fill in wetlands in Pike and Daviess Counties, including the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Wildlife management area.

The fill would consist of earth, riprap and concrete as part of a 25-foot-high causeway stretching 2.5 miles. It would connect a White River bridge and two bridges over tributaries.

“This causeway will act as a virtual dam across the river, raising flood levels up to a foot higher than current levels on about 5,900 acres of floodplain land,” including “a lot of good farmland and Indiana bat habitat,” said Tim Maloney, senior policy director of HEC.

The group in April filed an appeal of a permit issued by the Department of Natural Resources involving the section. The appeal is still in the discovery stage.

HEC and CARR assert in the Oct. 14 suit that engineers are required by the Clean Water Act to find practicable alternatives to proposed discharges that would have fewer adverse impacts on aquatic life.

The Corps has not yet filed a response to the latest suit. It denied allegations made by the groups in the similar suit filed last February involving Section 3 of I-69.

The environmental groups seek an injunction stopping Section 2 and the rest of the Evansville-to-Indianapolis I-69 project “until the defendants fully comply with the requirements” of the Clean Water Act.

The groups for years have complained the currently planned I-69 route crosses some of the most environmentally sensitive parts of the state. They prefer a slightly longer route for I-69 consisting of upgrades to I-70 in western Indiana and conversion to interstate standards for the connecting U.S. 41, which runs south to Evansville.

At this point, only 1.8 miles of the proposed 142-mile “new terrain” I-69 between Indianapolis and Evansville is open for traffic. The tiny stretch links I-64, north of Evansville, to State Road 68, to the north.

Currently, 63 miles of I-69 are under construction in southern Indiana, said Indiana Department of Transportation spokeswoman Cher Goodwin.

Goodwin said the agency declined comment about the latest lawsuit filed by HEC and CARR.

“We are confident that INDOT has followed every law,” she said.

The Indianapolis-to-Evansville extension of I-69 has been a top priority of Gov. Mitch Daniels as achieving the optimal time savings for those traveling to southwestern Indiana—perhaps shaving 30 minutes from what is typically a 3.5-hour to 4-hour drive.

Opponents argue it will have adverse environmental effects on a corridor involving more than 7,000 acres of land, including 4,300 acres of farmland, and on 450 karst features such as caves and underground streams.

INDOT has said it’s on track to build the stretch between Evansville and Crane for about $700 million. It points to tweaks in design that slashed costs, and success securing lower material and labor costs during the slow economy.

But there doesn’t appear to be enough money to build the highway between Indianapolis and Bloomington. Total cost of the entire project could exceed $3 billion, a price tag critics say will siphon unacceptable amounts of money from existing state road maintenance and building budgets.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • RT 41 - NO
    I have flown down Rt 41 from Terre Haute to Evansville. You can also go on Google Earth and see this - there are farms, houses, and businesses built along 41 whose only access is onto Rt 41. To convert that to a limited access interstate level highway would require eliminating most of these houses and businesses. For farmland access along Rt 41, right of way would be required to build access roads. Each town would need to have an interstate level bypass built around it. Not to mention that construction on an active highway, while maitaining traffic doubles or triples the cost of construction. If you really look at this alignment from the air, it is a non-starter.
  • Grasping at straws?
    It sounds like the plaintiffs are just trying to derail this project anyway they can costing the rest of us lots of money to defend the project that will save lots of money in the long run and generate much needed private sector jobs at least in the short term. They could just suggest that the "causeway" approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers be changed to an elevated roadway so as to not raise the potential flood waters “one foot higher than current levels on 5900 acres of flood plain land” during a 25, 50 or maybe 100 year type flood event. And just how much more is that from “current levels”? They already identify it as floodplain land. When you own or buy land in a flood plain, you have to expect it will flood on occasion. That is why it is called a flood plain!
    Plus, they certainly play down the potential benefits of the new route in the article. Google maps list the current HEC/CARR preferred path of I-70 West & US 41 South as 183 miles and 3 hours and 21 minutes. The new Interstate route is 142 miles so simple math shows a reduction of 41 miles, or over 22 percent of the total distance. To use your parlance, one could say it would shave nearly 25 percent off the trip in distance instead of “perhaps shaving 30 minutes from what is typically a 3.5-hour to 4-hour drive”. Think of the fuel savings of driving 25% less, not to mention 25% less emissions for all the cars travelling that route. Are these environmental groups against lowering emissions and using less fuel? It would also reduce congestion along I-70 that would likely reduce the number of accidents along that route while no doubt adding some to the new route.
    All in all, it sounds like a better defense at this point would be to attack the HEC and CARR groups with some frivolous law suits so they can reallocate their resources for defending themselves for a change and perhaps saving Indiana taxpayers some money in the process.
  • Not Mitch
    It's not Mitch... It's the US Government. I69 will eventually reach from Mexico to Canada (look it up). Mitch is just one of the many pawns in charge of making sure the project happens.
  • get it right!
    It's Daviess County. You don't even care enough about who you're stepping on to get the name right! Pitiful.
  • Good effort
    I appreciate your efforts, and so many others will never know the benefit lost, but what Mitch wants he gets and his adoring followers push on us. It is unfortunate that a little television humbleness and a few lies about our state gained so much approval from hoosiers.

    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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT