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. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

    2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

    3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

    4. Exciting times in Carmel.

    5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

    ADVERTISEMENT