Records

Records - July 28, 2014

July 26, 2014
Records listings from the July 28, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - July 21, 2014

July 19, 2014
Records listings from the July 21, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - July 14, 2014

July 12, 2014
Records listings from the July 14, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - June 30, 2014

June 28, 2014
Records listings from the June 30, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - June 23, 2014

June 21, 2014
Records listings from the June 23, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - June 16, 2014

June 14, 2014
Records listings from the June 16, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - June 9, 2014

June 7, 2014
Records listings from the June 9, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - May 26, 2014

May 24, 2014
 IBJ Staff
Records listings from the May 26, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - May 12, 2014

May 10, 2014
Records listings from the May 12, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - May 5, 2014

May 3, 2014
Records listings from the May 5, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - April 21, 2014

April 19, 2014
Records listings from the April 21, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - April 14, 2014

April 12, 2014
Records listings from the April 14, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - April 7, 2014

April 5, 2014
Records listings from the April 7, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - March 31, 2014

March 29, 2014
Records listings from the March 31, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - March 24, 2014

March 22, 2014
Records listings from the March 24, 2014, issue of IBJ
More

Records - March 17, 2014

March 15, 2014
Records listings from the March 17, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - March 10, 2014

March 8, 2014
Records listings from the March 10, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - March 3, 2014

March 1, 2014
Records listings from the March 3, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - Feb. 24, 2014

February 22, 2014
Records listings from the Feb. 4, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - Feb. 17, 2014

February 15, 2014
Records listings from the Feb. 17, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - Feb. 10, 2014

February 8, 2014
Records listings from the Feb. 10, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - Feb. 3, 2014

February 1, 2014
Records listings from the Feb. 3, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - Jan. 27, 2014

January 25, 2014
Records listings from the Jan. 27, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - Jan. 20, 2014

January 18, 2014
Records listings from the Jan. 20, 2013, issue of IBJ.
More

Records - Jan. 13, 2014

January 11, 2014
Records listings from the Jan. 13, 2014, issue of IBJ.
More
Page  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> pager
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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT