IBJNews

Law targeting controversial landfill only fuels fight

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even for those with a vested interest in the battle over a proposed landfill near Anderson, it's hard to get too worked up over the latest twist before the courts or government agencies.

After all, the Mallard Lake Landfill battle is in its 29th year.

The latest development, one that opponents of the project had hoped was the silver bullet to fell their garbage Dracula, is starting to look just as inconclusive as countless other chapters, at least for now.

That silver bullet was supposed to be Senate Bill 43, signed into law during the last session of the Indiana General Assembly. A part of the bill crafted by Sen. Tim Lanane and Rep. Terri Austin-both Democrats from Anderson-requires a new round of reviews and approval for landfill projects initially OK'd more than 20 years ago but which had not accepted waste by the end of last March.

But Ralph Reed and sons, who've long wanted to put a landfill on their 254-acre farm near county roads 300 East and 300 North, are as tenacious as ever.

In March, their waste venture, J.M. Corp., put up a sign at the proposed site, "Mallard Lake Container Collection System Open to the Public."

Their arch nemesis, nearby residents under the name of Killbuck Concerned Citizens Association, complained it was a blatant attempt to circumvent SB 43. A couple of months later, KCCA filed a lawsuit in Madison Superior Court, seeking a declaratory judgment to effectively force J.M. Corp.'s compliance with the new law.

KCCA wanted to force the Reeds' J.M. Corp. to go back before the county board of zoning appeals, which approved the landfill in the 1980s. The neighbors reasoned the project wouldn't comply with laws and regulations enacted since then.

"They're trying to get around [SB 43]," said Bill Kutschera, KCCA secretary. "It doesn't look like that's going to happen, but they are going to try."

Indeed. In August, J.M. Corp. filed suit in Madison Superior Court asking for a change of judge and a change in venue.

Plain and simple, "it's bad law," Reed attorney Ronald Fowler said of SB 43 and its attempts to "retroactively apply laws.

"That's never been successful in the past."

J.M. Corp.'s Indianapolis-based legal counsel, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, recently sent a letter to Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter, arguing that the new law is unconstitutional.

Observers say not to look for any rulings in the court cases until sometime in September.

Opponents have long argued that the Reed property is a poor site geologically and geographically for a landfill because leaks would contaminate Anderson's water supply.

The Reeds disputed studies cited by KCCA and said their facility would meet the latest environmental standards.

J.M. Corp. contends being lost in the debate is the potential benefits of the site in helping Anderson and Madison County deal with waste. Shipping garbage out of the county costs Anderson taxpayers alone about $750,000 a year, argues Fowler.

The KCCA argues that the potential benefits are outweighed by risks, such as birds attracted to the landfill, creating a hazard for aircraft using the nearby Anderson Municipal Airport. They also warn of a dangerous parade of garbage trucks on narrow county roads and the likely closure of an elementary school directly across from the Reed property.

The group also worries that the Reeds might be receiving the backing of East Coast trash firms, saying they find it hard to believe the family has been able to afford high-priced legal counsel after filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2003. Ralph Reed laughed aloud, denying such a claim, when asked about it last year.

Even now, "they're showing no signs of financial exhaustion," the KCCA's Kutschera said of the Reeds.

"The potential payout of this landfill is just too great for anyone to walk away at this point."
*

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. 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