“Anti-wetlands” rears its ugly head in Washington, D.C.

By Linda Gibson

A Republican congressman in Ohio has proposed a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would formalize the end of federal protection for small streams and wetlands nationwide.

Rep. Bob Latta of Bowling Green, probably without irony, dubbed it the “Withstanding Attempts to Encroach on Our Resources (WATER) Act.” The bill aims to codify a Trump Administration rollback of Obama-era rules that had protected small waterways under the Clean Water Act. If this is accomplished, reversing it would take another act of Congress.

In a press release of April 19, Latta called the Obama protections “overreach of federal regulators” into the rights of private property owners.

Indiana just passed a law that eliminates state protection of these same wetlands. Critics say up to 80 percent of the state’s wetlands now can be dredged, filled or discharged into without oversight. The remaining 20 percent are under federal protection. Latta’s bill would not change that.


Bulldozers win, bald eagles lose; “Anti-Wetlands” bill signed into law

By Linda Gibson

Gov. Eric Holcomb has signed a bill that ends state protection for about 80 percent of Indiana’s wetlands, habitat that iconic species such as bald eagles depend on.

The remaining 20 percent are under protection from the federal Clean Water Act.

Until now, developers, farmers, miners or others who wanted to dredge, fill or discharge into wetlands had to get a permit from Indiana’s Department of Environmental Management. Although IDEM in 2020 sought sanctions for only one violator of wetlands regulations, builders complained that the permit process was a heavy burden under what the bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Chris Garten of Scottsburg, Ind., called “out-of-control” IDEM enforcement agents.

One hundred organizations, and all Democrats in the Legislature, opposed the bill. Five organizations supported it, led by the Indiana Builders Association.

Indiana Rep. Sue Errington, a Democrat from Muncie who pushed for the wetlands task force authorized by the bill, said she was “deeply disappointed” about the rest of it. “The Governor has given into the demands of private interests and turned his back on the hundred organizations, who represent thousands of Hoosiers, that called for him to veto this legislation,” she said.

Opponents of the bill, including Save the Dunes and the Hoosier Environmental Council, say it “… represents one of the greatest setbacks in the history of Indiana conservation policy because it places hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands in jeopardy. The potential loss … could considerably cost the state in increased flooding, lost groundwater recharge, lost water purification, and lost wildlife habitat, driving up property damage, taxpayer-funded infrastructure repairs, and damaging Indiana’s vibrant recreational sector. “

Developers, farmers or anyone seeking to disturb a wetland still have to get expert consultation on whether it is federally protected, or a state Class I wetland that gets no protection.

The task force created by the bill will study the state of wetlands in Indiana and their impacts. It is to report its findings to the legislature on November 1st, 2022.

The Hoosier Environmental Council‘s website has lists of legislators who voted for or against the bill, as well as information on how to find your legislator. For a list of organizations who supported the bill, see the post “The future of Indiana wetlands: bald eagles or bulldozers?”


Wetlands bill gets to governor’s desk for signature

By Linda Gibson

Gov. Eric Holcomb has until Wednesday, May 5th, to sign the bill or veto it. If he chooses neither action, the bill automatically becomes law. It would significantly narrow the number of Indiana wetlands protected from dredging, filling, dumping and polluting.

For an explanation of what wetlands are, what they do and why so many groups oppose the bill, see the letter whose link is presented in the previous blog post.


Caravan organized to seek governor’s veto of wetlands bill

By Linda Gibson

More than 50 organizations have signed a letter to Gov. Eric Holcomb asking him to veto the current version of SEA 389, a bill that would eliminate protection of a significant portion of the state’s wetlands.

A caravan of people representing these groups will rally at the Capitol at 8:30 a.m. (Eastern time) Monday, April 25th, then present the letter to the governor about 8:45 a.m.

A copy of the letter follows. It includes several pages of appendices that explain the science of wetlands, policy alternatives and the broad range of groups in opposition to the current bill.



Governor gets wetlands bill

By Linda Gibson

The Indiana Senate Wednesday approved the amended House version of a bill that regulates wetlands. It’s now on the desk of Gov. Eric Holcomb, awaiting his approval or veto. The bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 31 to 19.

Holcomb expressed reservations about the original bill, which simply would have deleted all regulation and protection of the state’s wetlands. This version has been modified to provide some protection. It also sets up a task force to study wetlands and recommend how to make the law less costly for developers.


Indiana House passes bill that creates a wetlands task force

By Linda Gibson

The Indiana House on April 13th passed a wetlands regulation bill that includes creation of a task force to study wetlands and recommend actions to be taken.

Number one on the list of six goals was this: “Strategies to mitigate the costs incurred by builders to comply with the state regulation of wetland activity…while maintaining the integrity of those environmental safeguards.”

Other goals included studying flood reduction benefits of isolated wetlands, the role of isolated wetlands in storing carbon dioxide, and recommending incentives for developers to preserve existing wetlands and avoid affecting them.

Environmental groups had urged establishment of the task force instead of (or at least before) the wholesale deletion of the wetlands regulation law, which the bill originally proposed. That original bill drew opposition from more than 80 groups, ranging from hunters to flood control experts.

The Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) released a statement opposing the bill as currently written, saying it eliminates protection for Class I wetlands and reduces protection for Class II wetlands. Classes I and II make up 58 percent and 41 percent of Indiana wetlands, respectively, according to estimates by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, wrote HEC.

The bill now returns to the Senate, where author Chris Garten, a Republican who owns a countertop store, will accept or reject the amendments. If he rejects them, a conference committee of Senate and House members will try to come up with a compromise bill.

If the bill passes, the task force is to report its findings to the Legislature, the governor and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management by Nov. 1, 2022.


Amendment to SB 389 better than worse alternatives

By Linda Gibson

Interdunal wetland, Miller Woods

The House Environmental Affairs Committee has amended SB 389 to make some moderate changes to the law protecting Indiana’s wetlands, rather than deleting it altogether as the original bill proposed.

Tucked among the moderate changes, however, are a couple of more drastic ones. Protection for any wetland dependent on an ephemeral stream would be dropped. Also dropped is a statement from the 2003 law that the goal of mitigation is “a net gain in high quality wetlands.” 

The Hoosier Environmental Council, in a detailed statement, urges members and the public to oppose any further amendments, to support the creation of a task force to study Indiana’s wetlands and to oppose the Senate version of SB 389, which would eliminate all regulation and protection of state wetlands.

The House is expected to vote a second time on the bill on Monday, April 12. The chart below, by the Hoosier Environmental Council, compares various versions of the bill.

Senate version 389 Amendment 19
Indiana Wetlands Law RepealsModifiesAmendment 24
Class I wetlands Removes protectionRemoves protectionNo change*
Class II wetlands Removes protectionReduces protectionNo change
Class III wetlands Removes protectionNo changeNo change
Cumulative impact Removes requirementsReduces requirementsNo change
Ephemeral streams No changeRemoves protectionNo change
Compensatory mitigation Removes requirementsSignificantly reduces requirementsModerately reduces requirements
Wetlands that exist “only because of an ephemeral stream” Removes protectionRemoves protectionRemoves protection
Development of cropland with wetland all wetlands in cropland can be developedIf used for agriculture in the last 10 yearsIf used for agriculture in the last 10 years
Maintain a field tile within a wetland all tiles in wetlands can be repairedWith a permit if it does not drain the wetlandWith a permit if it does not drain the wetland
IDEM’s time to issue a wetland permit Not applicableReduces from 120 to 90 daysReduces from 120 to 90 days
Statement that the goal is “a net gain in high quality wetlands” EliminatesEliminatesEliminates

“Anti-wetlands” bill, amendment headed for committee vote

By Linda Gibson

Senate Bill 389, which would end state regulation of dredging, filling, draining and discharging into most of Indiana’s wetlands, is scheduled for a hearing at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 7, before the Indiana House Environmental Affairs Committee, according to legislative media spokesman Jose DeFonce.

The bill also will include an amendment to be voted on. Dr. Indra Frank of the Hoosier Environmental Council described it: “Amendment 24 is much better than the original bill…, but it still reduces wetland protection.  It’s not good, but we have been warned that if Amendment 24 doesn’t make it into the bill, then something worse will pass.” DeFonce said no testimony would be taken.

The bill as written has attracted substantial opposition from at least 80 groups representing hunting, fishing, the environment, water quality, flood control and boating. It’s supported by five groups representing builders, manufacturers, farmers and developers.

Wood storks in wetlands


Opposition to wetlands bill draws together broad range of people; amendment awaited

By Linda Gibson

Opponents of a bill that would strip state protection from wetlands are hoping for an amendment that would significantly change it before the Indiana House votes on it.

Senate Bill 389, dubbed “the anti-wetlands bill” by opponents, easily passed the Republican-controlled Senate and is now in the House Environmental Affairs Committee, also dominated by Republicans. It proposes to end all permitting, mitigating and enforcement actions for dredging, filling, draining, dumping or discharging into all but federally protected wetlands, or roughly 80 percent in the state.

Time is short. This legislative session is to end on April 29. Senate Bill 389 is scheduled for a second reading in the House Environmental Affairs Committee on Monday, April 5. This is when any amendment would be voted on.

Since the draft amendment could change by then, legislators contacted declined to describe it before it is presented to the committee on Monday.

The bill has galvanized opposition from more than 80 groups representing duck, deer, pheasant and quail hunters, fishermen, boaters, environmentalists, conservation lawyers, landscape architects, boat manufacturers, trappers, gardeners, birders, flood control districts, the Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ and the Potawatomi Tribe.

Some 60 groups signed a letter to legislators full of wetland facts and suggestions for improving the current law, instead of just deleting it.

“I’ve not seen so many people moved by a call to action as this one,” Natalie Johnson, executive director of Save the Dunes, said.  

Not even Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb could muster enthusiasm for it as currrently written.

“We need to be confident that any changes in the law avoid harming drinking water quality, increasing potential for flooding, or hurting wildlife habitats used by our anglers and hunters,” he told the IndyStar. 

Supporters of the bill include five groups representing builders, developers and manufacturers. Dr. Indra Frank of the Hoosier Environmental Council said private property rights were one of the big drivers of support for it.

“Wetlands are the most cost-effective stormwater system we have,” she said, pointing out that a one-acre wetland can store a million gallons of water. If it’s filled in, neighboring properties could be flooded. “Wetlands are part of a whole water system that ignores property lines. It’s a shared resource.”

Sen. Karen Tallian, a Democrat from Ogden Dunes, said she hopes the bill simply will die in committee.

“I’m hoping we can see it turned into a two-year task force,” Rep. Sue Errington said. A Democrat from Muncie, she’s the ranking minority member on the House Environmental Affairs Committee. She imagines a task force comprising university scientists, expert on wetlands, government regulators, realtors and industry representatives.

“We could offer incentives to preserve a wetland, like a tax credit for that spot of land,” she said. “We have something similar for forests.”

Indiana’s Classified Forests and Wildlands Program gives landowners a tax reduction and technical assistance in return for following a professionally written land management program. A minimum of 10 acres of forest, wetland, shrubland and/or grassland is required.

Another approach to wetland protection is through municipal ordinances, Randy Jones, a wetlands consultant in Franklin, Ind., said. “It’s done in a few areas of Michigan and is common out West. A problem with local regulations is that they are commonly used in wealthier communities to protect the status quo, and could result in an inequitable distribution of habitat destruction and water quality impairments based on income.”

In Donaldson, Ind., four sisters of the Poor Handmaids of Jesus Christ signed a letter to legislators “imploring” them to oppose SB 389. The order, comprising 640 women in nine countries, “has dedicated itself to protecting creation through ecological restoration and preservation. SB 389 would leave our wetlands vulnerable to be destroyed without oversight or discernment.”

In Porter County, environmental educator Billie Warren of the Pokagon Potawatomi said wetlands were essential to the tribe’s culture. “Our people, especially in this area, were known for getting all of our food, medicine and utilitarian items from wetlands.”

Warren will conduct a Water Ceremony of prayer at noon on Saturday, April 3, at Lake George in Hobart as part of a rally in opposition to SB 389. The rally is scheduled for 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. All who wear masks and maintain social distance are welcome to attend, she said.

Contact information for your legislator

For information on Senate Bill 271, see Legiscan.com or Openstates.org


Wetlands bill still in Indiana House

Indiana Senate Bill 389, which would abolish the law protecting most of the states’s wetlands, was given a hearing in the House Environmental Affairs Committee the morning of Monday, March 22nd. Testimony was heard and the bill was held for further discussion.

Five groups, representing builders, farmers, manufacturers and energy, support the bill. Seventy-five groups, representing environmentalists, hunters and state wetlands regulators, oppose it. Without the law in place, wetlands could be bulldozed, drained, filled or discharged into without oversight, Indiana Department of Environmental Management spokesman Barry Sneed said.

For more information on what wetlands do and why they’re important, see the story below called, “The future of Indiana wetlands: bald eagles or bulldozers?”

The future of Indiana wetlands: bald eagles or bulldozers?


By Linda Gibson

Wetlands, some of Northwest Indiana’s most scenic territories, are targeted in a highly partisan bill that would strip them of state protection from pollution or destruction.

Bald eagle, Waynedale News

Senate Bill 389, presented by 26 Republicans, aims to delete the state law that covers wetlands which aren’t protected under the federal Clean Water Act. Different sources say 60 percent to 80 percent of the state’s wetlands rely on state protection.

Although wetlands cover just 3.5 percent of Indiana, they provide critical habitat for thousands of species of plants and birds, including geese and ducks. Iconic endangered species such as the whooping crane, the bald eagle and the red wolf also depend on wetlands, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.

The economic impact on the region of its swamps, marshes and bogs is in the multi-millions of dollars annually. More than 98 million people hunt, fish, birdwatch, hike or photograph wildlife. Americans spend $59.5 billion annually on these activities, according to Indiana’s Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).

In addition, wetlands act as filters that improve the quality of drinking water and as sponges that soak up rain to prevent flooding.

“Wetlands also recharge our underground aquifers,” says IDEM spokesman Barry Sneed. “Over 70% of Indiana residents rely on ground water for part or all of their drinking water needs. Wetland reductions could impact the amount of water available in municipal and residential drinking water wells.”

“Because isolated wetlands are so critical to drinking water supplies, they are best protected within state law,” Kathy Luther, director of environmental programs for the Northern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, wrote in an email. “These wetlands are critical to recharge the groundwater that feeds springs and fills the aquifers used for irrigation wells and drinking water supplies in rural communities.”  

Beaver, ASWM.org

These functions of wetlands were not well understood until the mid-twentieth century.

By 2011, 89 percent of the region’s wetlands had been lost since settlement in the 1800s. Most were dredged, filled or drained for farming or development. Only five other states (California, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois and Ohio) have lost that much of their wetlands.

The Indiana law targeted for elimination requires a state permit before dredging, filling, dumping, bulldozing or discharging into wetlands. It also requires compensatory mitigation for any wetlands affected, either by creating new wetlands or by paying a fee to be used for that purpose. Finally, it provides penalties for violations of the law and lists exemptions to the law.

Dwarf crested iris, George Yatskievych, Indiana Native Plant Society

Proponents of the bill to overturn that law call it an example of regulatory overreach, an infringement on private property rights and an economic burden or hindrance to development. It is supported by the Indiana Builders Association, the Indiana Farm Bureau, the Indiana Manufacturers Association, Associated Builders & Contractors and Reliable Energy Inc.

“These costly, over burdensome regulations hamper our members’ ability to provide safe and achievable housing to Hoosiers looking to own a home and at a time when the cost of housing continues to rise due to a myriad of factors,” CEO Rick Wajda of the Indiana Builders Association wrote in an email.

Indiana Senator Karen Tallian, a Democrat from Ogden Dunes, recalls when she was a member of the Porter County Planning Commission, developers “were always trying to squeeze out like three more lots. It’s not about affordable housing. It’s about maximizing profit.”

Great blue heron, Tracye Pulliam, National Audubon Society

The move to delete the law follows a narrowing of federal protection under the Clean Water Act taken by the Trump Administration, against the advice of Environmental Protection Agency scientists. Under the new rule, only wetlands adjacent to waters such as lakes, creeks and rivers are protected.

“This rule effectively guts the Clean Water Act by permanently removing protections for approximately half the nation’s streams and wetlands,” Jim Murphy, director of legal advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation, said in an interview published on April 30, 2020 in Coastal Review Online of North Carolina.

In Indiana, about 20 percent of the state’s wetlands fall under the Clean Water Act. The rest, called isolated wetlands because they stand alone, get no federal protection anymore.

Calling wetlands that lack a direct connection to another body of water “isolated” does not imply they are unconnected to anything. Their impact is far reaching, even for those that are only seasonal.


Red wolf, Animal Welfare Institute

Defining a wetland is like trying to pin down a moving target. Is it a perennially wet spot in a farm field? How big does it need to be? How wet or dry? Definitions vary by influences as diverse as politics, Supreme Court decisions, botany and philosophy. This causes frequent tinkering with or differing interpretations of laws and regulations, leading to confusion and frustration among farmers who want to remove a wetland to increase cropland or builders hoping to enlarge a development site.  

“Which wetlands are state versus federal is a manmade distinction that changes with changing leadership in the White House,” said Dr. Indra Frank, environmental health director of the Hoosier Environmental Council. “Fortunately, Indiana’s current wetlands law was written to deal with the repeated changes at the federal level. It simply says that any wetland not federally protected is a state wetland.”

IDEM, which oversees wetlands regulation through its Isolated Wetlands Program (IWP), defines them thus: “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include: (1) swamps; (2) marshes; (3) bogs; and (4) similar areas.”

IDEM says defining a wetland and determining its boundaries require the services of a qualified wetlands consultant. Randy Jones of AquaTerra Consulting Inc. is one with twenty years of experience who also has worked as a wetland regulator at IDEM.

“In general, the vast majority of my clients have accepted wetland regulations … as a cost of doing business,” Jones wrote in an email. “As with any environmental regulation developed with the interest of the public at-large in mind, it does have costs for a subset of the public engaged in construction activities where wetlands may be present; typically, a financial interest is present for this subset of people. The IWP was designed to both protect Indiana’s isolated wetlands, and to provide a mechanism for builders/developers to accomplish their goals, by ensuring that practicable steps to minimize wetland impacts have been fully considered, and by compensating the public for loss of wetland functions resulting from their personal project. This is a solid public policy that balances the needs of the many with the needs of the few.”

In 2020, IDEM took 63 actions against violators of regulations pertaining to drinking water or wastewater, and one for wetlands. Inspectors saw unpermitted dredging in one wetland and the dumping of dredged material into an adjacent wetland in Dekalb County. The landowner agreed to apply for a permit, submit mitigation plans for approval, buy .69 acres worth of credit in the wetlands Mitigation Bank and pay a fine of $3,500.

Wood Storks, E&E News

Without the state law, “Approximately 80 percent of Indiana’s wetlands could be filled and/or drained without permits or mitigation,” said Sneed of IDEM.

Dr. Henry Chandler Cowles, a professor and botanist at the University of Chicago, led students on field trips to the Indiana dunes and their wetlands. Based on that fieldwork, his publication in 1899 on plant succession helped launch the science of ecology. The diversity of plant life here – from orchids to cacti – makes it a rare ecosystem.

But being rare is no protection in itself. In 1997, the rate of wetland loss yearly in Indiana was 1 to 3 percent, according to the United States Geological Survey.


In 2001, a Supreme Court decision created a gap that left one-third of Indiana’s wetlands without federal protection. In response, former Indiana State Senator Beverly Gard sponsored the current law, which passed in 2003. It restored state protection to those wetlands that had lost it at the federal level.

Fast forward to 2020. At the International Builders Show in Las Vegas, two Trump Administration officials announced a new EPA rule that narrowed the definition of waters to be protected under the Clean Water Act, which they described as “federal overreach.” The new rule was based on a 2006 Supreme Court decision (Rapanos v. United States) authored by Antonin Scalia, who wrote that waters to be protected include “those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers and lakes.’

He specifically excluded from the definition water that is present intermittently or ephemerally. Unfortunately, this describes many wetlands, which sometimes have seasonal dry periods. The state law covers those anyway.

Of the 2,700 acres in the Shirley Heinze Land Trust, about 1,000 are wetlands. “Federal jurisdiction is over some wetlands,” said Eric Bird, Heinze stewarship director. “As a land trust, we believe that all wetlands and natural areas are important and should be carefully preserved and protected.”

Swamp rose, Go Botany: Native Plant Trust.org

Environmental groups have filed suit to stop the new rule. These ranged from the Connecticut River Conservancy to the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance. “An EPA preliminary analysis of the proposed rule indicated it could exclude approximately 51 percent of the roughly 110 million acres of wetlands in the continental United States…an area larger than California,” the.Natural Resources Defense Council said in announcing the lawsuit.


Gard said in her editorial that a comprehensive study of wetlands should be conducted over the summer before “blindly moving forward with ill-conceived legislation.”

Such a study was done before the 2003 law was passed.

Jones said that by tweaking requirements in the exemptions section, both developers and the public could benefit. One change could allow developers to skip permitting small, low-quality wetlands while concentrating  on saving larger, higher-quality wetlands.

“There are several other small changes that can be made to the existing rule, to allow for better and more equitable implementation, without sacrificing all wetland protections. It would be a shame to back-track on Indiana’s leadership and to destroy a program that helps all Hoosiers, particularly, if there is a quick-fix available to reasonably meet the needs of all parties,” he said.

“We are concerned,” wrote Paul Labovitz, superintendent of the Indiana Dunes National Park. Wetlands within the park are protected by the National Park Service, but that doesn’t make them invulnerable.

“We receive water from outside the park, and less protected wetlands threaten to move poorer quality water through the park and into Lake Michigan, and that should terrify everyone,” he wrote. “The East Branch of the Calumet River, Sand Creek, Salt Creek, Deep River and the Grand Calumet River are all rivers and streams already in trouble. Lessening protection is the wrong direction to go. The proposed change is a very bad idea.”

Without a permitting program, said Janette Brimmer, an attorney for EarthJustic.org, “Citizens and groups dedicated to protecting waters and wetlands in their communities won’t even get notice or know about potential damage until the wetland or water is actually being dug up or filled in or drained.”

Tallian said there’s been scuttlebutt among Republicans that the bill is meant as a shot across the bow at IDEM, and won’t pass as currently written. “But it passed (the Senate) like a fast moving locomotive,” she said.

“It’s puzzling,” said Paul Botts, president and executive director of the nonprofit Wetlands Initiative, based in Chicago. “What was broken here, what needed fixing? It was a very balanced law.”

As of March 17, it was before the House Environmental Affairs Committee. A hearing is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on March 22nd.

Wrote Jones, the former IDEM regulator turned consultant, “I hope lawmakers will explore ways to re-write (it) to make the existing rule much more palatable for developers, while preserving the benefits of wetlands for all Hoosiers.”

Great Marsh, Dune Ridge Trail, Indiana Dunes National Park


Dunes Nature Preserve, Indiana Dunes National Park, Chesterton

Pitcher’s thistle, USFWS

Springfield Fen Nature Preserve, La Porte county

Cowles Bog, Pines

Great Marsh Trail, Indiana Dunes National Park, Beverly Shores

Paul H. Douglas Trail, Miller

Tolleston Dunes, Ogden Dunes

Grand Kankakee Marsh, Hebron

Heron Rookery Trail, Michigan City

Dunes Kankakee Trail, Chesterton

Erie Lackawanna Trail, Crown Point to Hammond

Shirley Heinze Land Trust Nature Preserves:

Gordon and Faith Greiner Nature Preserve, Hobart

Ivanhoe South Nature Preserve, Gary

John Merle Coulter Nature Preserve, Portage

Keith Richard Walner Nature Preserve, Chesterton

Ambler Flatwoods Nature Preserve, Michigan City

Lydick Bog Nature Preserve, South Bend.

Groups opposing SB 389


Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Ecological Restoration Business Association
Indiana Conservation Officers FOP Lodge #201
Conservation Law Center
Hoosier Environmental Council
Indiana Wildlife Federation
White River Alliance
Indiana Land Protection Alliance
Little River Wetlands Project
Central Indiana Land Trust
Red-Tail Land Conservancy
Joe River Basin Commission
Save Maumee
The Nature Conservancy
Indiana Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Sierra Club Hoosier Chapter
Ducks Unlimited
Pheasants Forever
Quail Unlimited
Indiana Sportsman’s Roundtable
Indiana Chapter Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
Save the Dunes
Friends of White River
Indiana Izaak Walton League
Indiana Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects
Indiana Conservation Alliance
Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation
National Marine Manufacturers Association
Indiana Forest Alliance
League of Women Voters of Indiana
National Parks Conservation Association
Indiana State Trappers Association
Indiana Bowhunters Association
Indiana White-Tail Deer Herd Management
Trout Unlimited
International Crane Foundation
Delta Waterfowl

Hines Emerald Dragonfly

Indiana Native Plant Society
Indiana MS4 Partnership
The Watershed Foundation
Indiana Catholic Conference
Indiana Lakes Management Society
Sunrise Indianapolis
Marion County Soil and Water District
Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Fund
Indiana Water Monitoring Council
Indiana Association for Floodplain and Stormwater Management
White Violet Center for Eco-justice
Wabash River Enhancement Corporation
Indiana Audubon Society
Just Transition Northwest Indiana
Wawasee Area Conservancy Foundation, Inc.
Open Space and Agricultural Alliance
Indiana Parks Alliance
Hoosier Chapter of Soil and Water Conservation Society
Oak Heritage Conservancy
Shirley Heinze Land Trust
Southwestern Indiana Citizens for Quality of Life
Clear Lake Township Land Conservancy
Woodland Savanna Land Conservancy
Ouabache Land Conservancy
Wabash Valley Progressives, Inc
Metropolitan Planning Council
Northwest Indiana Paddling Association
Valley Watch
Americus Area Community Coalition
Izaak Walton League, Porter County Chapter
Valparaiso Lakes Area Conservancy District
Save Whiting and Neighbors
Amos Butler Audubon Society
Citizens Action Coalition
The Indiana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society
Ruffed Grouse Society & American Woodcock Society
Jasper Rifle and Gun Club
Indiana Deer Hunters Association

Source: Hoosier Environmental Council


Promo for documentary, “Everglades of the North: The Grand Kankakee Marsh,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKZQ772Yx6M; produced by Pat Wisniewski, Brian Kallies, Jeff Manes and Tom Desch


Save the Dunes

Hoosier Environmental Council

https://www.in.gov/idem/wetlands/2343.htm (IDEM Isolated Wetlands Program)  

Interdunal wetland, Miller Woods, NPS


Buy Water or Build a Pipeline? Joliet Decides

After several years of research and pondering, the city council of Joliet, Ill. decided Jan. 28 to buy its water from the Chicago Department of Water Management, relying on a 100-year contract to keep water rate increases in check.

The alternative, building its own pipeline to Lake Michigan, an intake and an advanced treatment plant, would have cost up to $1.4 billion. Capital costs for the Chicago plan were expected to be from $592 million to $810 million.

Council members voted seven to one in favor of the buy option. Average monthly water bills by 2040 were projected to hit $142 with the Chicago option, and $149 with the build-a-pipeline option.

Eventually, costs for the build option were expected to drop below the Chicago deal as capital improvements were paid for, but that apparently didn’t make the initial billion-dollar price any easier to swallow. City officials have pledged to come up with programs to help low-income residents pay their higher water bills.

Failing aquifers that supply the city’s wells forced the city to decide one way or the other. By 2030, some of the city’s wells are expected to be dry.


The Billion-Dollar Question: What Should Joliet Do?

By Linda Gibson

Dollar symbols flowing from an open faucet. Digital illustration.

The city of Joliet, Ill. can no longer rely on depleted aquifers to supply enough water to its failing wells. It can spend $900,000,000 to $1.1 billion building its own pipeline to Lake Michigan at a site in Hammond, Ind., or it can buy water from a lakeshore city such as Chicago. Mayors of both cities traveled to Joliet to make personal pitches to the city council for a contract.

With its own pipeline, rates for residents are expected to go up from an average of $30.75 a month to almost $100 a month. However, the city’s analysis predicts this would be less expensive in the long run than buying water. Owning a pipeline to the lake would let Joliet set its own rates, and pump surplus water to sell.

As a customer, it would have some bargaining power, but would it have enough to convince residents after rate increases imposed by another city that they’re getting the best deal?

Design, routing, permitting and construction must begin quickly to meet a deadline of 2030, when at least four wells will be close to failing. The city council aims to make a decision in January 2021.

What would you decide?