Dems hold dim view of wetlands measure
‘We need to regroup and see how we can adjust at the local level’
The executive director of Merrillville’s Stormwater Utility is hoping to provide a compromise to a state bill removing protections from many of Indiana’s wetlands through a local ordinance.
The controversial bill has passed both the House and Senate and but has yet to reach Gov. Eric Holcomb’s desk for his signature, according to state Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Ogden Dunes.
The wetlands measure would eliminate a 2003 law that requires the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to issue permits in a state-regulated wetland and end enforcement proceedings against landowners allegedly violating current law.
It would not affect those wetlands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, like the Hobart Marsh.
But Merrillville’s Stormwater Utility Executive Director, Matt Lake, said some of the isolated wetlands that would be stripped of government protection under the bill — those not connected to a river or stream — are part of the town’s green infrastructure and are used for flood control. He also said the bill would have a negative impact on the environment.
“We need to regroup and see how we can adjust at the local level,” he said.
Lake said wetlands are an important aspect of stormwater management in Merrillville as they help store stormwater.
“We take flooding issues very seriously,” he said.
Lake said he doesn’t know yet what an ordinance could include. He said he’s asked Stormwater Board Attorney James Meyer to look into the legalities involved.
“Jim and I have had discussions and will formally move forward
after the bill is signed by the (governor). Jim just wants to make sure we have all the information before we draft our ordinance,” Lake said.
What Lake believes is needed is more of a compromise than what the final bill contained.
“Environmental groups see it one way. Investors see it another way. It’s a challenge,” Lake said.
Proponents of the bill said state regulations concerning wetlands are costly and complicated for landowners and small farmers and for builders who would want to develop land with designated wetlands.
Opponents contend that the bill would jeopardize wetlands’ beneficial properties of water storage (flood control), water supply management (drinking water), wildlife habitats and water quality.
The Indiana House Democratic Caucus and the Senate Democratic Caucus sent a joint letter to Holcomb, urging him to veto the act, which they said would risk the destruction of more than 50% of Indiana’s existing wetlands by stripping state environmental protections.
Several Region legislators signed the letter, including Tallian and state Rep. Carolyn Jackson, D-Hammond.
They pointed out that 90 organizations called on the General Assembly to preserve wetlands and consider alternatives to the bill.
Those organizations include hunting and fishing groups, river commissions, lake associations, faith groups, architects, environmental and conservation groups, along with cities and sanitary districts.
Jackson said wetlands purify the water and help prevent erosion, among other benefits.
She said it would end up being very costly to the state to remediate the damage eliminating the targeted wetlands would cause.
“It’s just not good. It would set us backward regarding flood control,” Jackson said.
Jackson hopes Holcomb will consider these issues before deciding whether to sign the bill.
Tallian said since the bill hasn’t reached the governor’s desk yet, there’s still time for those opposing the bill to reach out to him.
“The governor’s own agencies — Indiana Department of Environmental Management and Department of Natural Resources — opposed the original bill. I believe they still oppose the amended bill. This doesn’t happen very often,” Tallian said.
Lake said under the current law, if a farmer wants something done on his field, such as fix a broken tile, he needs to have a survey done.
He believes this could be streamlined.
He also said while he didn’t hear all the arguments on both sides of the issue, one area he would have looked into more was off-site mitigation, in which wetlands are created in another location to make up for those lost to development or other reasons.
“Maybe we can set up an off-site mitigation area to create a natural habitat and keep adding to it. Most developers don’t mind mitigating, but the cost could be detrimental,” Lake said.
Lake said an ordinance might also guarantee some assurances that an individual could buy a property with wetlands as long as they do something for flood control.
“Laws change. They can always change back the other way,” Lake said.