Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Should the Legislature loosen restrictions that protect wetlands?
Did you know that 42 states do not have a state-regulated isolated wetlands program?
Did you know former Democrat Gov. Frank O’ Bannon actually vetoed current wetlands code? He felt so strongly that he penned a letter to House members and the speaker of the House stating, “It would create wetlands classifications that are not supported by scientific definitions, and it fails to define many key terms.”
Did you know that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, under its loose interpretation of Indiana’s current wetlands code, is considering multi-generational farm ground as a state-regulated isolated wetland due to failing drain tiles? Did you know that Indiana had no state-regulated isolated wetlands code before 2003?
Senate Bill 389 addresses these tough issues head on.
The intent of SB 389 is to bring Indiana in line with those 42 other states and the most up-to-date guidance of the Federal Clean Water Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers revised their definition of “Waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act in 2020.
There have been many headlines about environmentalists claiming that SB 389 would decimate wetlands in Indiana and threaten water quality. These are misguided claims based on emotion and misinformation. In fact, under the Clean Water Act, a certification is still required from IDEM demonstrating that whatever work is being proposed in a wetland will not degrade or otherwise violate the state’s water-quality standards. Simply put, any action that would have any impact on water quality in the state of Indiana is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
SB 389 is necessary to help protect Hoosier farmers. I know of a Hoosier farmer who purchased a farm adjacent to his. During routine field maintenance, he attempted to fix a broken drain tile. IDEM inspectors then “randomly” showed up on his property and demanded all action stop on his private ground—until he responded to their demands.
The agency, benevolently, gave him three options: 1. Leave the failing drain tile and plant hundreds and hundreds of trees. 2. Turn current prime tillable ground into a wetland. 3. Pay IDEM more than $80,000 to let the agency mitigate what it defined as a problem.
This is not balanced or equitable in any manner. And due to the non-scientific, loose definitions in current wetlands code, these imperious actions by IDEM have become standard operating procedure.
Hoosiers should never be fearful of retaliatory actions from a government agency that was created to serve the people, not to be served by the people. That belief should transcend politics, party lines and headlines.
SB 389 is a conversation starter on how the state can strike a more equitable balance between preserving our scientifically defined wetlands, encouraging economic development, and protecting private-property rights for the farming community—the folks who care more about and do more for land conservation than any IDEM inspector or government bureaucrat ever has or ever will.•
__________
Garten is a Republican state senator from Charlestown. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
So you’re proposing sweeping legislation because you “know ONE farmer”? Seriously? And since when did you want to be like 42 other states? What other legislation might be in place that achieves the same goals in those states. Will you identify the farmer for the record? I would like to ask some questions.
The farmer’s name is none of your business. If you’re trying to put up a good fight against this bill, John P., all you’re doing is proving the senator’s point about overreach.