Opinion ID: 852950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of the Ordinances

Text: The State contends the ordinances are invalid exercises of county authority and therefore provide no basis to invalidate DNR's purchase of Brandt's land. Newton County responds that the Home Rule Act, Ind.Code § 36-1-3-1 (1998) et. seq., provides the authority to create and enforce the two ordinances. The Home Rule Act abrogated the traditional rule that local governments possessed only those powers expressly authorized by statute, because it expressly broadened a governmental unit's authority to include not only all powers granted it by statute, but also all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs even though not expressly granted by the statute. I.C. § 36-1-3-4(b); City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., Inc., 732 N.E.2d 149, 153 (Ind.2000); City of Crown Point v. Lake County, 510 N.E.2d 684, 685-86 (1987). Despite these generous delegations of authority to units of local government, section 8(a)(3) of the Home Rule Act expressly prohibits a unit from imposing duties on other political subdivisions. Nor may it impose duties on activities regulated by a state agency. I.C. § 36-1-3-8(a)(7). The ordinances by their terms apply to government agencies which presumably include the United States and units of local government. The Home Rule Act expressly prohibits the imposition of duties on other units of local government, and the County concedes that the ordinances are invalid as applied to federal agencies by reason of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States. Despite the immunity enjoyed by government agencies both below and above the State in the hierarchy of governmental units, the County maintains that the ordinances may regulate the state itself. The County correctly points out that neither DNR, an arm of state government nor the State itself is a subdivision. It is also true that nothing in the Home Rule Act in express terms prohibits a county from regulating the State. But the short answer to these points is that a county cannot prevent a state agency from carrying out statutorily authorized actions. The ordinances purport to allow a county ordinance to trump the State's statutory land acquisition authority. An impermissible conflict with state law will be found if the Ordinance seeks to prohibit that which a statute expressly permits. Hobble ex rel Hobble v. Basham, 575 N.E.2d 693, 697 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). Cf., Hopkins v. Tipton County Health Dep't, 769 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). The Home Rule Act explicitly denies this power to a county. Hobble noted that local governments may impose additional, reasonable regulations, and [to] supplement burdens imposed by non-penal state law, provided the additional burdens are logically consistent with the statutory purpose. Hobble, 575 N.E.2d at 697. The County ordinances do not supplement any burdens imposed by the state. Rather, the state law is frustrated by the county ordinance. Moreover, the state law does not impose burdens on anyone. It simply authorizes the DNR to act and does not require permission from local authorities. In short, The Game Bird Habitat Act expressly grants DNR the authority to acquire land to achieve its purposes, and the ordinances seek to regulate the State in that activity. That is not within the County's power.