Opinion ID: 852986
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Private Ponds and Wetlands

Text: Although Indiana is not precluded from regulating waters beyond federal regulatory reach, the issue remains whether the legislature has given IDEM authority over the waters at issue. To do that, it is not sufficient that IDEM have the authority to regulate some waters beyond the post- SWANCC reach of the CWA. It must also have the statutory authority to regulate private ponds or isolated wetlands or both, and must be able to reach the particular waters at issue here. Indiana Code section 13-11-2-265 defines waters as: (1) the accumulations of water, surface and underground, natural and artificial, public and private; or (2) a part of the accumulations of water; that are wholly or partially within, flow through, or border upon Indiana. I.C. § 13-11-2-265 (2002). However, the term `waters' does not include a private pond . . . unless the discharge from the pond . . . causes or threatens to cause water pollution. Id. A private pond is a body of water wholly upon the land of a single owner or group of owners and not connected with any public waters of the state. Trowbridge v. Torabi, 693 N.E.2d 622, 627 (Ind.Ct.App.1998); I.C. § 13-11-2-265. Whether Twin Eagle's project involves ponds within this definition, and if so whether their discharge causes or threatens pollution are fact issues for administrative determination in the first instance. Wetlands also raise factual issues. The term has no statutory definition and the only definition of that term applicable to the Water Pollution Control Board in the statutes and rules defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration to support and that, under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include the following: (1) Swamps. (2) Marshes. (3) Bogs. (4) Similar areas. 327 I.A.C. 6.1-2-62 (dealing with industrial waste). [4] See also Family Dev. Ltd. v. Steuben County, 749 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (dealing with regulation of pre- SWANCC federal wetlands). Moreover, wetlands by their very nature vary in the amount of water they contain at a given time, and their boundaries can change depending on the season and the weather. But their outer boundaries are ascertainable, so the mere difficulty in determining what constitutes a wetland does not remove it from IDEM's jurisdiction. Nor do the characteristics of wetlands automatically remove them from of waters of the state if the statutory definition of waters, includes the accumulations of water . . . or . . . a part of the accumulations. I.C. § 13-11-2-265. So defined, at least some wetlands can be waters of the state. Finally, presumably in response to the regulatory gap created by SWANCC, in March 2002 the General Assembly enacted Public Law 183, which states that a state agency may not adopt or amend an administrative rule . . . that concerns the definition of `wetlands' or `isolated wetlands'.. . . 2002 Ind. Acts 183 Sec. 2. In the absence of any general definition of isolated wetland, it remains for case-by-case determination whether a particular site does or does not include waters of the state within the general regulatory power of IDEM under I.C. § 13-18-4-4, -5 (1998). Whether the wetlands on Twin Eagle's project meet that definition is again a question for the administrative process to resolve. Twin Eagle has at least two options if it believes its project will not affect regulated waters. It can apply for an NPDES permit, and challenge the finding if it believes it to be erroneous. Or, if Twin Eagle is sufficiently confident that its project will not violate the Act, it may proceed and risk an enforcement action by IDEM. This may leave a somewhat unsatisfactory legal framework, but we see no alternative to individualized determinations of IDEM's jurisdiction given the statutory prohibition against rulemaking.