Opinion ID: 852108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conflict With, or Preemption by, State Regulations

Text: The Township and WCCD further argue that the ordinance is invalid because it regulates conduct that is already regulated by Indiana's Department of Natural Resources. (Appellee Townships's Br. at 39-48; Appellee WCCD's Br. at 33-43.) The argument is two-fold: first, that the Home Rule Act prohibits the regulation of conduct that is already regulated by DNR except as expressly granted by statute, and second, that DNR has exclusive jurisdiction over underground water resources in the State of Indiana. As to the first argument, we have already discussed that our findings with respect to the Aquifer's legal status as a watercourse provide the express grant of statutory authority required by the Home Rule Act. See Ind.Code § 36-1-3-8(a)(7). The cases cited by the Township and WCCD with respect to this argument did not address whether such an express grant of authority existed. See Ind. Dep't of Natural Res. v. Newton Cty., 802 N.E.2d 430 (Ind.2004); Hopkins v. Tipton Cty. Health Dep't, 769 N.E.2d 604 (Ind.Ct. App.2002); Hobble ex rel. Hobble v. Basham, 575 N.E.2d 693 (Ind.Ct.App. 1991). And while these cases do stand for the general proposition that a municipal ordinance may not prohibit that which a statute expressly permits, Newton Cty., 802 N.E.2d at 433 (quoting Hobble, 575 N.E.2d at 697), they also hold that a local government may `impose additional, reasonable regulations, and . . . supplement burdens imposed by non-penal state law, provided the additional burdens are logically consistent with the statutory purpose.' Id. (quoting Hobble, 575 N.E.2d at 697). At this point, Avon has not established its permitting process pursuant to the ordinance. Therefore, we cannot determine whether any additional burdens and regulations are reasonable or logically consistent with the statutory purpose behind DNR's regulatory powers. But that does not mean the ordinance is invalid. Like statutes, ordinances are presumptively valid and the party challenging an ordinance bears the burden of proving invalidity. Hobble, 575 N.E.2d at 697. Because we resolve all doubts in favor of this presumption, we presume the ordinance does not impose any unreasonable, additional regulations, nor is it logically inconsistent with any statutory purpose. See id. It is true, however, that the above rule applies only where the State has not elected to occupy the field with respect to its regulation. See id. This brings us to the Appellees' second argument. The Township and WCCD argue that DNR occupies the field with respect to regulating the withdrawal of groundwater. (Appellee Township's Br. at 41-45; Appellee WCCD's Br. at 34-35.) We disagree. To be sure, the Appellees are correct to say that a statute granting exclusive jurisdiction to a state agency need not always contain express language to that effect. We note here that the Home Rule Act provides that a municipality has exclusive jurisdiction over . . . watercourses . . . inside its corporate boundaries, unless a statute provides otherwise.  Ind.Code § 36-1-3-9(a) (emphasis added). [11] While DNR's statutory authority is extensive, however, it by no means occupies the field with respect to the regulation of groundwater withdrawal. The statutes permit DNR, when it has reason to believe it is necessary and in the public interest. . . [to] designate certain areas of Indiana . . . as restricted use areas. Ind. Code § 14-25-3-4(a) (2004). Within that area, a person must obtain a permit from DNR to withdraw or use a quantity of groundwater in excess of one hundred thousand (100,000) gallons per day in addition to the quantity the person is using at the time the order designating the area as a restricted use area becomes effective. Ind.Code § 14-25-3-6 (2004). Further, DNR may determine and establish the minimum level of ground water in aquifers below which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resource of the area. Ind.Code § 14-25-7-14(d) (2004). Nothing in these provisionsincluding the interstitial provisions setting forth the process for determining a restricted use area or for obtaining a permitindicates that DNR occupies the field with respect to withdrawal of groundwater, or that such an authority has been expressly granted to it. Instead, these provisions clearly contemplate the potential for other entities to regulate. Finding otherwise would leave large areas of this field wholly unregulatedand unregulableaccording to the Appellees. Geographically speaking, the DNR provisions do not address any area of Indiana that DNR does not reasonably believe necessary and in the public interest to declare a restricted use area. And from a standpoint of quantity, even within a restricted use area, the Appellees' approach would leave unregulated any withdrawal of an amount less than the amount set forth in Section 14-25-3-6. We see no reason why Avon cannot regulate in those areas not within the scope of the DNR provisions and, as discussed above, why Avon could not regulate in those areas within the scope of DNR's provisions. Provided, of course, such regulations are not unreasonable or logically inconsistent. Finally, both the Township and WCCD argue that Avon's municipal-level regulation of the Aquifer makes no sense because an aquifer will ordinarily cross municipality and county lines (as this particular one does). (Appellee Township's Br. at 46 n.14; Appellee's WCCD's Br. at 41-42.) Therefore, the argument goes, statewide or regional regulation makes more sense. But the same could be said for many other types of watercourses, such lakes, rivers, or streams, and yet the Indiana Code explicitly still grants units broad authority over them through the Watercourse Statutes. The clear implication of these provisions is that local governmental units have authority over watercourses within their territorial jurisdiction, and the State retains the authority through DNRto engage in regional or statewide regulation as needed. But these two powers can co-exist.