91 N.E.3d 642
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- John and Mae Moriarity constructed a dam and ~40-acre lake on their Grant County farm between 1997–2000; the dam exceeds 20 feet in places and impounds >100 acre-feet.
- DNR had prior contacts with the Moriaritys and issued multiple notices of violation (NOVs) over several years; a 2012 NOV alleged violations of Indiana’s Dam Safety Act.
- At an administrative hearing DNR experts testified streams existed on the property, the lake was formed by damming those streams, and the dam posed a high-hazard risk to downstream homes and a high-traffic road.
- The Natural Resources Commission ordered the Moriaritys to draw down the lake, obtain an engineer inspection and complete repairs (or dewater and permanently decommission the dam), and pay $10,000 in civil penalties.
- The trial court affirmed the Commission’s decision; the Moriaritys appealed, raising jurisdictional, evidentiary (high-hazard classification), and scope-of-remedy arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DNR had jurisdiction over the dam under the Dam Safety Act | Moriaritys: DNR misinterpreted statute; “stream” should be narrowly defined (e.g., continuous flow) so DNR lacked jurisdiction | DNR: “stream” has plain meaning (running water in a channel) and includes intermittent flows; DNR presented evidence streams were dammed | Held: “Stream” unambiguous; includes intermittent channels; substantial evidence supports DNR jurisdiction |
| Whether evidence supports classification as a “high-hazard” dam | Moriaritys: DNR’s inundation study was flawed (wrong starting elevation), so high-hazard finding lacks substantial evidence | DNR: Multiple witnesses independently testified of likely serious damage to homes and risk to a major road if dam failed | Held: Even without disputed study, other substantial evidence supports high-hazard classification |
| Whether final order exceeded DNR’s statutory authority by effectively forcing dewatering with no option to modify and remove jurisdiction | Moriaritys: Order would require complete dewatering and foreclose modifications that could remove DNR jurisdiction | DNR: Order allowed alternatives (repairs or decommissioning) and was within authority | Held: Issue waived because raised first in motion to correct error; court did not reach the merits |
| Whether administrative decision violated due process/arbitrary & capricious | Moriaritys: Erroneous jurisdictional finding deprived them of fair notice and decision was arbitrary | DNR: Jurisdiction and procedures were lawful and supported by evidence | Held: Derivative claims fail because jurisdictional exercise was proper and supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jay Classroom Teachers Ass’n v. Jay Sch. Corp., 55 N.E.3d 813 (Ind. 2016) (standard of review for agency actions under AOPA)
- Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190 (Ind. 2016) (statutory construction principles; ascertain legislature’s intent)
- Eberenz v. State Bd. of Registration for Prof’l Eng’rs, 723 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. 2000) (courts defer to agency factual findings if supported by substantial evidence)
- Ind. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Conard, 614 N.E.2d 916 (Ind. 1993) (agency factfinding not reviewed de novo by courts)
- Ind. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. West, 838 N.E.2d 408 (Ind. 2005) (deference to agency findings supported by substantial evidence)