Town of Avon v. West Central Conservancy District
957 N.E.2d 598
Ind.2011Background
- Town of Avon challenged by Washington Township and West Central Conservancy District over Avon's 2008- law regulating withdrawal of water from nearby watercourses, including an underground aquifer.
- Ordinance 2008-8 prohibits taking water from a watercourse for retail/wholesale purposes except by Avon; defines watercourse to include groundwater/aquifers.
- Indiana Watercourse Statutes grant a unit authority over watercourses within its limits; Home Rule Act vests broad powers to local units but not beyond express limits.
- Township and WCCD argued the Aquifer is not a watercourse and that Avon’s regulation would be preempted by state agencies (DNR) or violate Park Resources statutes.
- Indiana Supreme Court required to determine (1) whether White Lick Creek Aquifer is a watercourse; (2) whether Avon may regulate withdrawal by other political subdivisions under Home Rule Act; (3) whether such regulation is preempted by state regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the White Lick Creek Aquifer a watercourse under Indiana law? | WCCD/ township argue aquifer lacks watercourse characteristics. | Avon contends aquifer fits watercourse under statute and common law. | Yes; aquifer qualifies as a watercourse based on fact-specific analysis. |
| Does the Home Rule Act permit Avon to regulate another political subdivision’s withdrawal from a watercourse? | Township/WCCD argue Avon lacks authority to regulate subunits; watercourse status insufficient. | Avon argues Watercourse Statutes provide express authority; harmonization with Park Resources statutes. | Yes; Avon may regulate withdrawal via watercourse authority, with harmonized application to Park Resources. |
| Is Avon's ordinance preempted by DNR regulations or field occupancy? | Appellees claim DNR occupies the groundwater regulation field. | There is no exclusive field occupancy; DNR allows regulation outside restricted-use areas. | Not preempted; state may regulate in designated areas while local regulation coexists. |
| Does Avon’s regulation infringe common-law groundwater rights of Township/WCCD? | Aquifer as groundwater not watercourse suggested to be outside municipal control. | Aquifer is a watercourse; municipal regulation consistent with statutory framework. | No; regulation consistent with watercourse status and statutory authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tutt v. New Jersey, etc., 168 Ind. 205, 80 N.E. 420 (1907) (Ind. 1907) (defines watercourse in Indiana common law)
- Birdwell v. Moore, 439 N.E.2d 718 (Ind.Ct.App. 1982) (Ind.Ct.App. 1982) (applies fact-specific approach to watercourses)
- Towns v. Crown Point, City of Crown Point v. Lake Cty., 510 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. 1987) (Ind. 1987) (harmonizes local and state regulatory powers)
- Wiggins v. Brazil Coal & Clay Corp., 452 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. 1983) (Ind. 1983) (distinguishes lost groundwater from watercourses)
- Gagnon v. French Lick Springs Hotel Co., 163 Ind. 687, 72 N.E. 849 (1904) (Ind. 1904) (recognizes subterranean water as relevant to watercourse analysis)
- Midtown Chiropractic v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 847 N.E.2d 942 (Ind. 2006) (Ind. 2006) (statutory modification of common law not beyond express terms)
- Drake v. Mitchell Cmty. Sch., 649 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 1995) (Ind. 1995) (ejusdem generis interpretation guiding statutory scope)
- City of Crown Point, 510 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. 1987) (Ind. 1987) (Home Rule Act limitations and authorities interplay)
- Hobble ex rel. Hobble v. Basham, 575 N.E.2d 693 (Ind.Ct.App. 1991) (Ind.Ct.App. 1991) (limits of statutory grant and allowance of supplementary regulation)