« Ind. Decisions - Background about today's defamation decision [Updated 11/2/05] | Main | Ind. Law - School may punish "unlawful activity off school property " »

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Environment - Newburgh settles water pollution problems; Hobart cemetery wetlands permit opposed; Delaware County ag park

"Newburgh settles water pollution problems" is the headline to a story today in the Evansville Courier& Press. Some quotes"

Federal and state officials have made final an agreement with the town of Newburgh to prevent sewage overflows into the Ohio River and several tributary creeks.

The agreement was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Evansville, along with a formal record of the Environmental Protection Agency's complaint. However, the town has already taken the necessary steps to solve the problem, officials said, through a series of improvements to its waste water treatment plant and sewer system. Despite those improvements, Newburgh is still required to pay a $56,000 civil penalty.

"Wetlands permit opposed" is the headline to a Gary Post-Tribune story by Karen Snelling:
HOBART — There will be significant flooding and other adverse environmental impacts if a Hobart cemetery gets its way and fills in 41 acres of wetlands, a U.S. biologist says. The proposed filling would severely disrupt the natural hydrology of the Hobart Marsh ecosystem, said Elizabeth McCloskey of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s ecological office in Chesterton.

In addition to being a valuable fish and wildlife habitat, McCloskey said, it is a major water storage area. “The existing drainage system is probably already at capacity, and no other areas the size of the Hobart Marsh are available to hold the water,” McCloskey said.

In an Oct. 26 letter, she urged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to deny Evergreen Memorial Cemetery’s request for a permit to to fill in the wetlands. Hobart city officials and area environmental groups also oppose the permit. Last month, the Hobart City Council passed a resolution asking the Army Corps to reject Evergreen Memorial’s request.

Saturday was the deadline for submitting comments on the project.

The owners of Evergreen Memorial want the wetlands filled in so they will have more space to dig grave sites. The wetlands are located one- quarter mile south of the 39th Avenue and Sandusky Street intersection. They are part of the cemetery but are federally protected. Under the cemetery’s expansion plan, 41 acres would be filled and an additional six acres of wetlands would be excavated to become a deep pond.

To mitigate the loss of the wetlands, Evergreen Memorial would restore 47 acres of wetlands on property adjacent to Salt Creek south of Valparaiso. But the compensation plan, McCloskey wrote, will not mitigate for the loss of high-quality habitat in the Hobart Marsh or lessen the significant adverse impacts on both publicly and privately-owned nature preserves adjacent to the proposed project.

The biologist further told the Army Corps that the mitigation plan will not protect the water quality and quantity in Turkey Creek and Lake George. “It is the position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it is not possible to mitigate for for the proposed filling and excavation of 47 acres of high-quality wetlands in the heart of the Hobart Marsh,” she said.

"County should review ag park policies first" is the headline to an editorial today in the Muncie StarPress. Some quotes:
Delaware County Commissioner John Brooke has effectively "tripled" the workload for members of the city-county plan commission at their Thursday meeting. But more work is crucial if planners are to make correct decisions.

Besides considering a rezoning application from a group of local farmers that would create the state's first agricultural park, the plan commission is scheduled to receive a pair of Brooke-prepared ordinances that relate directly to development of an ag park. One involves local regulation of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) and the other sets up additional governmental oversight of the proposed agricultural bio-enterprise park.

It seems sensible that planners, before they vote on whether to allow an ag park on 806 acres at Shideler, first consider what sort of regulations to attach to the operation.

For instance, if CAFOs are a permitted use, shouldn't there be some form of local regulation? And if the ordinance approved last summer to allow an ag park is as incomplete as some say it is, shouldn't more standards for development be considered?

Brooke's ordinances - which would need approval by the plan commission and board of county commissioners - are at least a start toward the goals of requiring more information from those who would develop sites in an ag park and in protecting the environment as well as the interests of nearby property owners.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 2, 2005 08:20 AM
Posted to Environment