The Culver Town Council members unanimously ratified an earlier decision to send a letter of opposition to the Committee on Environmental Affairs concerning Senate Bill 389.
Senate Bill 389 repeals the regulated wetlands law which requires a permit from the Department of Environmental Management for wetland activity in a state-regulated wetland, and it has drawn the concern of many residents in Culver.
It passed the Senate on February 1. The bill then went to the House of Representatives and moved to the House Committee on Environmental Affairs.
The town council members previously approved a drafted letter by Councilman Rich West at an earlier meeting that explains the council’s opposition to the bill. The letter cited the preservation of the wetlands and Lake Maxinkuckee which has provided an outlet of recreational activities and a source of economic development, not only to the Town of Culver, but to Marshall County as a whole.
The bill was set for a hearing on Monday, March 22 so the council members agreed to send a similar letter to the legislature prior to that hearing. The action to agree to send the letter was done individually by each council member and Clerk-Treasurer Karen Heim sent the letter to the legislature.
The council members acted Tuesday night to ratify the decision to send the letter with a unanimous vote.
Testimony on the Senate Bill was the only action scheduled during the committee hearing Monday morning which took over two hours. It was stated that the comments will be taken under consideration for the potential of other amendments to come forward for review on Senate Bill 389 on Monday, March 29. Committee members will be allowed to ask questions of Senator Chris Garten who is one of the authors of the bill. He testified Monday that Senate Bill 389 aligns the latest federal definitions and the federal Clean Water Act guidance. He said it does not conflict with any federal regulations on water quality in the State of Indiana. A few organizations support Senate Bill 389 and representatives who testified defended farmers, manufacturers, and builders who are affected by current law. However, many more people who testified believed the bill would be detrimental to wetlands.
