« Ind. Decisions - Judge Posner and the use of information gathered from the Internet | Main | Ind. Gov't. - "Indy increasingly turns to nuisance law to force crime-ridden apartments, hotels and even Wal-Mart to clean up their act" »
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Ind. Gov't. - "The lessons of the proposed Mounds Lake reservoir"
The ILB has had a number of posts on the proposal for a Mounds Lake Reservoir. Here, from The Indiana Economic Digest, is a worth-reading column from Michael J. Hicks, professor of economics at Ball State. Some quotes:
Two town council votes this month ended any realistic chances that Mounds Lake would ever be built. The very timely demise of this proposed 2,100 acre reservoir in Madison and Delaware County offers some useful lessons.
The lake, which would submerge portions of the City of Anderson and extend up the White River to Yorktown was first proposed as an economic development panacea. Without any supporting analysis (or apparent legal advice), the supporters of the project approached the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA with the plan. They also requested state funds to perform the first round of a feasibility study. Funding analysis of regional economic development efforts is a wise and appropriate use of state dollars. Without that support, many problems would not have surfaced.
The preliminary feasibility study was underway when the Corps of Engineers and EPA walloped the initial plans. As any novice environmental lawyer can attest, it is illegal to dam the waters of the United States for local economic development. So, upon release of the feasibility study the purpose of the dam miraculously changed from economic development to water supply.
A singular problem with this approach is that the potential buyers of water in central Indiana publicly stated they neither needed nor wanted the water. A second problem was that the preliminary feasibility study either omitted or assumed away key features that would have hurt their effort. So, this study didn't tell residents whether they’d have lakefront or swamp front property. The study neither conducted any core drilling of a known landfill nor provided a realistic assessment of the costs of wetland reclamation. Now, I don't fault the consultants for not doing these things. Consultants are paid to answer questions. The problem was that the reservoir proponents wanted the study for reasons similar to why a drunk wants a lamppost—for support, not illumination. These questions could've been addressed for less money than was spent on marketing the reservoir.
The myriad problems with the proposal came to light in a democratic process that spanned several months. Experts on hydrology, geology, archeology, biology, environmental law, economics and others weighed in on the project. In the end, analysis and fact—much of it uncovered in this study—doomed the project. But it was concerned citizens, including many prominent local business leaders, who led the opposition. This is a great lesson in civics, but it isn't the most important lesson from the project.