IN.gov - Skip Navigation

Note: This message is displayed if (1) your browser is not standards-compliant or (2) you have you disabled CSS. Read our Policies for more information.

Indiana Natural Resources Commission

NRC > AOPA Committee > CADDNAR > CADDNAR Updates CADDNAR Updates

Subscribe for e-mail updates

Recent Caddnar Decisions (January 29, 2015)

Miller, et al. v. Rogers Group, Inc. and DNR, 13 CADDNAR 298 (2014)
This proceeding considers the DNR’s approval of a permit application seeking authorization to conduct floodway construction activities contemporaneous with a planned stone quarry development. Claimants failed to identify existence of genuine issue of material fact associated with the potential for damage to fish, wildlife, and botanical resources (IC 14-18-1-22(e)(3)).  Permit affirmed in all respects on motion for summary judgment. Administrative Cause No. 14-045W

Locust Street Company, Inc. v. Citation Oil and Gas Corp. and DNR, 13 CADDNAR 295 (2014)
This proceeding considers the necessity of an applicant for a permit to drill and operate an oil and gas well under I.C. 14-37 to establish ownership interest in the minerals within the drilling unit.  The final order of the Natural Resources Commission determines that subsurface property interests, including interests in oil, gas and minerals are subject to the doctrine of accretion in the same manner as that doctrine governs surface property rights.  Administrative Cause Nos. 13-101g and 13-104G

DNR v. Acadian Energy LLC, 13 CADDNAR 294 (2014)
This proceeding considers the Department of Natural Resources’ complaint for revocation of permits to drill and operate oil and gas wells under IC 14-37. Administrative Cause No. 13-176G

Musgrave (fee petition) v. Squaw Creek Coal, 13 CADDNAR 291 (2014)
This proceeding considers a petition seeking to recover expenses and fees under IC 14-34-15-10 and 312 IAC 3-1-13. Administrative Cause No. 14-083R

Gross v. IDNR and Howard, 13 CADDNAR 283 (2014)
For consideration is a permit issued after identification of the parties-in-interest in a prior proceeding.  The site is a channel of Yellow Creek Lake, a public freshwater lake in Kosciusko County.  Partial summary judgment was granted against remonstrators who contended the permit would cause environmental harm.  The remonstrators did not produce “significant environmental harm”, as required under the rule, or an affidavit from a professional qualified to assess the damage.  But issues of material fact were found with respect to whether the permit would unduly interfere with the riparian rights of other persons.  Administrative Cause No. 13-100W

Cress v. Byer & DNR, 13 CADDNAR 279 (2014)
For consideration is a riparian rights dispute on Lake George, a public freshwater lake located partly in Steuben County.  The decision construes multiple easements from a riparian owner to an off lake lot owner.  Included is a definition of a “boatlift”.  Administrative Cause No. 12-192W (Judicial Review filed by Cress on 10/01/14; Steuben Circuit Court: 76C01-1410-MI-0335)

Justice v. Fulton Co. Surveyor & DNR, 13 CADDNAR 276 (2014)
For consideration is the application of PL 180-1995 to a Flood Control Act permit, sought on behalf of a joint drainage board, for an activity authorized by the Drainage Code (IC 36-9-27).  The decision reflected a county surveyor could serve as agent for a drainage board.  But because the joint drainage board was dissolved subsequent to DNR's issuance of the permit, the county surveyor was no longer an agent and was not himself qualified for a permit under PL 180.  Dissolution of the drainage board was a material change of facts which required permit rescission as sought by the permit's opponents.  Administrative Cause No. 12-199W

Collins & Costanza v. Town of Ogden Dunes, 13 CADDNAR 269 (2014)
For consideration are objections to DNR issuance of a special purpose deer control permit.  A person that opposes a permit has the burden of proof and cannot meet the burden by seeking merely to impeach the factual foundations for issuance.  Also, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply under AOPA or 312 IAC 3-1. Administrative Cause No. 13-195D

Moss v. DNR, 13 CADDNAR 259 (2014)
For consideration, is a DNR personnel action terminating the employment of a Division of Law Enforcement conservation officer. Administrative Cause No. 13-134L (Judicial Review taken by DNR on05/30/14; Marion Circuit Court: 49D04-1405-PL-017919)

Squaw Creek Coal v. DNR (fee petition), 13 CADDNAR 253 (2014)
Squaw Creek Coal Company v. Musgrave: For consideration is Squaw Creek Coal Company’s petition to recover costs and expenses, including attorney fees, from an individual pursuant to 312 IAC 3-1-13(d) following the conclusion of a proceeding under I.C. 14-34-15. Administrative Cause No. 13-055R