Committee hears DNR agency bill with mineral-rights notice, historic tax-credit cap and disputed Whitewater Canal language

The Senate Natural Resources Committee heard House Bill 1616, the Department of Natural Resources agency bill, which bundles several measures including a notification process for mineral-interest tax sales, a $10,000 per-project cap on residential historic rehabilitation tax credits, and new authority for submerged-land preserves for historic vessels on Lake Michigan and the Ohio River. Representative Lindauer introduced the bill and DNR legislative director Will Haines testified on behalf of the agency.

Haines summarized four main bill areas: a procedure to address unpaid taxes on mineral interests (intended to improve notice to surface owners), a per-project residential historic tax-credit cap of $10,000 to broaden access to the credit, guidelines allowing DNR to establish submerged land preserves and additional language related to the Whitewater Canal and the Whitewater Canal Association. Haines said the bill had passed the House 97-0 and presented DNR's technical rationale for the provisions.

County auditors sought one technical amendment. Rhonda Cook of the Indiana County Auditors Association asked that auditors not be required to upload notice to the Department of Local Government Finance gateway system and supported amendment 4 to remove that requirement.

The bill generated lengthy debate about proposed language tied to the Whitewater Canal in Franklin County. Several amendments — most prominently amendment 7 (which would address title for Whitewater Canal parcels in Franklin County) and amendment 8 (a broader provision applying a 50-year recording rule statewide) — were discussed at length. Senator Loeff and others questioned whether amendment 7 would affect ongoing litigation; counsel and DNR stated amendment 7 is not retroactive and would not affect cases already filed. DNR said amendment 8 would accomplish a broader, statewide consolidation for parcels where DNR or predecessor agencies have maintained title for a long period.

Opponents of the Whitewater provisions argued the amendments could amount to an uncompensated taking. Attorney Jeff Jenks, who represents two plaintiffs in Franklin County litigation, said the bill’s proposed language would improperly transfer title without following condemnation procedures and described the change as an unconstitutional taking unless the state pays just compensation. Jenks said one affected landowner obtained a jury verdict in his favor after extended litigation and that the state previously acknowledged deficiencies in ownership for some parcels in correspondence.

Committee members debated which amendment to prefer, whether the date threshold in amendment 8 (50 years from the original recorded instrument) was appropriate and whether proposed language would affect adjacent counties or the Ohio River differently. DNR and committee counsel repeatedly said ongoing litigation would not be disturbed and invited parties to submit specific amendment language. Chair Glick again noted that HB 1616 and its amendments were being held for amendment and a future vote.

Other provisions discussed briefly included emergency authority for DNR to act on unsafe low-head dams (amendment 6) and a proposed return of Whitewater Canal-specific language (amendment 7 or 8) and a $10,000 cap on residential historic rehabilitation credits (amendment 9). The committee did not vote; members were asked to circulate amendment language ahead of the scheduled amend-and-vote session next week.