Committee approves emergency-notice bill for significant groundwater withdrawals, shortens DNR response window to 72 hours

Senator Glick presented Senate Bill 28 to the House Committee on Natural Resources; the amended bill requires that when a significant groundwater user (defined in statute as an aggregate capacity of at least 100,000 gallons per day) is reported to have impaired a neighboring well or water supply, the Department of Natural Resources must act within 72 hours to investigate and determine mitigation steps. The amendment at committee reduced an earlier 5–7 business-day response window to 72 hours.

Supporters included Indiana Farm Bureau representatives (Caitlin Smith and James Ramsey), who described the bill as a priority for members concerned about livestock welfare if on-farm wells go dry. Ramsey told the committee that confined hog operations can require roughly 2 to 2.5 gallons of water per animal per day for drinking and cooling needs and said a multi-day delay could threaten animal welfare and the business. Committee members discussed larger water needs for cattle in the course of questioning, with figures cited during discussion ranging from about 15–30 gallons per head per day depending on operation type; witnesses characterized frequency of well failure as increasing in some areas because of development and concentrated withdrawals.

David Van Gilder of the Hoosier Environmental Council testified in support, urging the state to plan for water-resource competition across regions. Will Haines, legislative director for the Department of Natural Resources, testified in support of the bill but flagged that expanding statutory duties with a 72‑hour response period could require additional DNR staffing to meet the time frame. Haines described IC 14-25-4 (the water-rights emergency-regulation statute) as the existing statutory framework for DNR to investigate and provide remedies for high-capacity pumping impacts; he noted the bill would also permit a significant withdrawal facility to file a complaint against another significant withdrawal facility (where current statute limits complaints to domestic users).

Committee members asked process questions about how DNR would investigate competing claims; witnesses said DNR would rely on registration records, well logs and usage reporting and that the investigation would determine whether the problem was a one-time occurrence or an ongoing impairment. The committee voted to advance the amended bill by roll call, 12 yes, 0 no.