Indiana Public Opinion Summary Report: Environmental Regulations and Executive Order Assessment

List of Key Chapter Titles

1. Summary of Public Opposition to Executive Order 25-38
2. Core Arguments of Opposition: Federal Standards as a Baseline, Public Health Priority, Necessity of Localized Governance
3. Supportive Opinions and Industry Demands: Regulatory Burden, Cost Considerations, and Calls for Consistency
4. Deep Dive Issue 1: Air Pollution, Ozone Standards, and Monitoring Methods (CEMS vs. Method 9)
5. Deep Dive Issue 2: Water Pollution, NPDES Permits, Mercury Standards, and Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing
6. Deep Dive Issue 3: Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, CCR Rules, and Landfill Regulation
7. Deep Dive Issue 4: Regulatory Controversies over Concentrated Feeding Operations (CFO/CAFO)
8. Civil Society Organization Actions and Case Studies: The Example of the Southwest Indiana Citizens for Quality of Life
9. Legal and Procedural Challenges: Legality of the Executive Order, Federalism, and Judicial Independence
10. Summary of Specific Policy Modification Suggestions (from Various Stakeholders)
11. Conclusion and Outlook on Policy Implications

Document Introduction

This report compiles public comments solicited by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) in June 2025 in response to Governor Mike Braun's Executive Order 25-38. The order aims to "create opportunity and reduce overregulation" by evaluating and potentially repealing state environmental regulations deemed "overly burdensome, significantly increase the cost of living for Hoosiers, lack current legal and best scientific support, or are not beneficial to Indiana's environment," particularly those stricter than federal standards. The report includes a large volume of email and attached comments submitted by diverse stakeholders ranging from ordinary citizens, environmental scientists, and lawyers to energy companies, agricultural associations, municipal utilities, and environmental non-governmental organizations. It constitutes a panoramic record of a fierce policy debate concerning environmental governance, public health, economic development, and local autonomy.

The core controversy focuses on the philosophical foundation and potential consequences of Executive Order 25-38. Numerous citizens, environmental organizations (such as the Conservation Law Center, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Indiana Conservation Voters, etc.), and some scholars strongly oppose the order. Their main arguments include: First, federal environmental standards should be seen as a protective floor, not a ceiling; states should have the power and responsibility to enact stricter rules based on unique local ecological conditions, industrial structure, and public health challenges (such as Indiana's poor rankings in toxic air emissions, river pollution, and infant mortality). Second, against the backdrop of the current federal government (the Trump administration) significantly relaxing environmental regulations, proactive weakening of protections at the state level would exacerbate public health risks, posing a direct threat especially to children, the elderly, and residents of heavily polluted areas (like Southwest Indiana). Third, they argue that environmental regulations and economic growth are not opposing forces; history proves that effective regulation can drive technological innovation, create jobs, and avert greater health and economic costs.

On the other hand, industry and some regulated entities, represented by the Indiana Energy Association, Peabody Energy, American Electric Power, the Indiana Pork Producers Association, the Indiana State Poultry Association, and some municipal utilities (such as the Fort Wayne City Utilities), generally support the direction of reducing regulatory burdens. They presented specific examples of "overregulation," such as: air CO monitoring regulations inconsistent with federal rules, lack of flexibility in MATS performance testing, overly stringent implementation guidance for selenium standards in water, the unreasonableness of freshwater mussel propagation plans as a 316(b) compliance method, failure to adopt the federal Bevill exclusion in hazardous waste regulations, solid waste regulations with hazardous waste testing and removal requirements stricter than federal ones, and overly burdensome disclosure statement and notification requirements in Concentrated Feeding Operation permits. They call on IDEM to ensure state regulations align with federal requirements and to provide greater flexibility and predictability in permits.

The report delves into the technical and policy disagreements on several key environmental issues. Regarding air quality management, disputes involve the Indiana State Implementation Plan's failure to effectively address ozone pollution, insufficient application of Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems for particulate matter, and reliance on the outdated Method 9 opacity test. In water quality management, the focus includes whether the limits and monitoring frequency for mercury set by IDEM in NPDES permits are sufficient to ensure compliance with water quality standards, the necessity of Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing when chemical-specific limits are deemed adequate, and whether cold-water fish standards should apply to cooling reservoirs. In the waste management arena, there are significant operational burdens and regulatory interpretation disputes concerning the implementation of Coal Combustion Residuals rules, landfill hazardous waste detection procedures, and the approval process for long-term closure certifications. The regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) highlights major public health concerns regarding unlimited animal numbers, insufficient setbacks, the legal fiction of being considered "zero discharge," and unrestricted air emissions.

Furthermore, through detailed accounts from citizen groups like the Southwest Indiana Citizens for Quality of Life (SWICQL), the report provides vivid case studies of grassroots environmental action, legal battles (such as opposition to the Riverview Energy coal-to-diesel refinery), and public health advocacy, revealing the significant challenges citizens face in seeking environmental justice within the existing regulatory and judicial framework. Multiple comments also raised fundamental questions about the legality of the executive order itself, its erosion of federalist principles, and potential industry bias in IDEM's regulatory approach.

This summary report is not a unified policy analysis but rather an in-depth compilation and presentation of raw comments. It objectively reflects the multiple pressures Indiana faces at a crossroads in environmental regulation: uncertainty brought by federal policy shifts, severe local environmental and public health indicators, powerful traditional industry interests, increasingly active civil society oversight, and differing visions for economic development paths. These comments provide policymakers, scholars, and the public with extremely rich and valuable firsthand material and contrasting viewpoints for understanding the complexity of environmental governance, the diverse demands of stakeholders, and the potential consequences of policy choices.