OPPOSE SB277, it’s abandoning protection for our environment and our future:

By Shannon Anderson, Director of Advocacy

It is central to ECI values and the commitment we make to our children that we leave our environment better than we found it. Therefore, we hold sacred the duties of our state agencies who provide safeguards to our air, water, health, and natural spaces. It is with this framing that we approach Senate Bill 277 and other bills: will this make our environment safer? 

The burden of regulation exists because we recognize that the burden of pollution cannot be erased, it can only be shifted. Lack of oversight on emissions for a business equals a community that experiences those impacts in economy and health and ecosystems that degrade or collapse. The regulatory review and enforcement process protects us all. How much protection do you want to waive for yourself, for your kids and grandchildren?

There are so many provisions of this bill that dramatically reshapes our Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) that are concerning, but here are several key ones:

- We opposed eliminating cross-agency communication and impact analysis for legislation and agency actions, especially at time when we are experiencing more extreme weather, increased development, and other pressures that bring together numerous agency concerns. 

- We oppose repealing a number of important offices within the agency, such as the office of  environmental emergencies, the office for communications with the public, the hearings office, including the department's hearing officers, and the office to conduct investigations. We understand that the agency would like a more flexible approach but we are aware that IDEM is already having difficulties with the fast turnaround and volume of permit hearings on things like data centers within their required 90-day window to issue a final permit. This can only add challenges for this important process to gather stakeholder input. These offices perform critical tasks that cannot can be easily absorbed and managed across a smaller IDEM, especially knowing that many of the senior staff who have decades of experience are not easily replaced.

- We oppose the language that states that “the department shall prioritize opportunities to address federal actions that are unnecessary, create barriers to environmentally beneficial projects, or are inconsistent with the law or best available science.” In light of all the changes from “shall” to “may” in many portions of code, this added “shall” requirement is notable. It is concerning that this infuses politics within the agency unnecessarily. It is the role of our agencies to implement clear and specific laws and policies, not prioritize writing opinions on what federal rules may or may not be essential.

- We oppose the changes to the Environmental Rules Board (ERB), adding nonvoting chairpersons to the board, ending licensure requirements for the board’s health professional candidate, and unbalancing the political viewpoints of the members. If we are opening up the ERB to changes, there is strong public interest in having input on that. This matter should have been a separate bill as it merits a full discussion on its own. There are serious concerns with the change to give the Governor power to remove a board member at any time, for any reason, as well as a shorter term for board members. This is likely to create a revolving door that benefits special interests over reasonable and informed deliberation. 

- We oppose giving the ERB the option instead of the duty to adopt rules for issuing environmental permits. Making the job of creating these rules optional, by changing the statute to say they “may establish requirements and procedures” for permits is inconsistent with federal laws in federal code like RCRA, CAA, and CWA and could raise issues around selective or subjective permit rules. It creates regulatory uncertainty and could require EPA to step in to fix our programs.

- We oppose shifting IDEM’s mandatory duty to seek an emergency halt of an endangerment to public health to a discretionary option and the change from having an obligation to enforce rules through lawsuits against polluters to the option to take enforcing litigation. We should not shift the responsibility to bring suit to citizens who neither have the resources nor expertise to defend themselves against what may be lucrative and influential corporations.

- We oppose the amendment that was added in the House Environmental Affairs Committee that limits IDEM actions to regulate or educate around a far too-narrow definition of PFAS “forever chemicals.”

- We oppose the addition of the word “burdensome” to sections that also address stringency of rules. This rejection of any “burdensome” regulations to businesses has been inserted throughout regulations meant to establish clear criteria for permittees. “Burdensome” has no clear legal meaning. Burden is in the eye of the beholder and what is one polluter’s burden is almost always their neighbor’s protection. 

- Even though this is not a portion of statute this bill alters, we want to stress that we opposed the “no more stringent” (NMST) language in Indiana statute that means that we cannot have regulations that are more “stringent” than federal rules years ago —and we oppose it still. Like burdensome, it’s frequently a subjective criteria. NMST was and is a mistake. Since its passage, we have learned that:

The Indianapolis metro area was ranked 11th worst in the country for annual particle pollution, according to American Lung association annual report in 2025.70% of our waterways are considered impaired according to IDEM’s own survey.Central Indiana has lost around 95 percent of its wetlands, costing the watershed approximately 2 billion gallons of water storage potential. Indiana ranks 4th in proportion of wetland acreage lost. Indiana ranks dead last among Midwest states in protecting vulnerable communities from pollution according to the Northeast-Midwest InstituteAnd we are dead last, 50th, for pollution and natural environment by U.S. News & World Report including 48th in both low industrial toxins and low pollution health risk.

No More Silent Toxins, No More Subjective Terms, No More Sliding Targets. We are going the wrong way.

This effort to revise Chapter 13 and redefine IDEM should stop here and be divided into more focused bills for our next legislative session where we can seek to improve our environmental protections. It would be the right thing to do — giving time for a full engagement with stakeholders over the summer.

There are too many issues for us to even get into here and the public has only had access to this legislation for a few weeks. In the words of this bill’s author, “this is a consuming bill.” We need to slow down and isolate these issues for careful review and input.

Tell your state representative: Indiana belongs to its PEOPLE, not POLLUTERS!

Complete the form below to urge Indiana House Representative to oppose SB 277