Hundreds of property owners threatened with legal action under latest LEAP water plan – WTHR

Report on the Lebanon Water Supply Program and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary

A revised infrastructure initiative, the Lebanon Water Supply Program, has been launched to support the LEAP (Limitless Exploration/Advanced Pace) business development project in Boone County, Indiana. Led by Citizens Energy Group, the program aims to provide 25 million gallons of water per day (MGD) via a 52-mile pipeline network. While the project aligns with economic development objectives, it raises significant concerns regarding its adherence to the principles of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning water management, environmental protection, community sustainability, and institutional transparency.

2.0 Project Analysis in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

2.1 SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure & SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The primary objective of the water supply program is to build resilient infrastructure (SDG 9) to facilitate industrial and economic growth (SDG 8) at the LEAP Project district. The state’s investment and the project’s scale are intended to attract high-tech businesses and create employment opportunities.

• Project Scope: Installation of 52 miles of underground pipelines.
• Water Capacity: A commitment to deliver 25 MGD to Lebanon Utilities by 2031.
• System Expansion: Increase Citizens Energy’s total water transmission capacity from 256 to 300 MGD.
• Financial Framework: Estimated cost of $500-$700 million, initially supported by $75 million in state loans.

2.2 SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The program’s approach to water resource management presents challenges to the sustainable management of water as mandated by SDG 6. While aiming to ensure water availability, the plan’s long-term sustainability and impact on water quality are under scrutiny.

1. Water Sourcing: Water will be drawn from a portfolio of ten central Indiana sources, including the White River, Fall Creek, and multiple reservoirs (Geist, Morse, and Eagle Creek).
2. Impact on Eagle Creek Reservoir: Daily water withdrawal from Eagle Creek Reservoir is projected to increase from 10 MGD to between 11 and 13 MGD. This raises concerns about the reservoir’s water levels, which are reportedly at a 10-year low.
3. Wastewater Management Gap: A critical component of SDG 6 is sanitation and the safe management of wastewater. The current plan lacks transparency on this issue, with Citizens Energy deferring questions to Lebanon Utilities, which has not provided a response. This omission raises concerns about the potential for untreated or poorly managed industrial runoff entering local watersheds, directly contradicting SDG 6 targets.

2.3 SDG 15: Life on Land & SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The project’s implementation path poses direct threats to local ecosystems and community well-being, conflicting with the aims of SDG 15 (protecting terrestrial ecosystems) and SDG 11 (creating inclusive and sustainable communities).

Environmental Impact (SDG 15)

• Deforestation: The pipeline installation will necessitate the felling of mature trees on private and public lands. One impacted homeowner reports the potential loss of 25 mature trees.
• Ecosystem Disruption: Stakeholders, including the Eagle Creek Park Foundation Advisory Committee, express grave concern over the project’s impact on the Eagle Creek watershed, a “living, thriving ecosystem” vital for local biodiversity and drinking water.

Social and Community Impact (SDG 11)

• Land Acquisition and Displacement: Approximately 485 property owners across four counties have been contacted for easement agreements.
• Use of Eminent Domain: Citizens Energy is leveraging the threat of legal action and eminent domain to acquire the necessary land rights, creating distress and legal challenges for residents.
• Disruption to Communities: The construction route passes through historic neighborhoods like Traders Point, impacting farms, homes, and local production. Residents describe the impending construction as a “nightmare.”

2.4 SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions & SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The execution of the project highlights significant shortcomings in governance, transparency, and stakeholder engagement, undermining the principles of SDG 16 (accountable institutions) and SDG 17 (effective partnerships).

1. Lack of Transparency: The project mirrors the secrecy of a previous, stalled plan. Key stakeholders, including the Eagle Creek Park Foundation Advisory Committee, were not consulted on the expansion of the T.W. Moses Water Treatment Plant, a departure from past collaborative practices.
2. Insufficient Public Consultation: Residents and community leaders report being uninformed about the project’s specifics, particularly the source of the water and the wastewater disposal plan. This lack of inclusive, participatory decision-making is a direct challenge to SDG 16.
3. Ineffective Partnership Communication: The partnership between Citizens Energy, the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, and Lebanon Utilities has failed to present a unified and transparent plan to the public, particularly regarding environmental safeguards and wastewater management.

3.0 Conclusion

The Lebanon Water Supply Program, while intended to foster economic development in line with SDG 8 and SDG 9, demonstrates significant misalignment with critical environmental and social sustainability goals. The project’s current trajectory raises serious questions about its commitment to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and SDG 16 (Strong Institutions). The lack of a comprehensive wastewater management plan, coupled with insufficient public transparency and negative impacts on local communities and ecosystems, indicates a need for immediate reassessment to ensure a more balanced and sustainable development outcome.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • The entire article revolves around a massive project to supply water for industrial use. It discusses the sourcing of water, the infrastructure required to transport it, the management of water resources like the Eagle Creek Reservoir, and concerns about wastewater disposal. This directly aligns with the goal of ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The primary motivation for the water project is economic. The article states its goal is “to attract and support business development in the LEAP Project district,” which is described as a “high-tech business park.” This connects to the goal of promoting sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth.
3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
   • The project involves significant infrastructure development, including the installation of “52 miles of underground pipes” and the “expansion of water treatment facilities.” This is a direct example of building resilient infrastructure to support economic development, as outlined in SDG 9.
4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The project has a direct impact on communities. The article details how the pipeline construction will “dig up land and cut down trees for hundreds of Indiana homeowners,” affecting historic neighborhoods and public parks like Eagle Creek Park. The use of eminent domain and the lack of community consultation relate to sustainable urban and settlement planning.
5. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Environmental concerns are a major theme. Residents and park advisors worry about the project’s impact on the “Eagle Creek watershed” and the “living, thriving ecosystem” of the reservoir. The article also explicitly mentions the cutting down of “mature trees,” which relates to protecting terrestrial ecosystems and halting biodiversity loss.
6. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article highlights significant governance issues. The original plan was “shrouded in secrecy,” and the revised plan triggers “new concerns about transparency.” The lack of communication with the Eagle Creek Park Foundation Advisory Committee and the ultimatum given to homeowners demonstrate a failure in transparent, accountable, and participatory decision-making by institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation):
   • Target 6.4: By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity. The project’s plan to withdraw millions of gallons of water from sources like Eagle Creek Reservoir, which is already at a record low, directly raises questions about the sustainability of these withdrawals.
   • Target 6.5: By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels. The project draws from “ten different central Indiana water resources,” including rivers and reservoirs across multiple counties, highlighting the need for integrated management. The lack of coordination and transparency suggests this is not being fully achieved.
   • Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management. The “public backlash,” the surprise of homeowners, and the fact that the Eagle Creek Park Foundation Advisory Committee “heard nothing” about the plans indicate a lack of local community participation.
2. Under SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure):
   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure… to support economic development and human well-being. The article describes the development of significant water infrastructure (pipelines, treatment plants). However, the concerns raised by residents and environmental groups question the project’s sustainability and its impact on human well-being.
3. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management. The use of eminent domain against over 400 property owners and the lack of prior consultation are contrary to the principles of “inclusive” and “participatory” planning.
   • Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces. The potential negative impact on Eagle Creek Park, a major public and recreational space visited by 1.5 million people annually, is a direct threat to this target.
4. Under SDG 15 (Life on Land):
   • Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services. The concerns about the “Eagle Creek watershed” and the impact of increased water withdrawal on the reservoir’s “living, thriving ecosystem” are directly related to the conservation of inland freshwater ecosystems.
5. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article repeatedly mentions a lack of transparency, from the original plan being “shrouded in secrecy” to the current need for residents to ask, “Where is that water going to come from?”
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The project stalled due to “public backlash,” and stakeholders like the park advisory committee were not consulted, showing a failure in participatory decision-making.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Quantitative Indicators:
   • Volume of water withdrawal: The article specifies the project will supply “25 million gallons a day,” with a potential future need of “100 million gallons of water per day.” It also states that withdrawals from Eagle Creek Reservoir will increase from 10 MGD to “between 11 and 13 million gallons per day.” These figures are direct indicators for measuring water stress and progress towards Target 6.4.
   • Change in water body levels: The article mentions that water levels at Eagle Creek Reservoir are at a “10-year period of record” low. This serves as a direct indicator of the health of the freshwater ecosystem (Target 15.1) and the sustainability of withdrawals (Target 6.4).
   • Number of affected people/households: The project is seeking easement agreements with “approximately 485 property owners,” with “more than 400” receiving letters about eminent domain. This number can serve as an indicator for the social impact and the scale of community participation required (Targets 6.b and 11.3).
   • Infrastructure scale: The project involves “52 miles of underground pipes” and a total cost of “$500 million and $700 million,” which are indicators for the scale of infrastructure development under Target 9.1.
   • Habitat loss: One homeowner is cited as potentially losing “25 mature trees.” While specific to one person, this implies a broader loss of trees and habitat along the 52-mile route, serving as an indicator for Target 15.1.
2. Qualitative Indicators:
   • Level of public consultation: The article implies this is very low. Statements like “we’ve heard nothing” from the park advisory committee and residents being “caught by surprise” are strong qualitative indicators of a failure to meet participatory decision-making goals (Targets 6.b and 16.7).
   • Transparency of information: The description of the original plan as “shrouded in secrecy” and the ongoing “concerns about transparency” where residents are “hungry for facts” serve as qualitative indicators for measuring institutional accountability (Target 16.6).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wthr.com