ANDERSON — A lawsuit filed by the Killbuck Concerned Citizens Association seeks a ruling about whether legislation passed by the Indiana General Assembly this spring would push the Mallard Lake landfill back to square one.

“It’s clear the Legislature thinks Madison County and the Board of Zoning Appeals needs to take another look at it,” said Larry Whitham, attorney for the KCCA.

Ronald Fowler, local attorney for proposed landfill property owner Ralph Reed, disagrees.

“This is another attempt by the state legislators to pass retroactive legislation against Mallard Lake,” he said. “They’ve done this in the past, and (as was the past case) this legislation will inevitably be determined invalid.”

The lawsuit refers to Senate Bill 43, which passed the Indiana General Assembly in its latest session and took effect April 1. The law says that any landfill or other type of similar waste disposal facility that was zoned more than two decades ago, but had yet to be constructed since the time it received zoning, should be reviewed by a local authority, state Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, explained.

“It means that the landfill may be subject to review,” Lanane said. “A facility that was rezoned more than two decades ago that was not built, the local community should have the opportunity to review it.”

Since 1981, Reed and J.M. Corporation have been in and out of court because of the proposed Mallard Lake Landfill.

In 1988, IDEM issued an operating permit to J.M. Corporation. At that point, Anderson Community School Corporation and Killbuck Concerned Citizens Association, along with resident Audra Hatfield, appealed the permit issuance. After lengthy litigation, a judge ordered the permit to be finalized through the Indiana Department of Environmental Management in 1998.

The permit was not finalized, however, because of disagreements about the interpretation of the order.

Reed applied to renew his permit in 2003. The renewal was denied by IDEM, but after Reed took IDEM to court, the court found in favor of Reed and J.M. Corporation. Reed has yet to receive a renewal, he said.

“They have a permit,” said Amy Hartsock, spokeswoman for IDEM. “It is very clear they have a permit. From a judge, it was determined that they had a permit. As a part of the permitting process, a permitted facility has to renew their permit routinely. Currently, that’s every five years.”

Thirteen of the 260 acres on the property are zoned for the sanitary district, Reed said.

To renew the permit, a landfill must meet all federal standards for landfill design, Hartsock said.

“To be clear on what we’re involved in, we are finalizing, or working, to finalizing the landfill’s design,” she said. “Right now, we’re involved in two things: First is making sure their design is finalized and in compliance with federal standards. Next would be the process of their renewal.”

Reed has been to court more than 10 times over the landfill. Each time, he has been successful in winning the suits against him. Despite that, Whitman said he was hopeful his clients would win the most recent case.

The group has been successful in getting the state to closely analyze the property, Whitman said.

“It’s been delayed for more than a quarter of a century,” he said, adding that was a success for his clients also.

The lawsuit could delay the renewal of Reed’s permit for longer, Hartsock said.

“We’ll need to review how that could impact our work, if at all,” she said.

As the landfill is detained, the taxpayer suffers, Fowler said.

“Every year this is delayed, it double and triple hits the taxpayer,” Fowler said.

The landfill would create seven new high-pay jobs for equipment operators, bringing in $240,000 each year, Fowler said. Along with that, tipping fees and permit fees would bring in another $100,000 each year, he said. Finally, Fowler said the cost of hauling trash out of the county would decrease when it was brought to a local facility.

Reed said the lawsuit was based on inaccurate information. The lawsuit states, “No landfill has ever been constructed and/or operated upon the Real Estate.”

However, Reed said, the company spent millions of dollars after it received its construction permit in 1991 to build the facility.

“We built the buildings, built the access road, built a furnace and built the cells back there ready for trash,” he said. “They are saying we never built anything.”

The most recent discussion of whether the facility took in trash before April 1 is also up for controversy, he said.

“We did receive trash,” Reed said.

The legislation had no specifications about what the facility had to do with it, Reed said. In late March, Reed opened the facility for trash. He had two trash bins on the property to receive waste.

Reed said he expected to win the case.

“It’s just another nuisance; it’s a nuisance lawsuit,” he said. “They’re not going to win.”