Indiana Issues First CAFO General Permit Under Revised Federal CAFO Rules
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.04.03
Acting in response to a court order issued in September 2002 to bring its CAFO permitting program into compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has issued the first new general permit for CAFOs since EPA's revised CAFO regulations became effective earlier this year. The general permit was published on June 1, 2003, but was issued as an "emergency rule" effective May 14, 2003.
The permit requirements generally track the new federal rules, but require action by CAFOs on a faster timetable. In particular, by August 12 (90 days after the May 14 effective date), all existing Indiana CAFOs must submit either: (1) a "notice of intent" (NOI) seeking coverage under the general permit (or an individual permit application); (2) a certification that the operation was not required to apply for a permit under the prior rules because it "has not discharged, does not discharge and will not discharge except in the event of a [25-year, 24-hour storm]"; or a request for a determination that the CAFO has "no potential to discharge." The rules require that IDEM consider public comments submitted on any CAFO's eligibility for general permit coverage, but do not specifically require public notice or public hearings on all NOIs. As required under the federal rules, however, IDEM will issue public notice before granting any "no potential to discharge" determination. CAFOs that submit the "certification" described above will have until April 13, 2006, to apply for permit coverage (unless they have a discharge in the meantime).
To review a copy of the general permit and related rule revisions, click here.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
