- Skip Navigation

Note: This message is displayed if (1) your browser is not standards-compliant or (2) you have you disabled CSS. Read our Policies for more information.

  • Business & Agriculture
  • Residents
  • Government
  • Education
  • Taxes & Finance
  • Visiting & Playing
  • Family & Health

Indiana Natural Resources Commission

Amber Alert
Amber Alert - TEST

Indiana Natural Resources Commission

NRC > AOPA Committee > CADDNAR > CADDNAR Updates CADDNAR Updates

Subscribe for e-mail updates


Recent Caddnar Decisions (as of March 18, 2016)

Sudlow v. Slocum, et al., 14 CADDNAR 46 (2015)
For consideration is a riparian rights dispute on Lake Wawasee, a public freshwater lake located in Kosciusko County.  The decision determines multiple riparian lines using Principles 2, 3, and 4 of Information Bulletin #56.  The shared riparian zone boundary between Sudlow and Slocum is established through the application of the Fourth Principle such that Slocum’s riparian zone is comprised of approximately 36.2% of the waterfront and the Sudlows’ riparian zone approximates 63.8% of the waterfront. The Commission rejected the Claimants’ proposed method of applying the Fourth Principle.  Administrative Cause No. 12-119W

Moriarity v. DNR, 14 CADDNAR 41 (2015)
[NOTE: Grant Superiort Court (27C01-1511-PL-000073) affirmed Administrative Decision.]
This proceeding involves a Notice of Violation issued by the DNR against the Moriaritys regarding the construction of a water impoundment, which exceeded 100-acre feet of water volume.  The decision discusses the determination whether the Moriaritys were in violation of the Dams Safety Act (IC 14-27-7.5) and 312 IAC 10.5.  Administrative Cause No. 12-094W

Xanders v. Nixon Trust, 14 CADDNAR 33 (2015)
At issue in this proceeding is property with 12 feet of shoreline on Syracuse Lake, a public freshwater lake, owned by the Xanders, who have never extended a pier or moored a boat on the shoreline.  The decision discusses the improper use of the Xanders’ riparian zone by an adjacent property owner and also addresses the competing riparian interests of the Xanders and the Schrumpfs who were determined to possess certain riparian rights by virtue of an easement associated with the Xanders property and shoreline.  Included in the discussion is a survey of cases considering the imposition of clear space between riparian zones as set forth in Information Bulletin #56, “Riparian Zones within Public Freshwater Lakes and Navigable Waters” and matters related to the issuance of final orders of default. Administrative Cause No. 14-082W

Holland v. Phillips, 14 CADDNAR 29 (2015)
[Note: On judicial review in LaGrange Circuit Court (44C01-1510-MI-59).]
For consideration was a determination of the proper use to be made by an easement holder of the waters lakeward of an easement across a five-foot strip of land terminating at the shoreline of Dallas Lake, a public freshwater lake.   Administrative Cause No. 14-056W

McFall, et al. v. Department of Natural Resources, 14 CADDNAR 25 (2015)
For consideration is a request for administrative review of the Department of Natural Resources’ issuance of a restoration order requiring the property owners to remove an addition made in 2012 to an abode originally constructed in the floodway of the Vermillion River in 1971, without having first obtained a permit.  In this matter of apparent first impression the interpretation and application of Indiana Code § 14-28-1-26 and 312 IAC 10-4-3, which authorize a property owner to “make an addition to an abode constructed before January 1, 1973, if the addition would not increase the market value of the abode, excluding the value of the land, by more than fifty percent (50%)” of the value of the abode as originally constructed.  Administrative Cause No. 12-211W

Larsh v. Howard &DNR, 14 CADDNAR 20 (2015)
For consideration is a riparian rights dispute on Yellow Creek Lake, a public freshwater lake located in Kosciusko County.  Involved is the interpretation of an easement granted by a riparian owner to an owner of a lot possessing no interest in the shoreline of Yellow Creek lake.  This matter is the progeny of two administrative causes decided previously by the Natural Resources Commission.  See Howard v. DNR and Smith, 13 CADDNAR 36 (2012) and Gross v. IDNR and Howard, 13 CADDNAR 283 (2014). Administrative Cause No. 13-100W

Bull v. Trimmer, et al., 14 CADDNAR 10 (2015)
This proceeding required a determination of the appropriate use to be made of a “walk” located within the Wilcken Addition located adjacent to Shriner Lake in Whitley County, Indiana.  Upon the specific facts established at the administrative hearing it was determined that the language of the Plat’s dedication relating to the “streets, walks and grounds adjacent to the waters of the lake” created an easement for use by the lot owners of the Wilcken Addition.  Testimony describing the historical use of the areas was allowed for the purpose of clarifying ambiguities found to exist within the dedication language of the Plat. Administrative Cause No. 12-107W

Peavler v. City of Indianapolis and DNR, 14 CADDNAR 3 (2015)
For consideration was a petition for administrative review opposing the Department of Natural Resources’ issuance of a Special Purpose Deer Control Permit to the City of Indianapolis that authorized the taking of up to 350 deer from within Eagle Creek Park.  Most notably the decision concludes that despite the contrary interpretation of the Department’s Division of Fish and Wildlife an administrative rule adopted at 312 IAC 9-10-11 under the authority of Indiana Code § 14-22-28 is applicable to the review of applications for Special Purpose Deer Control Permits. Administrative Cause No. 14-155D

Cress v. Byer & DNR, 13 CADDNAR 279 (2014)
For consideration is a riparian rights dispute on Lake George, a public freshwater lake located partly in Steuben County.  The decision construes multiple easements from a riparian owner to an off lake lot owner.  Included is a definition of a “boatlift”.  Administrative Cause No. 12-192W (Judicial Review filed by Cress on 10/01/14; Steuben Circuit Court: 76C01-1410-MI-0335) Update: On June 17, 2015, the Steuben Circuit Court entered its order of remand. On April 15, 2016, the NRC AOPA Committee will consider final order following remand from the Steuben Circuit Court.

Moss v. DNR, 13 CADDNAR 259 (2014)
For consideration, is a DNR personnel action terminating the employment of a Division of Law Enforcement conservation officer. Administrative Cause No. 13-134L (Judicial Review taken by DNR on 05/30/14; Marion Circuit Court: 49D04-1405-PL-017919) Update: On December 19, 2014, the Marion Circuit Court entered its order vacating the Commission's decision and remanded.  On January 8, 2015, Moss filed appeal.  On July 9, 2015, Court of Appeals enters its memorandum decision.