Senate Bill 277, authored by Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, passed its committee Monday 5-3 along party lines, heading to the Senate Appropriations Committee, but testifiers were left questioning if its purpose is economic growth or actual protection of Indiana’s environment.

The bill amends the state’s environmental framework via Title 13, which is Indiana code governing the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). IDEM implements both state and federal regulations to protect human health and the environment. Beyond the basics, IDEM controls air and water pollution, regulates waste management, and enforces legal action against violators. 

SB 277 seeks to make various changes that would impact these regulations. Many of those who testified in the Senate Environmental Affairs Committee on Monday said they are worried the changes would leave loopholes that would protect industry rather than people. 

Another major concern brought up during testimony was the short amount of time given to digest the nearly 200-page bill.

“It is nearly unattainable to fully relay the broader implications and effects of its contents in the time we have had before us,” said Desi Rybolt, Indiana Conservation Voters campaign manager.

Similar concerns were shared by David Van Gilder, senior policy and legal director for Hoosier Environmental Council.

“This sprawling bill covers the entirety of Title 13, and thus the Hoosier Environmental Council’s remarks today cannot address all of these issues presented by the 176 pages that dropped on Thursday morning,” he said. 

“Burdensome” is a word used eight times throughout the bill. When Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, questioned IDEM Commissioner Clint Woods about the implications of that word, Taylor’s conclusion came back to paperwork.

In March 2025, Gov. Mike Braun released an executive order that tasked the state’s environmental agencies with cutting regulations.

Van Gilder told TheStatehouseFile.com that the Environmental Council has no problem with lawmakers cleaning up the code and updating outdated references. However, in doing so, SB 277 also slips in language that creates an opportunity for IDEM to deny Hoosiers protection, he said—for example, the requirement for state agencies to report back to IDEM would be eliminated.

According to Shannon Anderson, director of advocacy for Earth Charter Indiana, a survey from the beginning of July found that businesses were far more concerned with small changes and clarity that would go back to helping the environment.

“What we saw from that process was that businesses were not burdened by most of our state regulations,” said Anderson. “The letters that I received were overwhelmingly in support of greater protections.”

The original Title 13 consistently uses the word “shall” to require action, but in the proposed bill, “shall” is replaced with “may.” 

“The obligation the agency has to protect Hoosiers’ environment and health is limited to the discretion of whoever may be in charge,” Rybolt said.

Van Gilder offered an example of what he thought was an especially dangerous provision in the bill. In the event of substantial threat to human health in the environment, the commissioner now can choose whether or not to take action, he said. 

Woods said that IDEM does not comment on pending legislation and directed TSF to his already recorded testimony. 

Anderson told The Statehouse File that the big question to take away from the meeting is how it will impact the environment and if IDEM will continue protecting regulations those working with the environment deem crucial.

“One person’s burdensome regulation is another person’s protection,” Anderson said. “Who will ultimately end up paying for this?”