Conservancy District Law

One of the big fears of the Little Calumet Burns Waterway Conservancy District is that a bunch of north county left wingers are going to coerce the rest of the watershed into the district and representation would be gerrymandered to shift money north. After a bit of research, I present IC 14-33-3-1.

Area of district
Sec. 1. Any area may be established as a district if each part of the district is contiguous to another part. A municipality may be included in whole or in part in the district only if at least one (1) of the following conditions exist:
(1) The freeholders in the municipality or the part of the municipality to be included in the district have petitioned to be included in the same proportion as required by IC 14-33-2-2 for the proposed district as a whole.
(2) The municipality has by ordinance of the municipality's legislative body petitioned or joined in the petition to be included in whole or in part in the district.
As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.26.

After a couple of calls down to Indianapolis, it looks like each municipality would have to come in separately either by individual petitions or by municipal ordinance. Paired with the requirement that the CD cover the whole watershed and you've got a very expensive petition process to get the district rolling.

My question is cui bono from all the drama in a process that seems to be doomed. George Van Til is getting legal advice, supposedly from experts in the field, but he is not talking like he has to get permission from each municipality. Is the legal advice simply not correct or is GVT ignoring it and making stuff up as he goes along? It's tough to say.