ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

NOVEMBER

23, 1971

FARMERS OPPOSED TO EXTENSION

OF THE ILLINOIS TOLLWAY et al.

v.

)

#

71—327

ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

etal.

Opinion and Order on Amended Complaint

(by Mr.

Currie):

We dismissed the original complaint

in this case

(#

71—159,

September

16,

1971)

,

in

a lengthy opinion spelling out

in our

view what must be pleaded and proved in order

to justify

a

Board order prohibiting or modifying

the planned construction

of an extension of the Toliway westward beyond Aurora.

We

gave leave to file an amended complaint, which has been received.

We entered an order October

28 requesting

a response from the

Authority, but none

has been received.

On studying the complaint

we conclude that

in certain respects

the complainants

have

now stated sufficient specific facts to entitle them to

a hearing

on the merits.

We begin by noting that we do not find persuasive the

allegations

that

the proposed road will generate new automobile

traffic,

as any new road will, or that

it will pollute more than

others because

it will be wider and support higher speeds than

some other

roads.

We are not going

to forbid the construction

of all modern highways.

We do, however, believe

a hearing

should be held limited to the following allegations, proof of

which could perhaps,

in the absence of an adequate defense,. require

modification

of the construction

plans:

1)

That the use of

several toll barriers

creates

a special

and unnecessary air

pollution problem;

2)

that hazardous concentrations

(numerically

specified

in the complaint) may be exceeded

for several air

contaminants;

including

lead;

3)

that specified contaminants

will cause violations

of the water quality standards;

and

4)

that

a permit

is required

for the construction of highway

drains and the

like discharging ?~ the waters.

This

is

a legal

question

on

which

we reserve judgment pending argument

at the

hearing.

3—

173

---

We do not wish by authorizing

a hearing to encourage

unreasonable hopes that

the complainants will prevail on the

merits.

All we

are saying today is that,

if they believe their

case is strong enough to justify the time and expense of

a

hearing,

they are entitled to

try.

We repeat, as we said

in our earlier dismissal opinion,

that we are not going to order

an end

to the building of new highways in Illinois.

I, Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk of the Pollution Control

Board, certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and

Order on Amended Complaint this~3

of/?~,,i4~_~t~

,

1971.

~

...i~

~

3—