ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 11, 1976

CITY OF OREGON,

a

municipal

corporation,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCI3 75—497

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION

(by Mr. Dumelle):

My reason for dissenting in this case is that the City of

Oregon has had ample time to fully explore the existing chlorination

requirement.

The Board adopted the Public Water Supply Regulations

on November

22, 1974 after extensive hearings that were well

publicized.

The variance petition was filed exactly

13 months later

and a day after the grace period had expired.

Had the City of Oregon promptly been in contact with the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency or with its own consulting engineer

it

could have far earlier than it did become aware

of the possibilities

to use the existing utility building and existing chemical feed pumps.

The Agency cannot be the consulting engineer to cities.

Whatever

advice

it can render of a technical nature

is

a help but each city

concerned should initially rely upon its own consultant or staff for

assistance.

Where the hardship is wholly self—imposed, the Board ought not to

grant a variance.

To do so, weakens the entire legal fabric for

justification of

a variance.

The Board

is here saying “The delay

was your fault but we will protect you for a time nonetheless”.

I would not have granted the variance.

Submitted by

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

hereby certify the above Dissenting Opinion was submitted on the

________

day of March,

1976.

~

Illinois Pollution Co

1 Board