)
IBEX
Geological
Consultants,
Inc.
ILLINOIS BASIN EXPLORATION
Geology
Geophysic~s
Petroleum Engineering
September 30, 2004
Ms.
Andrea S. Moore
Board Member
Illinois Pollution Control Board
OCT
-
42004
James R,
Thompson Center
100W
Randol
1~
Suite 11-500
STATE OFILLINOIS
P ~
Poflutlon Control Board
Chicago,
IL 60601
Re: PCB 03-52 Sutter Sanitation vs. IEPA
Dear Ms. Moore:
I am writing because I understand that you are overseeing an appeal by Sutter Sanitation Services
regarding the IEPA’s
denial of a permit for a waste transfer station
in Effingham
County.
As I
understand the
situation, the proposed waste transfer station is directly across the road from some
property owned by
the Stock
family,
with whom I have had
some
business dealings.
I had
the
opportunity ofmeeting some ofthe Stock family in
1999 through my efforts as an oil exploration
geologist
and
in the
process I became personally acquainted with the Stock’s land
in Effingham
County.
The proposed station
is within
1,000
feet of some
inhabited
dwellings
on
the
Stock land.
It is
clear to
me that
the
Stock
family’s homes
would
be
negatively impacted by
the waste transfer
station, and it was with relief that I learned that the IEPA denied the permit requested by Sutter.
From what I have learned,
it appears that
Suffer Sanitation
is
taking the position for this
appeal
that
the
receipt of a local
site approval constitutes
“establishment”
of its
site.
Such
a position
seems
contrary to
the property rights of private citizens.
Iftaken as proposed by Sutter,
anyone
can flood
the system with applications for such potential sites,
no matter how spurious,
and in so
doing
prevent
any
landowner adjacent to
such sites from
developing
his
own land.
Indeed, the
applicant may decide
to
abandon
plans for the
development of a
site, yet
the mere application
would
have served
the purpose of haulting
any
attempts bythe
adjacent landowners to
develop
their own lands forthe period oftime required to resolve the permit issue.
It does not
seem reasonable that the Stocks’
property rights can be infringed upon by the filing of
an application.
IfSuffer Sanitation’s appeal succeeds in overturning the IEPA’ s ruling, I believe it
would
set a
dangerous precedent. It
seems to me that the denial ofthe permit was in
line with the
spirit
of
the
present
law,
which
was
established
to
prevent
such
proposals
from
harming
homeowners.
Additionally, I was troubled to
learn of Senator Righter’s letter of April
15,
2004
to
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
regarding this appeal.
I have written to
Senator Righter expressing my
concerns that his letter has the appearance of questioning the IEPA’s legal judgment in this case.
I respectfiully pointed out to
Senator Righter that although his efforts
are no doubt well-intended,
2106 W. Springfield Avenue, Suite NW
•
Champaign, Illinois
61821
•
Phone (217) 355-1768
•
Fax (217)
355-9474
they
appear
to
question the
validity
of existing
Illinois
environmental
laws.
His
involvement
appears to
be
for the
sole
purpose of aiding
the
commercial
efforts of one of his
constituents,
Sutter, at the
expense of homeowners,
the Stocks,
in
another district
represented by
a
different
senator.
I have
heard that
some
people are concerned
this
case will
set
a precedent across the state that
may
impede
reasonable
efforts by garbage companies to
establish
transfer stations.
Yet,
it is
my
understanding
that
after the establishment
of hundreds of landfills
and
garbage
transfer
stations
across the state over many years, there has never before been a case where a permit for such a site
was denied due to
a home being built on adjoining property within
1,000 feet ofthe proposed site
immediately prior to
submission of the permit
application.
I am therefore inclined to believe that
this
case
is a
one-of-a-kind situation and
that the IEPA correctly interpreted the law
in
denying
the permit to
Sutter.
Based on the newspaper articles that I have read, Sutter’ s
disagreements with Efilngham County’s
Landfill
33
appear to
be
at
the core
of Sutter
Sanitation’s
vigorous
efforts
to
establish
its own
garbage transfer station that would
enable it to
stop using
Landfill 33.
I find the rumors for this
conflict between
a garbage hauler and
a local
landfill owner interesting.
In my opinion,
the fact
that this conflict is the cause of Sutter’ s attempt to develop a garbage transfer station next to
the
inhabited dwellings
on
Stock’s
land represents
an
imprudent context
for overturning the IEPA’s
permit denial and its
efforts to
enforce the
environmental laws of our state.
Finally, in my business, we take very seriously the need to at least make an honest
attempt to
keep
in good graces with all the landowners in and
around our activities.
When we are planning to drill
a
well we typically contact all
the landowners that might be
affected by our activities and lease all
the land that we believe is prospective.
It would seem reasonable that Mr.
Sutter would try to use
the
same business
principles
in
dealing
with
landowners
who
may be
impacted by
his
proposed
garbage transfer
station
or,
who
in
turn,
could
impact
it.
In
this
situation,
if Mr.
Suffer
had
approached
the
Stocks
about the property
within the
1,000
feet radius of his
planned transfer
station and
either offered to buy the land or at least sought to galn assurances that there were no
plans
to for home building on it that
might jeopardize his
compliance with Illinois
environmental
laws, this entire problems could have been averted.
In conclusion, I respectfully
ask that the
Illinois Pollution Control Board decide against the appeal
made by
Sutter Sanitation Services and instead support the decision already reached by the IEPA.
Thank you for your time and attention in reviewing this
letter.
Sincerely yours,
.4.~t
/a~~~J
Stepl~en
T. Whitaker
President
2106W. Springfield Avenue,
Suite NW
•
Champaign, illinois
61821
•
Phone (217)
355-1768
•
Fax (217) 355-9474
