ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 22, 1972
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    V.
    )
    #72—286
    CITY OF EVANSTON
    Opinion & Order of the Board on Motion for Stay (By Mr. Currie)
    Brought before us on the Agency’s complaint relating to
    alleged emissions from a municipal incinerator, Evanston has
    sought to appeal the hearing officer’s order directing the
    City to respond to interrogatories and asks us to stay further
    proceedings pending resolution of its appeal. We deny the
    motion for stay.
    To grant the relief requested would severely disrupt
    the administrative process and play havoc with the important
    policy against piecemeal appeals. Except in the most unusual
    circumstances controversies should be fully resolved through
    hearing and decision at the first level rather than interrupting
    proceedings whenever issue is taken with a procedural ruling.
    The proper avenue for the City, should it lose on the merits,
    is to seek judicial review of our final order. Interlocutory
    review is inimical to statutory policy not only because it
    interferes with and delays proceedings but because it imposes
    an unnecessary burden on the Appellate Court to pass upon
    issues that may be mooted by administrative action.
    Thus we entertain serious doubts that a mere discovery
    order is appealable. Even if it is, we see no reason why
    our proceedings should be delayed, and alleged pollution per-
    mitted to continue, pending court resolution of the interlo-
    cutory order. And finally we see no shadow of merit in the
    argument put forth on review, namely, that Evanston is free
    to pollute at will because it is a home-rule unit. The statute
    is squarely to the contrary, and the constitutional home—rule
    provision merely authorizes cities to make laws, not to
    disobey them. EPA v. McHugh, Healy & Keeney Construction Co.,
    #71—291 (May 17, 1972).
    The motion for stay is denied.
    I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify
    that the Board ~opted the above Opinion & Order on Motion for
    Stay, this
    c~v~
    ‘~‘~
    day of August, 1972, by a vote of ‘~?~O
    5
    — 239

    Back to top