ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

19, 1971

VILLAGE OF GLENDALE HEIGHTS

v.

)

PCB#70—8

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)

CONCURRING OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Aldrich)

Comments on Invoking Section 46

This is the second case in which the invocation of Section

46

of

the Environmental Protection Act

(the power

to order municipalities

or sanitary districts

to issue general obligation or revenue bonds

without an election or referendum)

has been considered.

I feel that this is

a power

to be used sparingly by the Pollution

Control Board.

The new Illinois constitution does

not impose any limit

on bonded indebtedness

and Mr. Kissel in his opinion states:

“.

.

.

.

it

may be

that the Board can require bonds to be issued up to any

amount..”

Invoking Section 46 may in essence substitute

the will and judge-

ment of

the Board

for that of local citizens.

This action by

the Board

should only be taken when one

of two conditions

is met:

a)

failure

to do so would allow citizens of

a municipality to

pollute the environment of citizens outside the taxing district

or,

b)

the political unit is in violation of

a

law or standard..

As long as the causes and consequences

of environmental problems arising

from failure

to pass bond issues are confined to the same persons,

the

Board should hesitate

to invoke Section 46,

Local citizens

have the right,

and indeed the duty,

to decide

the priorities

in the uses of their tax revenues.

There

are many

competing uses

for tax dollars including welfare assistance, support

for education,

parks,

and recreation,

The citizens may even decide

to raise less

taxes..

If the PCB invokes Section 46,

it must bear responsibility

for

possible damage to other programs which may be more urgent.

It cannot

escape that responsibility by saying that the municipality has adequate

financial resources for all programs.

The city officials have for

their allocation only the dollars that are in fact collected,

The argument was advanced orally that infants,

the elderly,

and

persons with certain disease problems may not be adequately protected

---

without invoking Section 46.

It is inconceivable

to me

that members of

any board living entirely out~idethe community can be as responsive

to

local needs as the parents,

friends,

and relatives residing in

the

community of those with special health problems.

When the priorities of the Pollution Control Board and citizens

of the municipality or other political unit are

in conflict, the views

of local taxpayers should prevail.

I regret that this view is not

shared by other members of the Board.

In the case of EPA vs. Glendale Heights it appears that the

failure to make

the improvements

in the overall sewer system would

damage the quality of downstream water and thus affect persons outside

the taxing unit.

I, therefore,

support the opinion by Mr.

Kissel

in

this case but without prejudice

to my view in future cases

in which

the facts may be somewhat different.

I

.~

/

~‘

(

~

Samuel

R. Aldrich

Board Member

Pollution Control Board

I,

Regina E.

Ryan,

do hereby certify~hat Samuel Aldrich submitted

the above concurring opinion this

~

day of

~

,

1971.

~egin~

E.

Ryan

Clerk of

the Board

I Concur

/~

I

Dissent

I

.~

/

//~/f..’.

/

~

~

__________

1

—