ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 16,

1971

Gages

Lake

Sanitary District

)

v.

)

PCB 71—104

Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. John F.

Williams, Attorney for

Gages

Lake Sanitary District

Opinion of

the Board

(by Mr. Kissel):

On May

11,

1971,

the

Gages Lake Sanitary District

(the “District”)

filed a Petition

for Variance with

the Board asking

for relief from

the deadline date of July

1,

1972,

for meeting improved effluent cri-

teria at the District~streatment facilities,

Basically,

the reason

the District seeks the delay

is that it has signed

a cont~actwith

Lake County whereby the County has agreed to take over the Districtt s

plant and other plants

in the vicinity,

and eventually replace these

plants with

a regional sewage treatment plant.

The Districtts posi-

tion is that it should not unnecessarily spend money n~wto update

its treatment plant when the plant will be replaced in the near future

by a larger regional plant owned and operated by the County.

The

Petition pointed out that

the regional plan would not be put in effect

unless the Village of Grayslake was also

a signatory to any agreement

between the County and the District.

On May

12,

1971,

the Board

ordered that the Village of Grayslake and Lake County be made parties

to this proceeding because their participation was considered “indis-

pensable to

a complete resolution of

the

controversy”.

See the opin-

ion in this case dated May

12,

1971.

Both added parties were ordered

to file

pleadings, but neither party complied, although both added

parties did appear and testify at the hearing which was held in

Waukegan on August 11,

1971.

The Agency, however,

did not appear at

the hearing.

The Board received a letter from the Agency dated

September

1,

1971 asking for a supplementary hearing because the

attorney assigned to the case

by

the Agency was out

of town when the

hearing was held.

The recent past history of the District shows that in February

of

1969

the District’s consulting engineers recommended to the Dis-

trict that its plant should be expanded and tertiary treament installed.

2

—

443

---

In September,

1969, the engineers were authorized by the District

to go ahead with the plans

for the

$1.1

million addition to the

plan.

But the District was not to go ahead with the program, and

this lack of progress caused them to lose

a federal grant which had

been approved.

It was money which prohibited the District from go-

ing ahead

—

that is,

the District officials did not believe that the

District could finance such an expansive program without substan-

tial assistance from other governmental units,

The District began discussions with Lake County in 1968 about

the

possibility of the County taking over the

Districtts plant.

The

people living in the District were,

according to a witness, ~incensedt’

about the idea,

But the Districtts

trustees apparently realized that

the District could not

finace any needed expansion,so

they continued

to press the ‘take-over by the County even though citizen pressure

would have dictated otherwise.

On December

3,

1970,

a public meet-

ing was held on the County take-over proposal, and 75

people showed

up.

About half favored the take-over.

After the public hearing,

the District trustees voted to sign an agreement with the County.

The agreement provided that immediately the County would provide

a certified operator

for the Districtts

plant and build

a larger

treatment plant

Can area—wide

one) on

the DesPlaines River.

The agree~

ment, however,

was conditioned on

the signing of the agreement by

all

of the other affected communities.

That condition has not been met

because the Village of Grayslake has not signed the agreement.

This

area—wide,

or regional, plan

is one which was conceived and fostered

by the Northeast Illinois Planning Commission.

The Village of Grayslake, through its mayor,

testified that it

would be

a “couple

of more weeks” before the Village would know

whether it will sign the agreement.

Without the Villag&s

signature,

the agreement reached by

the County

and the District is worthless.

We thing that based upon the evidence

in the record and

the

fact

that this Board

favors

the regional approach in sewage treatment,

that agreement should not fail

for the want of the signature of the

Village of Grayslake, unless in

a further hearing the Village,

or

anyone else who wishes

to participate,

can demonstrate that there

is good cause why the regional concept should not be accepthd here.

We therefore shall require further hearing on this entire

matter at which

time the following shall occur:

1.

The County shall present ~vidence

to the Board

on

how the regional plan shall be implemented,

including specifics on

costs,

and time schedules;

2— 444

---

2.

All parties and members of the public who de-

sire to do so, may present evidence at the

hearing to demonstrate that there

is good

cause why the regional plan proposed by the

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

and the County of Lake should not be ordered

to be implemented by the Board;

3.

The Agency shall participate in the hearing

as

a party and shall offer such necessary

recommendations regarding the plan

as it

shall see fit;

and

4,

The Board shall make such an order as it deems

appropriate after

the hearing or hearings

have

been completed.

I, Regina B.

Ryan,~’Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion on the

16

day of September,

1971,

—

44D