ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
29,
1988
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 88—113
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. WILLIAM
P. MURRAY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
MR. JOHN
J.
BRESLIN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon filing by the City
of Springfield
(“Springfield”)
of
a Petition for Variance
(“Petition”)
on July
22,
1988 and Amended Petition for Variance
(“Amended Petition”)
on September
14, 1988.
Springfield requests
variance
for
five years
from 35 Ill. Mm.
Code 302.206
as that
section relates
Lo dissolved oxygen
(“DO”)
in the Sangamon
River.
Section 302.206 requires that DO shall not be less than
6.0 mg/lduring
at least 16 hours of any 24 hour period, nor less
than 5.0 mg/l at any time.
On August
23,
1988 the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“Agency”)
filed
its Recommendation
(“Agency Rec.”) that
the requested relief be granted subject to conditions.
Springfield subsequently has stipulated to the acceptability of
the conditions recommended by the Agency
(R.
at 106—109).
The
Agency also notes that “tihere
are no known federal
laws or
regulations which would prohibit the granting of this Petition
for Variance”
(Agency Rec. at 4).
Hearing
in this matter was originally waived by Petitioner
(Petition at 18).
However,
the Board receive~several written
objections
to grant
of the requested variance
,
thereby
1 Letters of objection and their dates of filing include: City of
Petersburg,
August 10,
1988; Village
of Riverton,
August 11,
1988; City
of Athens,
August
12,
1988; Talisman Riverboat
Excursions,
August
12,
1988;
and the Illinois Department
of
Conservation, August
26,
1988.
An additional letter of objection
was filed at hearing on behalf of Doyle Farms,
Inc.
(Public Exh.
3A and
38).
93—659
—2—
triggering automatic hearing pursuant
to Section
37(a)
of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987,
ch.
1ll1,~, par.
1037(a);
“Act”).
Hearings were held on October
17,
18,
and
19, 1988
in the Springfield Municipal Building.
Although the variance Springfield here requests
is from an
ambient water quality standard,
the motivation
for the request
lies
in Springfield’s desire to provide
a short—term solution
to
drought—related water supply problems.
The linkage between these
two seemingly distant issues
is that Springfield wishes
to be
able to use the Sangamon River
as an emergency source of raw
water;
to do
so, Springfield desires
to temporarily dam the
Sangamon River,
which requires a permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(R.
at
59), which
in turn requires a certification from the Agency that
water quality violations will not occur
as
a result of
the
proposed activity pursuant
to Section 401
of the Clean Water Act
(Id.).
The Agency,
for its part,
believes that it cannot provide
the needed certification unless Springfield
is relieved from the
need to comply with the Board’s DO standard.
BACKGROUND
Springfield operates
a City Water, Light,
and Power
Department, which is
a municipal electric and water utility which
provides service
to the City
of Springfield and adjacent
communities and areas.
Water utilities are routinely provided
to
the City of Springfield,
the Villages of Chatham, Grandview,
Jerome, Leland Grove,
and Rochester,
to the Southern View, Sugar
Creek,
and Sherman—Williamsville Public Water Districts,
and
to
certain unincorporated areas adjacent
to Springfield (Petition,
p.
1).
Approximately 41,000 customers, representing
a population
of more than 138,000,
are served
(R.
at
12—13); the service
population
is anticipated
to grow to 147,000 by 1990 and 159,000
by 2000
(R.
at 13).
Average water delivery
in 1987 was
approximately 21 million gallons per day
(R.
at 78), with
a peak
of
36 million gallons per day
(R.
at 14).
Daily water demand
is
anticipated
to reach 2~mil1ion gallons by the year 2000
(R. at
44).
Springfield’s principal source of raw water
is Lake
Springfield
(“the Lake”),
a 4,000 acre reservoir constructed
in
1935 and situated
to the southeast of the City.
In addition to
serving as
a raw water
source, Lake Springfield also serves as
a
source for once—through condenser cooling water
for Springfield’s
two electric power
plants,
as
a recreational facility,
and as
site of
a lake—side residential area
(R. at 15—17).
Under most conditions water levels
in Lake Springfield are
maintained by natural
inflow,
including that from the two
principal tributaries,
Sugar Creek and Lick Creek.
Under
these
conditions the amount of water
is sufficient
to
meet:. withdrawal
93—660
—3—
demands and
to maintain a pool elevation adequate for withdrawing
treatable water,
for supply cooling water
for
the electrical
utilities,
and for support of the Lake’s recreational
and
residential uses.
However,
during times
of limited natural
inflow, capacity falls below both the supply and pool maintenance
needs.
Moreover, during drought conditions both supply and pool
elevations have or are projected
to fall below acceptable levels.
Springfield has met some of the Lake Springfield shortfalls
by increasing the storage capacity of
the Lake and by augmenting
natural inflow.
Storage capacity has been increased by past and
on—going dredging
(R.
at 19—21).
Augmentation of inflow
is
carried out on an as—needed basis by two methods,
recycling of
clarified ash pond water
and diversion of water
from the South
Fork
of the Sangamori River
(R. at 25).
Recycling of ash pond
water consists of discharging water
from certain ponds
located at
Springfield’s electric generating stations back into the Lake
rather than downstream from the Lake.
Springfield has also met some of
the supply shortfalls by
developing
a graduated program of voluntary and mandatory water
conservation measures
(R.
at
47; 56—57).
Diversion of water from the South Fork is of particular
interest because it
is identical
in concept
to the action
Springfield desires
to carry out on the Sangamon River.
The
South Fork diversion
is enabled by the existence of
a movable dam
on the South Fork which,
when emplaced, causes
a pool
to form
upstream from the dam.
A pumping station adjacent to this pool
is then used
to pump water
over the low divide which separates
Lake Springfield from the South Fork.
The South Fork diversion
has been utilized to ~ome degree
in at least
10 of the last 12
years
(R. at
27; Exh.
3).
The proposed Sangamon River dam would be located
at river
mile
85.24,
immediately downstream from the confluence of the
Sangamon River with the high—flow channel of
the South Fork of
the Sangamon River,
and immediately upstream from the confluence
2 The record
in this matter contains three numbered series of
exhibits.
Two of these sets have been submitted by Petitioner,
one
as attachments
to the Petition and one
at hearing.
For the
purpose of distinguishing these exhibits,
those submitted with
the Petition are herein identified
as
“Pet.
Exh” and
those
submitted at hearing simply as “Exh.”.
It
is
to be noted
that
a
few of
the exhibits
in these two series are identical.
The third
series was submitted at hearing
by various members of the
public.
For
reference purposes these exhibits are cited
as
“Public Exh”.
93—661
—4—
of
the Sangamon River
and Sugar
Creek
(Exh.
9).
This dam would
enable channel pools
to be formed extending up both the Sangamon
River and the South
Fork.
The Sangamon River pool would extend
a
distance
of
S
to
6 miles upstream
(R. at 54,
153).
The South
Fork pool would extend
a maximum distance of 13 miles
up that
stream
(R. at
54,
159).
The latter pool includes the site
of the
present South Fork/Lake Springfield pumping station, thus
allowing the present pumping station
to serve
the proposed new
pools
(R.
at 56,
159).
The overall proposal also involves a second new dam which
would prevent overflow
from the new South Fork pool into Sugar
Creek via the existing low—flow channel
(Exh.
9).
Construction
of both the Sangamon River dam and the anti—overflow dam would
require approximately 60 days and would cost less than $1 million
(R.
at 58).
The Sangamon River dam would be constructed
in
a manner
which would allow a minimum continuous release rate of 41 cubic
feet per second
(“cfs”).
This would be accomplished by providing
the dam with an approximately 30—inch diameter by—pass pipe
extending through the base of the dam
(R. at
55; Exh.
48).
The
by—pass pipe would
also be equipped with
a “saxophone” discharge,
which would provide
for some aeration of the by—passed water
(R.
at 114, 154,
185).
Further aeration would be promoted
for that
water which flows over the dam crest by providing
a splash-type
cascade and splash plates for the 12—foot fall on the downstream
side of the dam
(R.
at 64—65,
153—154).
The
41 cfs discharge rate would be augmented immediately
downstream
from the dam by the minimum 10 cfs discharge of Sugar
Creek
(R. at 193);
10 cfs is the discharge of Springfield’s Sugar
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, which discharges
to Sugar Creek
below the Lake Springfield Dam and above
the confluence of Sugar
Creek with the Sangamon River.
Thus,
the minimum flow in the
Sangamon River immediately below the proposed new dam would be
51
cfs
(R.
at 244).
This figure contrasts
to the present 7—day 10—
year low—flow rate ~f 49 cfs,
and the natural 7—day 10—year low-
flow rate of
13 cfs
(R.
at
140),,
as measured
at Riverton several
The present and
the natural 7—day 10—year
low flow rates differ
because the low flow rate of the Sangamon River has been
increased by artifical discharges, principally wastewater
treatment plant discharges.
It
is also to be noted that the
present 7—day 10—year low flow at Riverton
is cited
as 35.6 cfs
in some portions of the record
(i.e.,
R.
at 241),
as
a
58 cfs
elsewhere
(e.g., Public Exh.
1).
The discrepancy between these
figures and the 49 cfs figure
is unexplained
in the record,
although the date
of
the calculation would appear to be one
factor.
.3—662
—5—
miles below the proposed Sangamon River dam.
An additional
minimum of
20 cfs
is added
to the Sangarnon River from
Springfield’s
Spring Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, which
discharges downstream from Riverton
(R. at 194).
Other
wastewater treatment plants
in the immediate downstream reach of
the proposed dam which would
also continue
to augment Sangamon
River
flows include Riverton,
Athens,
and Petersburg
(R.
at 190).
Both proposed new dams are intended to be temporary
structures which would be used for no more than the five years
proposed
as the term of the variance.
Moreover, Springfield
agrees
to maintain
in force
its mandatory water conservation
measures during the time the dams are
in place,
and
to remove the
dams when normal
levels on the Lake are restored
(R.
at
106).
HARDSHIP
In consideration of any variance, the Board
is required
to
determine whether the petitioner would
suffer
an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship
if required to comply with the Board’s
regulations
at issue
(Ill.Rev.Stat.l987,
ch.
lllh/~ par.
1035(a)).
It
is normally not difficult to make
a showing that
compliance with regulations
involves some hardship,
since
compliance with regulations usually requires some effort and
expenditure.
However, demonstration of such simple hardship is
of itself insufficient
to allow the Board
to find
for
a
petitioner.
A petitioner must go further by demonstrating that
the hardship resulting from denial
of variance would outweigh the
injury of the public from
a grant
of the petition
(Caterpillar
Tractor Co.
v.
IPCB (1977),
48 Ill.
App.
3d
655,
363 N.E.
2d
419).
Only with such showing can hardship rise
to
the level of
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Moreover,
a variance by
its nature
is a temporary reprieve
from compliance with the Board’s regulations.
Compliance
is
expected “regardless of the hardship which the task
of eventual
compliance presents an individual polluter” (Monsanto
Co.
V.
IPCB
(1977),
67 Ill. App.
2d
276,
367 N.E.2d 684).
Springfield’s instant request
is prompted most recently by
the severe drought conditions of 1987 and 1988,
and projected
continued low water levels
in Lake Springfield
for 1989.
The
long—term average annual range of the level of the Lake
is about
1.7 feet,
between approximately 557.9 and
559.6 feet MSL; highest
levels typically occur
in June and the lowest
in November
(R. at
79—80;
Exh.
12).
Although Lake levels were normal
as recently as
April
1988
(R.
at 81),
by the end of September 1988 they were
about 2.75 feet below the normal September datum of 558.3
feet
(R.
at
82).
If this deficit
is not made up by natural winter
and
spring runoff
into the Lake,
Springfield
fears that it will be
entering the critical summer
season of 1989 with an unrecoverable
93—663
—6—
deficit
(R.
at 85).
Springfield
estimates,
based on the present
rate of decline and the long—term trend
of seasonal variations,
that
the Lake level will be at an elevation of about
552 feet by
February 1,
1989
(R.
at 102),
or approximately 6 feet below the
February norm (Exh.
12).
Moreover, any repeat of a drought
in
the summer
of 1989 will further exacerbate the situation.
Operating problems for the water supply and electrical utilities
(as opposed
to recreation)
are predicted
to occur at elevations
of about
550 feet and
to become critical operational constraints
at about
546 feet
(R.
at
102),
including inability to pump water
from the Lake to supply water use needs
(R.
at
197),
restrictions
in the ability
to generate electrical power
(R.
at 197),
and
possible loss of the ability to adequately treat waste waters
(R.
at 195).
It
is also noted that the Lake level actually fell
to
a
low of 547.4
feet during the drought of 1953—1955
(Petition,
p.
2),
at
a time when water demands were significantly less than at
present.
In the summer of 1988 Springfield began instituting both
voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures.
The initial
trigger
to this activity was deteriorating water system pressures
during peak hourly demands
(R.
at
87).
Springfield notes that on
some occasions system pressure was reduced
to approximately half
of the normal
50 psi, which endangered fire—fighting ability
(R.
at 87—88) among other matters.
As conditions worsened, the
Springfield City Council ordered mandatory water conservation via
ordinance
(R.
at 89—100;
Exh.
13,
14, and 15).
Springfield
estimates that the conservation programs realized about
a 16
decrease in water consumption
(R.
at
96).
Besides the hardship that mandatory water conservation
itself imposes, Springfield points to other hardships that could
result if the water conservation programs are insufficient to
curtail water demands beyond available supply.
These include
discontinuance of electric generation,
rationing of water,
decrease in fire—fighting capability,
inability to serve critical
public health facilities
(hospitals constitute
some the largest
individual consumers of Springfield’s water supply),
and economic
loss
to businesses and their ern~loyees (Petition,
p.
11—12).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Presence of the dams during
the cold weather months4 should
have relatively
little likelihood of inducing DO problems either
upstream or downstream from the dams.
Oxygen solubility
is
It
is
to be noted
in this context that
a large portion
of the
historical diversion of
the South
Fork into Lake Springfield has
occurred during November through March
(Exh.
3).
The record does
not indicate whether this pattern would persist
if the Sangamon
River project were undertaken.
93—664
—7—
inversely proportional
to water temperature, which allows the DO
of cold water,
unless the water
is severely disturbed by
pollution,
to be well above standard.
A different DO circumstance prevails during the warm weather
months.
Then the typically elevated water temperatures can limit
DO solubility to near that
of the DO standard.
Moreover,
algal
populations tend
to be higher
in warm waters,
and algal
respiration alone can produce sufficient oxygen demand
to cause
DO concentrations to fall near or below the standard.
A further
strain can be placed on the DO if the stream discharges are also
low due
to the lower rate~of reaeration which are associated
with sluggish stream flow
.
Thus, most of the DO concern
regarding Springfield’s proposal
is centered on the possible
negative impact at times of warm weather low—flow.
Data collected by both Springfield
and the Agency do show
that the DO standard
in the Sangamon River
is not now
consistently met
at warm weather low—flow
(R.
at 258; Exh.
33).
The detailed cause of this circumstance
is not resolvable from
the instant record.
However,
there is substantial reason to
believe that the cause
is related
to natural conditions of
temperature, biotic activity,
and low flow,
rather than to the
impact
of pollution
(Petition,
p.
13—14;
R. at 71—72).
Lowest
observed DO concentrations
in fact occur when the waters are
warmest,
the algal net consumption of oxygen
is at
its maximum,
and flows are low
(R.
at 267).
Springfield contends that emplacement of the two dams would
not cause
a significant negative impact on the existing DO
situation.
As evidence for this conclusion Springfield notes
that sampling in the pools upstream from two existing channel
dams on the Sangamon River
in the vicinity of Springfield during
low river stages has not revealed any endemic DO problems
(R.
at
180—182,
203—205; Exh.
24).
Similarly, analysis of DO in the
pool formed by the existing South Fork dam have not revealed any
violations of the DO standard
(R.
at 252;
Exh.
31).
Springfield
A modeling study conducted by the Illinois Natural History
Survey,
at the request of Springfield,
indicates that at water
temperatures
typical of warm weather months Sangamon River
discharges would have
to be on the order
of 237 cfs to allow
continuous maintenance of even 5.0 mg/l DO.
Although Springfield
contends that
the modeling results are at odds with empirical
data
(R.
at 76,
261—265;
Exh.
21),
it notes that the
237 cfs is
approximately
6 times greater than the measured flow in the
Sangamon under
the drought conditions experienced
in summer
1988
(R.
at 75).
On this basis Springfield concludes that natural
low—flow conditions are themselves sufficient to allow
violations
of the DO standard (Petition,
p.
14).
93—665
—8—
further suggests that the deeper water maintained
in the proposed
pools would provide
for
a dampening of the large diel DO swings
witnessed
in the shallow free—flowing reaches
(R. at 267—268),
and thus inhibit rather than promote violations of the DO
standard
in the new pools.
Springfield further contends that DO would not be adversely
affected below the proposed Sangamon River dam
(R.
at 184).
Analyses using
a Streater—Phelps model
(Exh.
26)
indicate
virtually no difference
in DO patterns at low flow with or
without the proposed dam
(R.
at
235).
The exception exists for
the river segment immediately below the proposed Sangamon River
darn, where DO concentrations are projected
to be higher
under
the
with—dam scenario due
to reaeration at the
darn
(R.
at 233).
Springfield reaches
a similar conclusion based on diel field
sampling
(R.
at 266).
Not withstanding
its belief that the dams will not adversely
impact the DO of the Sangamon River, Springfield does agree,
as
condition to grant
of
the variance,
to mitigate any fish kills
associated with placement of the dams
(R.
at 107).
Additionally,
Springfield agrees
to conduct monitoring of DO
in the Sangamon
River both upstream and downstream of the proposed Sangamon River
dam, and upstream of the pr~posedSouth Fork dam
(R.
at
109)
while the dams are in place
A second environmental
issue, not related
to DO, concerns
whether
a proposed 41 cfs minimum release rate would provide for
sufficient aquatic habitat downstream from the proposed Sangamori
River
darn.
The Illinois Department of Conservation, Division of
Water Resources, conducted
an instream flow analysis
(Pet.
Exh.
1;
Exh.
17) study which concludes that the release rate would be
sufficient
to maintain aquatic habitat
(R.
at 135,
142),
and
would actually,
for some species,
increase the amount of usable
habitat
(R.
at 134).
Springfield also contends that the pools
upstream from the dams would tend
to provide needed deep water
refuge during times
of drought
(R.
at 271,
287; Exh.
24 at 1).
Concern has also been expressed by communities located
downstream from Springfield
that!
the modifications proposed by
Springfield
for the Sangamon River would adversely affect their
water supply wells.
Springfield counters that it perceives no
immediate
impact on these water wells
(R.
at 188),
and notes that
the program for continuous release of water
from the proposed dam
should not decrease Sangamon River
flows below the existing 7—
day, 10—year low—flow discharges
(R.
at 193—194).
6 Springfield has also analyzed various methods of instream
aeration of the Sangamon pool
(R.
at 220—226;
Exh.
26),
but
has
rejected
these as impractical
(Petition,
p.
9).
The Agency
concurs
(Pet.
Exh.
7).
93—666
—9—
COMPLIANCE PLAN
Because
a variance
is
inherently
a temporary form of relief,
it
is incumbent upon a petitioner
to show that compliance can be
timely achieved.
In this context, Springfield contends that its
compliance plan consists of removing the temporary darns upon
cessation of the variance, or when they are no longer needed
to
maintain an adequate Lake level.
When achieved,
this would
restore the status quo,
thus eliminating connection between
Springfield’s activities and the Sangarnon River
DO standard,
and
effectively bringing Springfield into compliance.
Springfield has several options as solutions
for its long—
term water supply needs.
Among
these
is the construction of
a
second reservoir
to supplement existing Lake Springfield.
This
second reservoir,
informally known as Lake
II, has been under
consideration for over two decades, and various exploratory and
design studies have been undertaken
(R. at 39).
Springfield
continues to believe that Lake II constitutes an option
for
remedying
its long—term water problems
(R.
at
110),
and the City
Water, Light,
and Power has requested that the Springfield City
Council provide
recommendation for proceeding with Lake II by
November
1,
1988
(R.
at
105).
However, because construction of
Lake II would
require approximately eight years
(R.
at 46),
the
Lake II plan cannot be expected
to alleviate the immediate water
shortfalls.
A second option is development of groundwater wells.
Like
the other options, this option
is being explored
(R.
at 116).
However, Springfield
is currently uncertain that sufficient
groundwater supplies are available and that the groundwater
system could be economically developed
(R.
at 162—164).
Additionally,
this option could not be
implemented
in time to
meet an emergency occurring
in the near future.
A third option consists
of using existing gravel pits
as
collection reservoirs,
and transferring the water from these to
Lake Springfield
(R. at 165).
This option also has questions
related
to sufficiency of supply and cost
(Petition,
p.
10;
R.
at
167),
and could not be
implemerit!ed within
a short—time
frame.
CONCLUSION
The
instant matter
is unusual among matters before the Board
in that the issue involves not a weighing of the cost
of
a
The Board
notes that this date
is now
in the past.
The record
does not indicate what,
if any action,
was actually taken by this
date.
93—667
—10—
pollution control facility versus
the environmental gain which
accrues from its presence, but rather
a weighing of two matters
of public
injury.
On the one hand there
is the injury which
would be suffered by Springfield’s citizens
in the absence of an
adequate water
supply; on the other hand there
is the injury
which would be suffered by the public environment of the Sangamon
River.
The Board believes that Springfield
faces asubstantial
hardship
if it cannot proceed with its plans
for securing an
emergency water source
for its residents and the other customers
which reply upon it.
This hardship stems not only from the
inconvenience associated with
a
less—than—abundant water
supply,
but more critically from the health and safety
risks plus
economic losses which are associated with an inadequate public
water supply.
While the Board
is not pleased
that Springfield’s
circumstances may cause additional stresses to be placed on the
Sangamon River, particularly at times when natural stresses may
be at their greatest,
it
is
to be noted
that Springfield has
offered
a program which appears to provide for prudent mitigation
of these additional
stresses.
The Agency summarizes
its position as follows:
The Agency believes that Petitioner has
evaluated the alternatives and,
given
the limited
amount of time for implementation of
a plan,
has
chosen the best alternative
for providing Springfield
with an emergency water
supply.
...
Installation
of the temporary equipment would require a lead time
of four
to six months before equipment could be
delivered to the project site.
This lag time could
be critical during
a severe drought condition.
The
Agency therefore agrees with the Petitioner that
“continuous compliance at all
times with 35
Ill. Mm.
Code 302.206 by Petitioner would impose
a
substantial, arbitrary and unreasonable hardship on
the Petitioner.”
(Variance R~equest, p.
9).
Agency Rec.,
p.
4
(emphasis in original)
Based
on the facts before
it,
the Board concurs with the
Agency’s analysis,
and finds that Springfield would suffer an
arbitrary or unreasonble hardship
if denied the requested
relief.
Accordingly,
the variance will be granted, subject
to
Conditions consistent with this Opinion and with the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law
in this matter.
93—668
—11—
ORDER
Petitioner,
the City of Springfield,
is hereby granted
variance from 35 Ill. Mm. Code 302.206 as
it relates to
dissolved oxygen
in the Sangamon River, subject to the following
conditions:
a.
Within one year after receiving the variance, Petitioner
shall submit to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
a firm schedule detailing the planning and
implementation time frame for obtaining a long term
water supply.
b.
Petitioner
shall remove the temporary dams
(one on the
Sangamon River and one on the South Fork River) when the
normal
levels on Lake Springfield are obtained.
c.
Petitioner
shall mitigate any losses of fish with the
Illinois Department
of Conservation
if
a fish kill would
occur
as
a result of placement
of the dams.
d.
Petitioner
shall initiate mandatory water conservation
measures before the dams are constructed.
These
measures shall be initiated
in such
a way that water
conservation will lessen the need
for damming the
Sangamon River.
Petitioner shall submit to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency for comment any
mandatory water conservation measures which may be
approved by the City Council.
e.
The mandatory water conservati~nmeasures shall remain
in effect as long as the dams remain
in place.
The
measures may be withdrawn only when the temporary dams
are actually removed from the rivers.
f.
Petitioner
shall assure
a minimum release of
41 cubic
feet per second
of water
from the Sangamon River dam in
accordance with the Illinois Department of
Transportation Division of Water Resources instream flow
analysis and August
19,’ 1987 letter
to the U.S.
Army
Corps of Engineers.
(Petition, Exhibits
1 and 2).
g.
Petitioner
shall conduct monitoring for dissolved oxygen
at stations located both above and below the
darn to be
installed on the Sangamon River
and above
the dam to be
installed on the South Fork of
the Sarigamon River.
Results of such monitoring
shall be submitted to the
Illinois Department of Conservation,
Illinois Department
of Transportation Division of Water
Resources,
and
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency on an annual
basis,
or upon reasonable request.
93—669
—12—
h.
This variance shall expire within
5 years or upon
Petitioner receiving
a second water supply source,
whichever occurs first.
i.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order, Petitioner
shall execute and forward to Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
Division of Water Pollution Control,
Compliance Assurance Section,
2200
Churchill Road,
Post
Office Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois62794—9276, a
Certification of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound
to
all terms and conditions of this variance.
The 45—day
period
shall be held
in abeyance during any period that
this matter
is being appealed.
Failure
to execute and
forward the Certificate within 45 days renders this
variance void and of no force and effect as
a shield
against enforcement of rules from which variance was
granted.
The form of said Certification shall be as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
,
hereby
accept and agree
to be bound
by all terms and conditions of
the
Order
of the Pollution Control Board
in PCB 88—113, November
29,
1988.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
Section 41
of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987 ch.
1111/2 par.
1041,
provides
for appeal of final
Orders of the Board within
35 days.
The Rules
of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
93—670
—13—
Board Members Jacob D. Dumelle and Michael Nardulli
concurred.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abov~Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
~
day of
____________________,
1988,
by a
vote
of
7—a
.
~7.
Dorothy M,fGunn, Clerk
Illinois ~ol1ution Control Board
93—671
