ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 23,
    1989
    NORTHERN ILLINOIS ANGLERS’
    )
    ASSOCIATION,
    an Illinois
    )
    Corporation,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 88—183
    THE CITY OF KANKAKEE,
    a Municipal Corporation,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    .1.
    Marlin):
    On March
    17,
    1989,
    the City of Kankakee
    (Kankakee)
    filed
    a
    Motion
    for Leave
    to File Response to Amended Complaint.
    Also,
    Kankakee filed
    an Answer
    to Amended Complaint
    (Answer).
    The
    motion
    for leave
    to
    file is granted.
    The Board
    notes
    that the hearing
    scheduled for March
    20th
    was continued
    at
    the request of Northern Illinois Anglers’
    Association
    (NIAA).
    Another hearing has been scheduled
    for May
    15,
    1989.
    Given
    the different numbering
    of the original
    Complaint
    (filed November
    7,
    1988)
    and Amended Complaint
    (filed March
    1,
    1989), Kankakee’s Answer appears
    to be answering NIAA’s original
    complaint,
    not the amended complaint.
    At
    the conclusion of the
    Answer,
    Kankakee requests that NIAA’s Amended Complaint “be
    dismissed and costs assessed
    against
    the petitioner”.
    The Answer
    also asserts that on February
    7,
    1989,
    the
    circuit court of Kankakee County issued an Order
    enforcing the
    fecal
    coliforrn provisions of the May,
    1987 consent decree.
    Attached
    to
    the Answer
    is
    a copy of the February 7th Order.
    In
    its Order
    of March
    9,
    1989, disposing
    of Kankakee’s February 6th
    Motion for Reconsideration,
    the Board
    noted Kankakee’s allegation
    (at that time)
    that
    a petition to enforce
    the consent decree was
    “to be filed” with the circuit court.
    The Board,
    in part, based
    its March
    9th decision on the uncertainty of such
    a petition.
    Apparently,
    though, such
    a petition was filed
    and ruled upon by
    the circuit court.
    Also,
    as
    a part of NIAA’s response
    to
    the
    Motion for Reconside1~ation,NIAA stated that Kankakee had not
    shown that
    a petition
    to enforce the consent decree had been
    filed with the circuit court.
    Now,
    Kankakee reasons that given
    the February 7th circuit court ruling,
    NIAA’s complaint should be
    dismissed.
    97—189
    2
    Given
    that Kankakee’s Answer presents the February 7th
    circuit court order
    and requests dismissal and assessment of
    costs against NIAA,
    the Board construes Kankakee’s
    March
    17, 1989
    filing as a motion.
    As a result, NIAA
    is given until April
    4,
    1989
    to file
    a response.
    Finally, the Board
    seeks clarification of the exact contents
    of NIAA’s Amended Complaint.
    On March
    1, 1989 NIAA filed
    a
    Motion for Leave
    to Amend Complaint.
    The Board granted
    that
    motion by its Order of March
    9,
    1989.
    The
    March
    1 filing
    states
    that
    it seeks
    an amendment of “paragraph
    13”
    of the original
    complaint
    to add the words
    “fecal coliform”
    to the phrase
    concerning
    the alleged daily violations.
    Attached
    to the motion
    was
    a copy of an “Amended Complaint”
    which deleted portions of
    the original complaint which were dismissed
    by the Board’s
    January
    5,
    1989 Order.
    Paragraph
    11
    of the Amended Complaint
    corresponded
    to paragraph
    13
    of the original Complaint.
    The
    Board assumed
    that
    the “fecal coliform”
    language would
    be
    considered
    added
    to
    the new paragraph
    11,
    if the amendment were
    allowed.
    However, on March
    20,
    1989,
    the Board
    received another copy
    of the Amended Complaint.
    The March 20th version of the Amended
    Complaint
    is identical
    to the March
    1 version except that
    paragraph
    11 of the March 20th version does not contain
    the words
    “fecal coliform”,
    the addition of which was allowed
    by the
    Board’s March 9th Order.
    At the present time,
    the Board considers NIAA’s amended
    complaint
    to be the March
    1 Amended Complaint containing
    a
    paragraph
    11 which
    reads
    as
    follows:
    11.
    That
    respondent’s
    monthly
    Discharge
    Monitoring
    Reports
    for
    the
    month
    of
    Janu’~ry
    1988
    through
    the
    month
    of
    July
    1988
    (see
    Exhibit
    C attached
    hereto
    and
    forming
    a part
    hereof),
    submitted
    to
    the
    Illinois
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency
    reflect
    monthly averages indicating
    that numerous and
    other
    violations
    of
    daily
    fecal
    coliform
    discharge
    standards
    occurred
    during
    said
    period.
    If this does not reflect the desired position of
    NIAA, NIAA
    should make
    the appropriate filing also by April
    4,
    1989.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy
    M.
    Cunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify
    that the above Order was adopted on
    the
    ~~~—day
    of
    727it~-t_c~_I_~
    ,
    1989,
    by a vote
    of
    _______________
    97—190
    Dorothy ~
    Clerk
    Illinois P~YlutionControl
    Board
    97—191

    Back to top