ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 5, 1998
    VILLAGE OF ADDISON,
    Complainant,
    v.
    CITY OF WOOD DALE,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 98-104
    (Enforcement - Water)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
    On February 5, 1998, the Village of Addison (Addison) filed a complaint with the
    Board. The complaint alleges that the City of Wood Dale (Wood Dale), without a permit,
    constructed a sanitary sewer extension into the facility planning area (FPA) of Addison. The
    FPA for a community is identified in the Illinois Water Quality Management plan which is
    created and implemented by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). On
    February 18, 1998, Wood Dale filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and on February 27,
    1998, Addison responded to the motion. For the reasons discussed herein, the Board grants
    the motion to dismiss.
    The complaint filed by Addison asserts that pursuant to the Illinois Water Quality
    Management plan, FPAs were established in 1979 for Wood Dale and Addison. Comp. at 2.
    Wood Dale has attempted to modify its FPA, but those requests have been denied by the
    Agency. Comp. at 2. Addison asserts that Wood Dale has made a total of six connections of
    single family residences to the sanitary sewer Wood Dale constructed in the Addison FPA.
    Comp. at 2. The complaint asks the Board to:
    A.
    Order Wood Dale to cease and desist from providing wastewater
    collection and treatment services to properties located within the Addison
    FPA;
    B.
    Assess civil penalties against Wood Dale pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/42 if
    appropriate; and
    C.
    Order such other and further relief as the Board may deem just and
    appropriate.
    Comp. at 3.
    Wood Dale argues that the complaint should be dismissed as the complaint is both
    duplicitous and frivolous. Wood Dale asserts that Addison raises the identical issues litigated
    2
    in the case of People
    ex rel
    . Ryan v. City of Wood Dale, No. 97CH 922 (Cir. Ct. DuPage
    Co.) and Wood Dale provided a copy of that complaint as Exhibit A to its motion. Wood
    Dale maintains that two years after the case was filed, Addison filed a motion to intervene.
    Addison’s motion to intervene was denied. Mot. at 2; Exh. D. Based on these facts, Wood
    Dale argues that the complaint is duplicitous.
    Wood Dale also argues that the complaint is frivolous because Addison seeks civil
    penalties from Wood Dale. Mot. at 2. Wood Dale notes that Addison objects to the “fine”
    negotiated in the settlement of the circuit court case and Addison appears to be seeking
    payment of civil damages to Addison. Mot. at 2.
    Addison maintains that the complaint is neither duplicitous or frivolous. Addison states
    that it is not a party to the circuit court litigation and that the State and Wood Dale have
    negotiated a consent decree with regard to the circuit court action. Res. at 2. Addison asserts
    that the consent decree “does not enjoin Wood Dale from violating Addison’s FPA.” Res. at
    2. That proposed consent decree has not been submitted to the Board. Addison argues that
    since it is asking the Board to order Wood Dale to cease and desist from its “illegal activities,”
    the complaint is not duplicative of the circuit court action. Addison also points out that it is
    asking the Board to impose civil penalties against Wood Dale and not asking the Board to
    award civil damages to Addison. Thus, Addison argues that the complaint is not frivolous.
    An action before the Board is duplicitous if the matter is identical or substantially similar to
    one brought in another forum.
    Brandle v. Ropp
    (June 13, 1985), PCB 85-68. An action before the
    Board is frivolous if it fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the Board.
    Citizens for a Better Environment v. Reynolds Metals Co.
    (May 17, 1973), PCB 73-173.
    The Board finds that this matter is clearly duplicitous. Addison’s complaint is seeking relief
    for Wood Dale’s alleged unpermitted construction of sanitary sewer lines and the subsequent hook-
    up of six residences in the wrong FPA. A review of the complaint filed in the circuit court establishes
    that the same violation is being litigated in circuit court. The Board notes that
    Addison’s claim that it
    is seeking relief which may not be granted in circuit court is unsubstantiated because the proposed
    consent decree is not before this Board. The complaint filed in circuit court does seek to enjoin
    Wood Dale from further hook-ups. Mot. Exh. A at 10. Thus, the alleged violations and relief are
    identical between the two complaints and the complaint filed by Addison is duplicitous. Therefore,
    the Board dismisses the complaint and this docket is closed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member K.M. Hennessey abstains.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/41 (1996)) provides for
    the appeal of final Board orders to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days of service of this
    order. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes such filing requirements. See 145 Ill. 2d
    R. 335; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the 5th day of March 1998, by a vote of 5-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top