ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
October
2,
1980
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 79—270
RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS PROPERTY
OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION,
)
Respondent.
MR.
THOMAS
R. CHIOLA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
MR. RICHARD W. LEIKEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by N.E.
Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the December 20,
1979
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”).
The Complaint alleged that the Respondent failed to:
(1) provide a certified water supply operator for its facility;
(2) provide chlorination and fluoridation of its public water supply
system (“system”);
(3) supply “as—built” plans
to the Agency for
its system;
(4) conform to the Agency criteria regarding its well
casing;
and
(5) submit representative samples of its raw and
finished water to the Agency in violation of Section
1 of an Act
to Regulate the Operating of a Public Water Supply,
Ill. Rev. Stat.,
ch.
111½,
par.
501
(1977); Rules
209,
212,
305,
306, and 309 of
Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies
(“Chapter 6”); and Sections 18
and 19 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”).
A
hearing was held on August 20,
1980.
The parties filed a
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on August
21,
1980.
The Respondent,
the Riverview Heights Property Owners’
Association (the “Association”) is an Illinois not—for—profit
corporation which owns and operates water supply facilities which
provide water for drinking and general domestic uses to the
owners or occupants of homes in the Riverview Heights’ Subdivision
in Woodford County,
Illinois.
(Stip.
2-3; Exhibit A).
The
Association’s water supply system
(the
“system”)
includes one drift
well,
a 1,000 gallon pressure tank, and an auxiliary distribution
system.
(Stip.
2).
—2—
The Association has asserted that, because of a small claims
action in 1977,
it operates a “private” rather than “public” water
supply system
(i.e., since it may not be required to serve
10 or
more lots or properties).
On the other hand,
the Agency previously
contended that,
because the Association was capable of serving at
least 10
lots or properties at all times pertinent to the Complaint,
and since no permanent disconnection or separation of the
distribution system had yet taken place,
the system ought to be
considered a “public” water supply within the purview of Section 3
of the Act.
(Stip.
3),
It is stipulated that the Respondent filed a small claims court
Complaint against Mr. Rober Kahler on April
19,
1977 which sought
payment for past water services provided to Mr. Kahler and/or
disconnection of service to him.
Mr. Kahler was one of the 10
property holders being served by the Respondent in 1977.
However,
the court entered a temporary restraining Order on February~3, 1978
which enjoined the Respondent from disconnecting Mr. Kahler~swater
service.
Subsequently,
the court held,
on November 17,
1978,
that
Mr. Kahier
“had an equity interest in the well, the pump,
the pipes
and appurtenances, including the right to take water from the lot
but that Kahler was not entitled to obtain water from the pipeline
and distribution system of the Association.”
(Stip.
3).
The lot
in question is currently being served by the Respondent since the
amount due has since been paid by Mr. Kahler or his successor.
(Stip.
3).
Accordingly, at least 10 lots are now being served by
the Respondent’s distribution system.
(Stip.
3).
The stipulated facts indicate that the Agency notified the
Respondent on July 26,
1977 that its water supply system was
operating in violation of the Public Water Supply Act, the Board’s
Public Water Supply Regulations and the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act.
(Exhibit B),
The parties have also stipulated
that the Association has never provided:
(1)
a properly certified
operator;
(2)
“as—built” drawings of its system to the Agency;
(3)
a permanent casing for its drift well projecting
18 inches
above the ground surface;
and
(4) raw and finished water samples
to the Agency.
(Stip.
4).
Additionally, the Respondent has
admitted that it failed to provide chlorination in its supply from
December 21,
1975 until the present time and failed to furnish the
requisite fluoridation from December 21,
1974 to date.
(Stip.
3;
5),
The proposed settlement agreement prQvides that the Respondent
admits the allegations of the Complaint and agrees to c~asearid
desist from further violations by no longer “supplying 10 or more
lots or properties with water for drinking and general domestic
use,”
(Stip.
5).
Additionally, the Association has agreed to:
(1)
drill a new well to serve a portion of the 10 properties
currently served by the system;
(2) promptly separate the legal
ownership of the old well from the new well so that “the legal
entity responsible for ownership and operation of each well
is
separate and distinct”;
(3) promptly separate the appurtenant
distribution system from each well so that “less than 10 lots or
—3—
properties are being served by each well respectively”; and
(4) pay
a stipulated penalty of $100.00
.
(Stip.
5).
Moreover,
the Association has agreed to promptly provide the
Agency with adequate proof of separate legal ownership and
operation which shall include an inspection by Agency employees
for verification purposes.
(Stip.
5).
Additionally, the parties
agree that,
upon completion of the steps outlined in the settle-
ment proposal, the Respondent shall no longer be considered a
“public water supply” as defined by Section 3 of the Act.
(Stip.
6).
The record indicates that the Association has contracted with the
Chris Eber~tCompany for a new well which will cost $5,291.09.
(Stip.
5; Exhibit C).
Because several new wells have been
constructed on lots previously served by the Association, the
original well which was serving 10 homes now serves only
6 homes.
(Exhibit D).
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement,
the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and circum-
stances in light of the specific criteria delineated in Section 33(c)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
The Board finds the
stipulated agreement acceptable under Procedural Rule 331 and
Section 33(c) of the Act.
The Board finds that the Respondent, the
Riverview Heights Property Owners’
Association, has violated
Section 1 of an Act to Regulate the Operating of a Public Water
Supply,
Ill.
Rev. Stat., Chapter 111½, par.
501
(1977); Rules 209,
212, 3057~06,and 309 of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies; and
Sections 18 and 19 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
and orders the Respondent to cease and desist from further
violations.
The stipulated penalty of $100.00 is hereby assessed
against the Respondent.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The Respondent,
the Riverview Heights Property Owners’
Association, has violated Section 1 of an Act to Regulate the
Operating of a Public Water Supply,
Ill.
Rev. Stat., Chapter 111½,
par.
501 (1977); Rules
209,
212,
305,
306, and 309 of Chapter
6:
Public Water Supplies; and Sections 18 and 19 of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
2.
The Respondent shall cease and desist from further
violations.
3.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order,
the Respondent
shall, by certified check or money order payable to the State of
Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $100.00 which
is
to be
sent to:
—4—
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
4.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed
on August 21,
1980, which is incorporated by reference as if fully
set forth herein.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify th t the above Opinion and Order were ~dopted
on the
~
A’P
day of
_______________,
1980 by a vote of
~
p
a~m
~eth
Christan L,
Moffet,t
erk
Illinois Pollution
ontrol Board
