ILLINCIS POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

March

3,

1971

ENACT

)

)

)

v.

)

1

71—34

)

)

STATE

BOYS’

SCHOOL

)

Opinion and Order of the Board

(by Mr. Currie):

This

is

a

citizen

complaint

alleging

the

discharge

of

raw sewage from the State Boys’ School at Grant City State

Park near Carbondale.

The complaint alleges facts to support

the

conclusion

and asks that “immediate action” be taken to

correct the problem.

We

applaud

the efforts of these citizens to improve their

environment by taking it upon themselves to call to the attention

of the state authorities what, if their allegations are proved,

amounts to a gross and egregious violation of the law by a state

institution, which is required by the statute to set a good

example by complflng with the Pollution laws.

Environmental

Protection Act, section

47

(a).

We note further that the Act

spec~.flcallyauthcrizes cases to be tried upon the formal complaint

of any citizen (section 31 (b)), in recognition of the fact that

the prosecuting agency

(the Environmental Protection Agency)

cannot be everywhere at once.

However, the present complaint was not drafted to meet the

procedural requirements of the Board; it is in form a resolution

asking the Board and other state agencies to take actIon.

It

is certainly adequate to stimulate an investigatIon by the

Environmental Protecticn Agency, and we have sent that agency

a copy of the resolution.

But when the citizen becomes a formal

prosecutor, as is his right under the statute, he must be more

meticulous tc meet the requirements of fair notice to the alleged

violator as to the charges against him.

We think the complaint

should be redrafted to conform to the Board’s procedural rules

and served upon the alleged violator as provided in those rules.

1-301

---

We are sending the complainants

a

copy

of

the

rules

and call

their attention specifically to rules

3014

and

305.

We also are

sending them copies

of the statute and

of rules SWB—114, with

the

~

monition

that

there

are

separate

rules

for

discharges

to

other

bodies

of

water

which

they

may

obtain

upon

request.

We

also

call

to

their

attention

the

obligation

of

the

cit~zen

comtlainant

to

prove

his

case

by

evidence

in

a

hearing

before

the

Board.

If

an

amended

complaint

is

submitted,

we

shall

be

pleased

to

hold

a

hearing,

but

our

function

at

that

time

is

that

of

a

court;

we

cannot

gather

or

present

evidence.

We

point

all

this

out

not

in

any

way

to

discourage

oit;izen

complaints

or

to

exalt

procedural

requirements

as

a

barrier

to

ascertaining

the

truth.

The

procedural

rules

are

a

necessary

safeguard

for

assuring

that

the

defendant

is

fairly

warned

of

the

charges

against

him

and

given

an

adequate

opportunity

to

do—

fend.

Compliance

with

the

rules

also

helns

to

assure

that

the

complainant

has

adequately

prepared

his

case

and

for

these

reasons

signfficantly

promotes

the

search

for

the

true

facts.

The

complaint

is

dismissed,

with

leave

to

submit

an

arendod

comolaint.

I.

Regina

B.

Ryan,

Clerk

of

the

Pollution

Control

Boprd,

cer

.if~

that

the

E~oard adopted

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

this_B

~

day

of

/j

~

~

/

,

1971.

:1

Concur

-

I

Dissent

-

/

/i.,---:~~-~

—

~

~,

~-‘

‘-

-~

-

-_i,

—

I

/

-

~

-~

—

~o_

~-~-:h~

(1~/L(~(:~

1—302