ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 2,
1995
PEOPLE OF THE
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 94—389
)
(Enforcement-Water)
VILLAGE OF PORT BYRON,
)
an Illinois municipal
)
corporation,
)
Respondent.
CONCURRING OPINION (by J. Theodore Meyer):
While I agree that Village Of Port Byron (Village) violated
35 Ill.Adm.Code 309.102(a)
and 305.102(b),
I concur with the
majority’s February 2,
1995 opinion and order for two reasons.
First,
I am pleased that the People requested an award of
costs and attorneys’
fees pursuant to Section 42 of the Act.
However,
in this case,
the People failed to provide evidence, and
failed to furnished an affidavit of costs and fees.
In the past,
the People have often requested costs and attorneys’ fees in
their complaint, but failed to pursue that request by providing
evidence that the alleged violation was wilful,
knowing, or
repeated.
As I have repeatedly stated,
I believe that those who
violate the Act should pay the costs of prosecution, when the
General Assembly has made specific provisions for recovering
those costs.
I hope that pursuing costs and attorneys’
fees will
become the
norm,
when allowable,
in enforcement cases.
Second,
I concur because I believe that the penalty imposed
in this case should have been higher.
As the majority states,
the Village’s failure to comply with the regulations lead to a
conclusion that the penalty must be sufficient to deter
continuing and future violations at the Village’s water treatment
facility.
Given that the Act allows for penalties of up to
$50,000 per violation, with an additional $10,000 for each day
that a violation continues,
I believe that $1,000 is insufficient
to deter continuing and future violations.
For these reasons,
I concur.
I
~
J. Th odore Meyer
Board Member
2
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that~heabove concurring opinion was filed
on the
.~2’~-
day of
_______________,
1995.
/L~
Dorothy M41Gunn, c~lerk
Illinois~ollution
Control Board