ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 1, 1994
LAND AND LAKES COMPANY, JMC
)
OPERATIONS, INC.,
and
NBD TRUST
)
COMPANY OF ILLINOIS AS TRUSTEE
)
UNDER TRUST NO. 2624EG,
)
)
Petitioners,
)
v.
)
PCB 94—195
)
(Landfill Siting Review)
VILLAGE OF ROMEOVILLE,
)
)
Respondent, and
)
)
COUNTY OF WILL,
)
Intervenor.
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter is before the Board on two motions for leave to
intervene and a motion for leave to file the record
instanter.
First, on August 8, 1994, Will County, by James W. Glasgow,
State’s Attorney of Will County, filed a motion for leave to
intervene in support of the Village of Roineoville’s denial of
siting approval. Will County states that it has appeared and
been a party to the siting proceedings held by Roineoville; that
it has an interest in protecting the health and environment
within which the People of Will County live and work, so that
Will County is concerned that new facilities be necessary to
accommodate the waste disposal needs of the People of Will
County; that the bulk of the land surrounding the proposed
facility is within unincorporated Will County and subject to the
police power jurisdiction of Will County; and that the
representation of the interest of the People of Will County and
Will County itself by Romeoville may be inadequate. Will County
also points out that the Board allowed the State’s Attorney of
Will County to intervene in a previous landfill siting review,
and that the Board’s decision was upheld by the appellate court
in Land and Lakes Company v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (3d
Dist. 1993), 245 Ill.App.3d 631, 616 N.E.2d 349, 186 Ill.Dec.
396.
On August 15, 1994, petitioners Land and Lakes Company, JMc
Operations, Inc., and NBD Trust Company of Illinois, as Trustee
under Trust No. 2624EG (collectively, Land and Lakes), filed a
response in opposition to Will County’s motion to intervene.
Land and Lakes notes that the appellate court upheld the State’s
Attorney’s intervention because the State’s Attorney represents
the public interest, analogous to the Attorney General, and holds
analogous intervention rights. However, Land and Lakes contends
2
that in this case, the State’s Attorney has not sought
intervention on behalf of the People, but on behalf of the
municipal corporation of Will County. Land and Lakes argues that
Will County is a potential competitor, and that nothing in the
appellate court’s decision supports intervention by a municipal
corporation challenging a potential competitor to that municipal
corporation’s proposed landfill. Additionally, Land and Lakes
maintains that Will County’s alleged interest in the need
criterion is unsupported.
After considering the arguments of both Will County and Land
and Lakes, the Board grants Will County’s motion for leave to
intervene. We have twice allowed Will County to intervene in
earlier, related siting appeals (PCB 91-7 and PCB 92-25), and our
decision to allow intervention was upheld by the appellate court.
As the court noted, that intervention is based on the state’s
attorney’s analogous rights and duties to the Attorney General,
so that a state’s attorney may intervene to represent the public
interest. (Land and Lakes, 186 Ill.Dec. at 401—402; see also
Pioneer Processing, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
(1984), 102 Ill.2d 119, 464 N.E.2d 238, 79 Ill.Dec. 640.) We are
not persuaded by Land and Lakes’ claim that the State’s Attorney
has sought intervention on behalf of the county as a municipal
corporation, and not on behalf of the People of the county. Will
County is hereby allowed as an intervenor, and the caption is
modified.
Second, on August 23, 1994, the Forest Preserve District of
Will County (District) filed a motion for leave to intervene in
this proceeding. The District states that it has opposed the
request for siting approval; that it is an entity separate and
distinct from Will County; that it has a statutory obligation o
protect and preserve the flora, fauna, and scenic beauties within
the district, so that it is more than a mere adjacent landowner;
and that the District will be affected by and bound by the
outcome of this case. In the alternative, if intervention is
denied, the District asks that it be allowed to file an
amicus
curiae
brief. On August 29, 1994, Land and Lakes filed a
response in opposition to the District’s request to intervene,
noting,
inter alia,
that the Board previously denied the
District’s request to intervene in PCB 91-7.
It is well established that third-party objectors are
precluded from intervention in an appeal from a denial of siting
approval. (Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Pollution
Control Board (2d Dist. 1987), 160 Ill.App.3d 434, 513 N.E.2d
592, 112 Il1.Dec. 178; McHenry County Landfill, inc. v.
Environmental Protection A~encv (2d Dist. 1987), 154 Ill.App.3d
89, 506 N.E.2d 372, 106 Ill.Dec. 665.) The District is a third—
party objector, and does not have the special intervention rights
of a state’s attorney acting on behalf of the People of a county.
Therefore, the District’s motion for leave to intervene is
3
denied. The District is, however, granted the right to file an
amicus curiae
brief.
Finally, on August 30, 1994, Romeoville filed a motion for
leave to file its record
instanter.
That motion is granted. The
Board defers action on Land and Lakes’ August 30, 1994 motion for
clarification and/or reconsideration of the Board’s August 11,
1994 order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certi~ythat the above opinion and order was
adopted on the
/~-
day of
4~’ ,
1994, by a vote
of
____.
Dorothy
~
M./~unn,
~
Clerk
/4~.
Illinois P~ilutionControl Board