ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    May 5,
    1983
    In the Matter of:
    )
    PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC WATER POLLUTION
    )
    R81-19
    RULES
    AND
    REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
    CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY OF ILLINOIS’
    )
    DISCHARGE TO LILY CACHE
    CREEK
    )
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by D. Anderson):
    I do not agree with the majority of the Board that the
    evidence
    is inadequate to support the adoption of a rule.
    Although Citizens’ evidence is
    less
    than
    what should ideally
    have been presented,
    I believe
    i.t is adequate to support
    adoption of a rule similar to the proposal.
    The record before
    the Board in R81-19 certainly contains more information about
    Lily Cache Creek than was before the Board when the general
    use standards were made applicable to the Creek
    (R71-14,
    3 PCB
    401,
    January
    6,
    1972)
    In R79-6 the Agency testified that,
    as a general propo-
    sition, the statewide water quality standards are overly broad
    when streams are looked at basin by basin.
    The Agency’s case
    in this rulemaking is that this stream is “typical”.
    This
    directly contradicts the Agency’s general assertion in R79—6
    that each stream is unique and must h~aveits own set of standards.
    Although R79-6 has been dismissed, it was with
    the
    understanding
    that
    separate
    basin
    proposals
    would
    soon
    be
    filed.
    I
    believe
    that,
    once
    a
    petitioner
    has
    made
    out
    a
    sufficient
    case
    to
    support
    adoption
    of
    a
    new
    water
    quality
    rule,
    it
    is
    the
    Agency’s
    duty
    to
    come
    forth with evidence to support the
    specific
    applicability
    of
    the
    general
    standards, or to come forth
    with
    different
    site
    specific
    standards
    which
    can
    be
    supported.
    The
    Agency
    failed
    to
    do
    so
    in
    this
    case,
    Federal regulations require consideration of the relative
    costs and
    benefits
    before
    grant
    funding
    of
    wastewater
    treatment
    plants
    would be allowed.
    In this case the cost to benefit ratio
    is at least
    16 to
    1 against the upgrading.
    In addition,
    the
    local government has recommended that the upgrading be postponed.
    I recognize that there is
    a problem with approaching the
    DuPage Basin in
    a piecemeal way.
    Obviously the Board must draw
    the line somewhere and not accept the argument that “it’s
    already polluted so why make me be the only one who has to
    clean
    up
    his
    discharge”.
    I
    do
    believe
    that
    it is necessary
    52-179
    to develop a cohesive strategy to address the water quality
    problems in the basin, but that such strategy should be based
    on information concerning the specific problems of the basin,
    rather than general information concerning general problems
    of the quality of the waters of the State.
    I would give Citizens a site-~specificrule until the Board
    has the DuPage Basin study~.
    Donald B~~nderson, Board Member
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, do hereby certify that the above Dissenting
    Opinion was filed on the
    J~j~
    day of
    ___________,
    1983.
    Christan L. Moffe~ Clerk
    Illinois Pollution
    ntrol Board
    52-180

    Back to top