ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
December 16,
1982
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PARALLEL SHORE PROTECTION
)
R82~1I
IN LAKE MICHIGAN
(Subtitle
C; Part 311)
CONCURRING OPINION
(By J.D,
Durnelle):
The intent of this proposed rule was to eliminate
unnecessary paperwork and to speed up shore protection permit
issuance.
The majority has interpreted
ltconcurrencei to mean indivld—
ual concurrence by the Board on each and every permit
application.
it seems to me that this proposed rule provided strict
environ~~
mental
safeguards and would have given concurrence
to a narrow
class of permits which are now routinely issued.
However, the alternative
proposed
by the
Board
for
First.
Notice would have givenindividual
Board Members
in effect
a
veto
power over the proposed Rule’s functioning.
Since no sinq~o
Board Member now has a veto power over
any Board
Rule,
a
prece~
dent
would be created which might
lead to
further provisions
of
this type.
For this reason,
I concur
in
dismissal
as being
preferable to adoption of the First Notice
proposal.
It
is unfortunate that here the Board
felt unable to
s:Lm-~
plify permit procedures and to reduce paperwork
and
to shorten
permit issuance periods.
I would have adopted
the original
IDOT proposed rule.
I, Christan
L.
Moffett, ~erk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board,
hereby ce9tify that the above Concurring Opinion
was submitted on the
~
day of
____
,
1982.
Christan
L,
Mof’f~t.t,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
50-157