ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    8,
    1976
    LAKE CHAUTAUQUA H~i~EOWNERS
    )
    ASSOCIATION,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—461
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Zeitlin):
    This matter is before the Board on a Petition for Variance
    filed December 5,
    1976, by Petitioners Lake Chautauqua Homeowners
    Association
    (Association).
    Pursuant to an Interim Order of the
    Board entered December 11,
    1975,
    the Association filed additional
    information to supplement its Petition.
    The Recommendation of the
    Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) was filed on March
    8,
    1976.
    No hearing was held in this matter.
    Lake Chautauqua
    is a
    73
    acre
    man-made lake built as part of
    the Lake Chautauqua subdivision in Jackson County, Illinois, the
    nearest town being Murphysboro,
    approximately
    3 miles away.
    The
    lake
    is wholly owned by Petitioners.
    Petitioners state that the lake has extensive areas of shallow,
    weed producing waters
    in which swimming or fishing is
    “aesthetically
    displeasing.”
    To control the weed problem, Petitioners propose to:
    1.
    Add
    “triple super phosphate” fertilizer, which will
    promote large surface algae blooms,
    shading out the weeds.
    2.
    Add copper sulfate
    “as
    needed”
    in a super saturated
    solution to the
    6 acre swimming area of the lake.
    In its Recommendation the Agency points out several salient
    points which are omitted from the Petition:
    a.
    The source cited by Petitioners in support
    of the above plan recommends a rate of application
    for the fertilizer about six times greater than that
    contemplated by Petitioners.
    21—97
    —2—
    b.
    Because of wind and wave action, and the
    magnitude of the algae blooms which will be promoted,
    very large applications of copper sulfate might be
    required to prevent contamination of the swimming
    area.
    c.
    The source cited by Petitioners
    states
    that,
    “this method of control
    is not usually recorn—
    mended for the watershed type of pond in Illinois.”
    Aquatic Weeds
    -
    Their Identification and Control,
    Ill.
    Dept.
    of Conservation, quoted in Agency Recom-
    mendation,
    at
    3.
    d.
    Since Petitioners do not plan to contain
    the water which has been fertilized to the lake,
    extensive downstream phosphorus pollution
    (4-5
    applications totaling 5,200
    to 6,500
    lbs.) may be
    expected.
    Based on the points raised in the Agency’s Recommendation,
    we
    agree
    that Petitioners have not borne the required burden of proof.
    The Record before us fails
    to show that the “aesthetic” hardship
    claimed by Petitioners outweighs the likelihood of significant
    environmental damage.
    In
    fact,
    the Record fails to even show that
    the actions proposed by Petitioners would achieve the weed control
    on Lake Chautauqua which Petitioners seek.
    The
    Petition must be
    dismissed without prejudice.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board in this matter.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that the
    Petition for Variance in this matter be dismissed without prejudice.
    I, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk
    of
    the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,
    hereby certify the above
    Opinion
    and Order we e
    adopted on the
    day
    of
    ~
    ~L976, by
    a vote of
    ~
    ~
    1~.
    ~ioffett/~4~erk
    UlnoLs
    Pollution
    ~rol
    Board
    21—98

    Back to top