ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
4, 1975
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—116
CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY OF
)
ILLINOIS,
an Illinois Corporation,)
Respondent.
Mr. James
K.
Jencks, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on
behalf of Complainant.
Mr.
Daniel
J. Kucera, Chapman and Cutler, appeared on behalf
of Respondent.
INTERIM OPINION
AND
ORDER OF ThE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
upon the March 13, 1975, Complaint filed by the
People of the State of Illinois
(State)
against Citizens
Utilities Company of Illinois
(Citizens)
charging a con-
tinuing violation of Section 18 of the Environmental Pro—
tection Act
(Act)
from July 1,
1970 to the filing of the
Complaint.
In particular,
the Respondent is charged with
failing to direct and maintain its public water facilities
so that water shall be safe in quality,
clean, adequate in
quantity and of satisfactory mineral character for ordinary
domestic consumption in that the water supplied contained
offensive odor, oil, a residue,
is discolored and unpala-
table due to the presence of iron and has been without
adequate pressure.
On October 20,
1975,
a hearing was held at which time a
“Settlement Stipulation” was filed with the Board.
While
the facts,
as stipulated, support a finding of violation of
Section 18 of the Act, and while the plan of compliance,
on
the whole,
is adequate, the Board must reject the stipulation.
The Board does so for two reasons.
On page eight of
the stipulation, the parties provide for the flushing of the
distribution system at least twice per year.
Nowhere do the
parties provide for notice to be given to the consumers of
the time of said flushing.
The Board feels this notice to
be mandatory.
Secondly,
the stipulation,
at page nine, provides that
Citizens pay “in lieu of a civil penalty,” the sum of $1,000.00
to the general revenue fund of the State of Illinois.
The
Board finds that on the basis of the stipulation, Citizens
19
-
366
—2—
has violated Section lB of the Act.
No reason is furnished
for
permitting
Respondent
to
pay
said
amount
in
lieu
of
a
penalty.
The Board welcomes stipulations which provide for
the future protection of the environment and an adequate
money penalty, EPA v. Custom Farm Services
3 PCB 310
(1971).
However, the parties can only enter into binding stipula-
tions with regard to facts and not to legal conclusions,
EPA v. Soil Enrichment Materials
Corporation
3
PCB 239
(1971).
The Board considers the term in this settlement order
which provides for a payment in lieu of penalty to be
a
stipulation to a legal conclusion.
The Board finds that a
penalty is appropriate here,
considering that the compliance
program is one of general upkeep and that the reason for
violation was apparently the result of Respondent’s failure
to properly maintain its public water supply facility.
Therefore,
the stipulation will be rejected by the
Board.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the October 20,
1975,
Settlement Stipulation be and is, hereby, rejected.
The
parties are herewith ordered to hearing or amendment of
their settlement proposal not inconsistent with today’s
Interim Opinion.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinon and Order
were adopted on the
______________
day of
1975
by
a
vote
of
4..~
Oh~dd~&/fl
WLA~
Christan
L.
Moff~’t,~’C1erk
Illinois Pollution~ontrolBoard
19
-
367