ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 8,
1975
DALE ECCLES,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 74—297
WALLACE COOK,
Respondent.
Both parties appeared without counsel.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Odell)
On August
9,
1974, Dale Eccles of Panama,
Illinois,
filed a formal Complaint against Wallace Cook, his neighbor.
The Complaint alleged that Mr. Cook raised chickens on his
own property and pastured a mule and a pony
(“horses”) within
a few feet of Complainant’s property, thereby creating an odor
and fly problem in violation of Section
9 (a)
of Illinois
Environmental Protection. Act
(Act).
Violations allegedly
occurred during the summer of 1974.
A hearing took place on January
17,
1975,
in the
Municipal Building in Greenville, Illinois.
No members of
the public attended the hearing
(R.
87).
The parties live
approximately 125 feet apart
(R.
15), with two vacant lots
between their homes
(R.
18,
22).
Respondent moved into the
neighborhood
in the spring of 1974 and within one month stock-
ed his property with chickens and two horses
(R.
11).
Mr.
Cook kept the chickens on his own property but obtained a
lease for the two vacant lots to graze his horses.
At present
Mr.
Coo.k does not have any chickens but he gave no assurances
that he wouldn’t raise chickens when he was “better situated
to take care of them
(R. 79).”
The fly problem has presently
abated because of the colder weather but Complainant expected
the warmer weather to bring back the problem
(R.
12)
During the summer of 1974 the presence of horse manure
in the vacant lots allowed large numbers of
flies to breed
(R.
12).
Many of them got into Complainant’s home.
Complain-
ant’s wife stated that the odor problem from the chickens
forced them to keep their windows closed and not operate their
window fans at night
(R.
70).
Their daughter’s bedroom window
faces the vacant lots
so that her window also had to be kept
closed
(R.
70).
The odor disrupted their eating and sleeping
habits.
16
—569
—2—
A
witness
from
the
Bond
County
Health
Department
testified
that
Respondent
had
kept
500
chickens
in
a
very
confined
area
CR. 36).
During a visit in late
May,
1974,
he
noted
odors
from
the
chicken
house and saw several
hundred
flies in the area
(R. 36)
•
Horse manure was observed a
few
feet from Complainant’s
window
CR. 44)
•
He believed
that
the flies could lead to health
problems,
because when large numbers of
them
are
in
an
area,
it
is
difficult
to
keep
them
out of a house.
The
flies
carry
excreti
on their legs and
can
create
a
community
disease
situation
CR. 37).
The fly
and
odor
problem
is
caused
by
Respondent’s
chickens
and
horses, because the problem didn’
t
exist
before
Respondent
moved
into the area
CR. 47, 49, 50).
There
is
no
local ordinance to regulate the ownership and
care of
animals
on private property
CR.
53,
62).
Mr.
Eccles
had
complained
on another occasion when
someone
had
kept horses in
the
vacant
lot
next
to
him.
The
horses
were
removed
CR.
18).
Complainant’ s
main
N
bone
of
contention
N
centers
on
the
odor
problem
created
by
the
chickens
CR.
18).
A
neighbor
keeps
six
to
ten
dogs
behind
Complainant’ s
property,
but
he
doesn’ t
con-
sider
such
animals
a
problem
CR.
17).
Respondent
testified
that
he
realized
that
the
chickens
had
created
an
odor
problem
and
he
had
gotten
rid
of
them
CR.
77).
Respondent stated
that
some
of
the
hens
were
not
laying
and
he
was
going
to
cull
them
out
anyway
CR.
76).
Respondent
definitely
plans
to
keep
his
two
horses
staked
in
the
two
vacant
lots
ad-
jacent
to
his
property
CR.
79).
We
find
that
Respondent
has
violated
Section
9
Ca)
of
the
Act
during
the
summer
of
1974
because
Respondent,
in
the
care
of
his
chiqkens
and horses,
has
caused
unreasonable
interference
with
Complainant’s
life
and
property.
The
factors
in
Section
33
Cc)
of
the
Act
establish
that
the
interference
was
unreasonable.
First,
the
degree
of
interference,
although
short-lived,
was
substantiafl
Eating
and
sleeping
habits
were
disrupted.
Second,
the
social
and
economic
value
of
the
pollution
source
is
quite
limited
since
it
only
temporarily
provided
a
marginal
income
to
one
individual
•
Third,
Respondent
failed
to
practice
good
house-
keeping
methods
for his
chicken
enterprise
and
overlooked
proper
staking
procedures
for
the
horses
to
reduce
the
interference
with
the
interests
of
the
Complainant.
Fourth,
Complainant
was
in
the
area
before
Respondent.
The
Board,
however,
does
not
give
this
factor
great
weight
in
this
case
because
of
the
rural
nature
of
the
area.
In
assessing
a penalty
we
are
guided,
in
part,
by
the
factors
in
Section
33
Cc)
of
the
Act.
The
unreasonable
inter-
ference
was
serious
but
occurred
for
a
relatively
brief
period.
The
nature
of
the
area mitigates
against
a severe
penalty.
Respondent
disposed
of
some
of
the
chickens
before
the
filing
of
the
Complaint.
The
Respon&ent,
an
individual
with
limited
means,
16—570
has made efforts to limit the interference.
The facts of this
case convince us that a severe penalty would not be warranted.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con~
clusions of law of the Board.
that:
1.
Respondent has violated Section
9(a)
of the Act durinq
the summer of 1974 as set out in the Opinion.
2,
Respondent shall pay a penalty of $a5~00for its
violations of the Act established in this Opinion.
Payment
shall be by certified check or money order payable to the State
of Illinois, Fiscal Services Divisioi., Environmental Protection
Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois 62706. Pay~
ment shall be made within
60 days of the adoption of this Order.
3.
Before Respondent, establishes any further chicken rais~
ing operations, he shall consult with Mr. Price, the sanitarian
frcm the Bond County Health Department, and implenent reason~
able housekeeping practices for the care of the chickens.
All
chickens shall be confined to Respondent~sproperty.
4.
Respondent:shall stake or otherwise restrain his horses
so that they cannot graae within 75 feet of Comp1ainant~shouse.
In grazing the horses, Respondent shall see to it that the horses
are moved at regular intervals to limit the accumulation of horse
manure in any area.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day of May,
1975, by
a vote of
16—571