ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May
8,
1975
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complaintant,
V.
)
PCB 75—116
CITIZENS UTILITIES,
INC.
an Illinois
Corporation,
Respondent
INTERIM
ORDER
AND
OPINION
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Goodman):
This
matter
comes
before
the
Pollution
Control
Board
(Board)
on
Re~pondent~
s
motion
to
dismiss.
Respondent~s
f:i rat
contention
is
that
as
there
is
a
ending
action
before
the
Iiinois
Commerce
Commission
in
which
Citizens
Utilities
is
a
respondent,
the
Board
should
dismiss
the
instant
action
in
order
to
avoid
duplicative
or
inconsistent
orders.
As
the
Board
is
the
only
agency
havine
jurisdiction
to
deter~
mine
violations
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act,
we
find
that
the
possibil:Lty
of
inconsistent
orders
or duplicity is
sufficiently
remote
so
as
not
to
warrant dismissal on those
grounds.
The second,
third, and eighth contentions of the Respon-
dent are substantially similar to those of Star Utility, PCB
75-118, and are not supported by the
law.
As we have ex-
plained in the People
v.
Star Utility,
et al opinion, the
Attorney General has iEanding to bring actions before the
Board and no conflict of interest arises solely from the
fact that the Attorney General also represents the Illinois
Commerce Commission.
The issue of the Board~sauthority to
impose monetary penalties and cease and desist orders has
been resolved by the courts of
Illinois
in favor of the
Board, Cobin v. P.C.B.
et
al,
16 I1l.App.3d.
958,
397 NE2d
191
(1974);
City of Monmouth v. E.P.A. et al,
57 I11.2d.
482,
313 NE2d.
161
(1974):
Ford v.
E.P.A.
et al,
91 Ill.App.3d.
711,
292 NE2d.
540
(1973):
City of Waukegan v.
P.C.B.,
57
Ill.2d.
170,
311 NE2d.
146
(1974).
Section
18 of the Act is not so vague, indefinite,
ambiguous, without standards,
overly broad,
or arbitrary so
as to be unconstitutional, under either the State or Federal
Constitutions.
The Board finds that the allegations in the complaint
as to dates, location, events,
nature,
extent, duration,
and
strength of discharge or emissions conform to the pleading
16 —633
—2—
rules as promulgated by the Board and give the Respondent
sufficient notice of the acts therein complained of so as to
reasonably allow Respondent to prepare a defense.
As
to
its
sixth
contention,
the
Respondent
apparently
takes
the
position
that
since
the
public
water
supply
reg-
ulations
with
respect
to
maximum
iron
content
in
finished
water
does
not
become
effective
until
January
1,
1978,
there
can
be
no
violation
of
section
18
of
the
Act.
As
compliance
with regulations is only a prima facie defense to a viola-
tion of the Act, it is the Board’s position that one
may
comply with
the
PCB
regulations
and
yet
violate
the
Act.
The Board also holds that where water is discolored and
unpalatable,
it
may be
unfit
for
ordinary
domestic
con-
sumption and therefore those facts
may
constitute a viola-
tion of section 18 of the Act.
It
is
the
opinion
of
the
Board
that
the
Respondent’s
motion
to
dismiss
be
denied.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L.
)loffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
ce;tify
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
were
adopte4
on
the
)~‘~
day
of
Fr)
,
1975
by
a
vote
of
S-b
Illinois
Pollution
1
Board
16—634