ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    9,
    1975
    CITIZENS
    FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,
    An Illinois Not-for-Profit Corp..
    COMPLAINANT
    PCB 74-367
    CITIZENS
    UTILITIES COMPANY
    OF ILLINOIS
    An
    Illinois
    Corp.,
    RESPONDENT
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr.
    Marder)
    Citizens Utilities Company of Illinois filed
    on November 27,
    1974.
    The Motion was directed
    to
    be considered separately herein.
    Citizens’
    first contention
    is to the standing of
    CBE
    in this matter.
    While
    it is
    true that CBE did not allege that it was either
    a customer or
    a user of the service provided by Citizens, the Board finds that Sec. 31
    (b) of the Environmental Protection
    Act allows
    any person
    to file an action
    for enforcement.
    CBE cannot receive any private remedies from the Board
    and is actually bringing action for the people of
    the state,
    in order to
    prevent alleged environmental damage.
    Citizens next contends that CBE is
    unlawfully representing citizens
    of the Village of Bolingbrook,
    in violation of
    Chap.
    13,
    Ill.
    Rev. Stat.,
    Sec.
    1.
    Since
    it
    is
    the determination that CBE
    is respresenting itself and
    no other,
    and that CBE has standing
    in this matter, CBE
    is not representing
    others,
    and
    therefore is not practicing
    law in violation of statute.
    Third, Citizens alleges that CBE cannot proceed pro-se.
    The Rules
    of the Pollution Control Board explicitly state that
    ‘a business, non-profit,
    or government organizations may appear by any bona fide officer, employee,
    or representative,
    or may be represented by an attorney
    licensed and regist-
    ered
    to practice in the State
    of Illinois...”
    (emphasis added), Rule 106
    (a)
    (2), Chapter
    1,
    Procedural
    Rules.
    Therefore,
    the Board finds that CBE
    is
    properly represented
    ‘pro-se.”
    The question of whether the Board may levy
    a fine or issue
    a cease and
    desist order has been fully covered by the Illinois Supreme Court in City of
    Waukegan
    v.
    Pollution Control Board,
    et al., 57
    111. 2d
    170; Cobin
    v. Pollu-
    tion Control Board,
    16 Ill.
    App.
    3d 958.
    Therefore, these allegations
    do not
    support a Motion
    to Dismiss.
    The Board finds that
    give Respondent notice as
    forth
    an adequate defense,
    has too much iron
    in
    it,
    in
    V.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    its Motion
    to Dismiss
    seven
    points which
    will
    the Complaint states enough material
    allegations
    to
    to what he
    is being charged with so that he may put
    Complainant states that the water to the customers
    violation of standards prescribed
    in
    law.
    15—209
    Citizens next alleges thatParagraph 4 of the Complaint
    is insufficient
    in that it charges a violation of Sec.
    18 of the Act, while no regulations
    have been promulgated by the Board pursuant to Section 17 of the ActS
    The
    Board may find violation of the Act itself, even where
    no regulations have
    been promulgated or standards determined by the Board,
    The Board need not
    regulate every aspect of pollution problems but may allocate its resources
    as
    it sees best.
    ~
    16 Ill.
    J~nr’
    3d 864.
    Since compliance with the Board’s re9ulations
    is only
    a prima
    ~c~e defense
    to
    a violation of the Act (Sec.
    49(e))
    it would appear that
    one can violate the Act even if no regulations have been promulgated. j~~gyg
    ~
    20
    III.
    App. 3d 301.
    Respondent’s
    final
    contention is that Rule 204
    (a) does not apply
    to
    it,
    in that Rule 207 grants exception from the constituents listed in Rule
    204 (b).
    Rule 207 states that constituents present naturally
    in ground
    water are excepted from meeting the water quality standards of Rule 204.
    The question of how Rule 207 applies
    to Rule 204 (a)
    is
    of first impression
    before this Board.
    The wide range
    of arguments presented to the Board in-
    dicate that it would
    be best to consider this question within
    the context of
    a hearing on
    the merits
    and with
    a complete record.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that the Motion to Dismiss
    is
    denied.
    I, Christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Contrp4 Board,
    certify that the above Order was adlopted by the Board on the
    ~
    day of
    1975, by
    a vote of ~
    to 0.
    ~tanL.Mofet,
    Clerk
    15—
    210

    Back to top