ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 11, 1973
    Donald LeRoy Kneeland, Sr.,
    Complainant,
    vs.
    PCB 73-164
    City of Zion,
    Respondent.
    Mr. Donald LeRoy Kneeland, Sr., on his own behalf;
    Mr. Lawrence Inglis, on behalf of the City of Zion.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman)
    On April 24, 1973, Complainant, Donald LeRoy Kneeland, Sr.,
    a resident of the City of Zion, filed complaint against
    Respondent, City of Zion, Lake County, Illinois, alleging
    continuing violation of Section 3 (1) and 21 (a) of the
    Environmental Protection Act.
    Complainant brought this action in his own righ’: as a resident
    of the City of Zion and presented his case without aid of counsel.
    The Environmental Protection Agency is not a party. Complaint
    was filed on a form provided by this Board and Complainant
    charged thereon as follows:
    Rat infestation of Landfill and nearby residential
    neighborhood. Dumping of garbage and other refuse
    outside Landfill gate. Refuse frequently blown from
    Landfill site, by wind, into residential area. Dumping
    of refuse in vacant lots.
    Beginning on July 7, 1969, Respondent has operated a landfill
    site in the northwest corner of its city limits. Complainant’s
    home is located approximately one-half block from the subject
    landfill site.
    On June 27 and 29, 1973, hearings were held in this cause.
    At those hearings, Complainant introduced no evidence to
    substantiate his allegation of rat infestation of the landfill
    and nearby residential neighborhood (R. 54). Respondent’s witness,
    9
    —445

    —2—
    James Whitt, city engineer, testified that he has visited the
    landfill on virtually every day of its operation and has never:
    observed any evidence of rats (R.93).
    Respondent’s witness James Patrick Conaway, a Lake County
    Health Department sanitarian, Finley Gustafson, of the Orkin
    Exterminating Company, and Robert Corder, city health officer,
    all testified that they had never observed any evidence of rats
    at the landfill site (R. 126, 137, 140).
    On March 22, 1973, Complainant brought a bag containing
    what he believed to be a dead rat to Robert Corder, Respondent’s
    police chief and health officer. The animal was subsequently
    identified as a domestic Guinea Pig (R. 140). During the
    hearings, Complainant withdrew his charges regarding rat
    infestation (R.55)
    Complainant presented evidence in the form of photographs
    and testimony to show that refuse and garbage had been
    deposited on various privately owned parcels of land (vacant
    lots). Respondent acknowledged that private citizens illegally
    dump refuse and garbage in vacant lots throughout the City.
    Respondent’s witness, Robert Corder, chief of police, testified
    that his department has made serious efforts to control the
    problem. Chief Corder stated that his officers have special
    orders to arrest persons found dumping on either city or
    private property and that his officers frequently search through
    the illegally deposited rubbish in an effort to secure evidence
    of the perpetrators (R. 143)
    .
    Police patrols and investigations
    have resulted in arrests and convictions (R. 142).
    The owners of the vacant land upon which trash is deposited
    are notified by Respondent that they must remove the trash
    and warrants are issued if they fail to comply. To assist
    compliance, Respondent has a standing offer to haul the trash
    away at a charge of $10.00 per truckload (R. 146)
    The question before this Board is whether Respondent, which
    has ordinances against illegal dumping and has made serious
    efforts to combat the problem, may be held liable for illegal
    dumping of garbage and refuse on private property by private
    citizens, i.e., whether Respondent has “caused or allowed” open
    dumping. There is no evidence that Respondent has caused illegal
    9— 446

    —3—
    dumping on private property and this Board is of the
    opinion that the remedial actions detailed above negate
    liability under any reasonable construction of the term
    “allowed.”
    Complainant’s remaining allegations are that Respondent
    has caused or allowed the dumping of garbage and other refuse
    outside the front gate of its landfill and that papers from
    said landfill are borne by the wind into adjacent residential
    property.
    It is uncontridicted that, from time to time, persons
    illegally dump garbage and trash at the entrance to the landfill.
    Such dumping occurs at night or on weekends. Police Chief
    Corder testified that the landfill area is the most heavily
    patrolled area in the city and that arrests for illegal dumping
    have been made (R. 141). The landfill is open six days a
    week for the use of residents. Complainant acknowledges that
    Respondent is not, itself, dumping at the entrance of its
    landfill (R. 17) and that Respondent removes any illegally
    deposited garbage or refuse from the entrance area on the
    following morning (R. 48).
    Respondent’s witness, James Whitt, city engineer, testified
    that when the landfill began operation in July of 1969, three
    55—gallon drums were placed at the entrance of the site for the
    convenience of persons who might wish to dump after operating
    hours (R. 88). However, the drums frequently overflowed and
    a 30-yard dump truck body was put in their place (R. 88). This
    container also overflowed and, by April of 1973, all containers
    for after-hours dumping were removed and such dumping was
    prohibited (R. 89).
    Respondent’s facility is surrounded by a six—foot Cyclone
    fence and a five-foot berm CR. 85). The fence catches most of
    the wind-borne paper; however, Respondent, in its Brief (Pg. 4)
    acknowledges that a problem exists. Paper which escapes is
    collected by Respondent’s employees and Boy Scout troops.
    Respondent’s Exhibit #6, an inspection report by the Environmental
    Protection Agency dated June 25, 1973, states in part that
    the subject site “is being operated in general compliance with
    the requirements of this Agency and the Environmental Protection
    Act.” Complainant, himself, testified that “it’s not the
    city’s fault; the city is trying to do a good job,” (R. 7)
    and that the landfill site is presently in “beautiful condition”
    (R. 40, 41).
    9 —447

    —4—
    It appears to this Board that Respondent is making a
    good-faith effort to operate a modern, clean landfill facility
    and to keep both public and private land within its jurisdiction
    free from litter. The problems Respondent has encountered are
    similar to those faced by every city government in this State.
    The problem involved is a small percentage of persons who
    carelessly dump garbage and refuse wherever it fits their
    convenience.
    However, the difficulty cannot absolve Respondent of
    liability for its solution. Complainant has the right, which
    we will enforce, to enjoy his property free from litter and
    wind-borne paper. Respondent has the duty to keep its property
    free from refuse and garbage.
    Complainant has specifically requested, at the hearings
    (R. 177) and in his Brief, that no money penalty be levied. In
    this we concur, as a fine would serve no purpose in the instance.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that
    Respondent, City of Zion, shall:
    1. Respondent is hereby ordered to exercise the utmost
    diligence to maintain the entrance to its landfill site and
    its streets.
    2. Respondent is further ordered to employ all means
    necessary to prevent the accumulation of wind—borne litter on
    property in the vicinity of its landfill facility.
    3. File a progress report with the Environmental Protection
    Agency within 90 days from the date of this Order. Said
    progress report shall detail the measures Respondent intends to
    pursue in order to abate the conditions found herein.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was
    adopted by the Board on the
    //~“t
    day of
    ~
    1973, by a vote of
    ________
    to
    ___________
    9— 448

    Back to top