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