ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

14,

1972

CITY OF SILVIS

v.

)

#

72—141

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Larry Eaton, Assistant Attorney General,

for the Environmental

Protection

Agency

N.

L. McGehee, McGehee, Boline

&

Whitmire,

for City of

Silvis

Opinion of the Board

(by Mr. Currie):

Silvis petitions for

a variance to allow the connection

of twenty-nine lots to sewers tributary

to its sewage treatment

plant.

The Agency has denied permits for

the construction

of

lateral

sewers to accomplish

the connection

(R.

18-19)

on

the

ground that the treatment plant is inadequate and that additional

connections therefore would allow the discharge of inadequately

treated sewage in violation of the statute and regulations.

Conceding the need for plant improvement, Silvi~urges

that the lesser of two evils

is to permit connection of the

lots

to the

sewers.

The evidence

is graphic as to the need

to remedy the present situation.

On twenty-three

of the lots

there are existing homes whose wastes are discharged to septic

tanks.~ Due to unfavorable soil drainage conditions

(R.

33)

the septic tanks function poorly, with atrocious results:

Initially the effluent from the septic tank started

to

back up into the house

.

.

.

.

As of right now in the

back of

the yard there is a big pool of effluent, septic

tank liquid,

you can smell it and see it on top of the

ground,

it won’t seep down;

in order to keep the water

from backing into the house we had to get the

soil

off, we lifted it off the tank so when there’s too much

going into

the tank, rather than back up,

it flows around

the septic tank

.

.

.

.

~

67-68).

Other

residents

affirmed

that

they

had

similar

problems

(R.

77-78)

The Administrator of the County Health Department testified he

had been called more than once to investigate, had seen septic

4

669

---

effluent standing in yards,

and had smelled a septic-tank odor

at the time

(R. 21-24).

He painted an alarming picture of the

health hazard:

Given the right sequence of events, we can have one

enteric disease outhreak, probably hepatitis; you have to

have someone in the neighborhood with the disease and in

a system that

in malfunctioning in order for t1~eorganisms

to get into the effluent on the surface of the ground

but it’s typical and normal for the children in this

neighborhood

.

.

.

to frequent the shores of the stream

and play there,

so the potential for the children as well

as these adults who frequent the shores of this stream

to get a disease

(R.

26’

There was also testimony, hearsay but uncontradicted and not

objected to, that a doctor had attributed one significant allergy

case to fungi produced by septic effluent in the back yard

(R.

69—70)

The Agency agrees with Silvis that the effect of adding

the wastes from these twenty—three homes

to the sewage treatment

plant, which discharges its unsatisfactory effluent to the Rock

River, cannot be as bad as the present situation with sewage

in people’s yards.

Though evidence as to the effect on the

river is lacking, we cannot conceive of any circumstance in

which that effect could approach the seriousness of the present

situation.

To deny the variance would leave the existing

backyard health hazard in existence and leave

the inadequate

treatment plant effluent from the rest of Silvis going into

the river;

to grant it would eliminate the local hazard and

add the effluent of twenty-three homes to that of the rest of

the City.

The City has in our view shown that inability to

connect these existing homes to the sewers would cause an

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,

and the variance will be

granted as

to the twenty-three homes.

See Winsor v.

EPA,

#71—334

(Nov.

23, 1971); Venable

v. EPA, #71—363

(Dec.

21,

1971).

Permits, as both parties recognized, must be, obtained for the

construction, in order to assure compliance with other require-

ments such as the adequacy of sewer materials.

All we do

today is

to remove the barrier created by the inadequacy of the

treatment plant.

The City also asks that

the

variance extend to six additional

lots in the same area that are presently vacant.

Plainly there

is no such pressing need to allow connections for these

lots,

since they are not now causing a health prOblem.

The City says

the plan is

to apportion the cost of the new sewers equally

among

abutting owners, and that some question as to fairness

might~arise.un~lessall are permitted to connect at once,

4

—

670

---

so that the entire project

uright

be jeopardized

(R.

65,

79-82,

88—89).

We do not find convincing evidence in the record that

no means of financing the construction can be found without

allowing additional pollution.

Building the sewers will confer

significant benefits on all abutting landowners, since all will

be able to connect once treatment is upgraded.

No reason is

given why,

if this.benefit should be deemed insufficient, the

cost could not be apportioned among owners of existing homes,

with other~to reimburse them proportionately upon connection;

or why Si,vis

could not pay the share of the owners of vacant

lots and recoup the cost by later connection charges.

As the

Agency recommends

(R.

86), we therefore authorize the connection

now only of the twenty-three existing homes, leaving additional

connections to be resolved by the Agency on a case—by—case basis

under its permit power,

subject to any further variances as may

be granted by the Board on the basis of arbitrary or unreason-

able hardship.

ORDER

A variance is hereby granted to permit the City of Silvis

to connect the twenty—three homes described in the present

record to sewers tributary to its sewage treatment plant,

notwithstanding that the plant effluent does not conform with

applicable standards.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the.Pollution Contro~~oard,certify

that the Board adopted the

above

Opinion

this

/V

‘1

day of

~June,1972, by a vote of

~...o

4

—

671

---