ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
11, 1971
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v
)
PCB 71—237
GEORGE REEVES,
JR.,
Individually)
and d/b/a TIMBER LAKES ESTATES
Robert F. Kaucher for the Environmental Protection Agency
John D.
Flynn for George Reeves,
Jr.
Opinion and Order of the Board
(by Samudi
R. Aldrich):
On August
12,
1971,
the Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
filed
a complaint against George Reeves,
Jr., alleging numerous
violations of the Public Water Supplies Act,
the Environmental
Protection Act,
and the Public Water Supply Systems Rules
and
Regulations
(“Water Rules”).
The complaint concerns
the water
supply for
a residential development now known as Timber Lakes
Estates,
in Monroe
County,
Illinois.
We find several
of the charges
well proven and we will
impose
a money penalty.
The
land occupied by Timber Lakes Estates was purchased and developed
for residential use by George Reeves,
Jr.
prior to January
1,
1968.
Mr.
Reeves constructed
a water supply to serve
the residents of
Timber Lakes Estates,
also prior
to January
1,
1968.
Since the
subdivision was planned to include in excess of ten
lot,s,
the
water supply constitutes
a ‘pub1ic~water~supp1y”as defined
in Section
1 of the Public Water Supplies Act.
At
the hearing,
counsel for the Agency moved
that
the final alle-
gation,
concerning the emission of hydrogen
sulfide,
be dismissed.
We hereby grant the motion, dismissing
that portion of
the complaint.
The complaint first alleges
that Mr. Reeves constructed the water
supply
for Timber Lakes Estates without having submitted plans and
specifications
to the Department of Public Health and without
having obtained written approval of such plans
and specifications
from the Department,
in violation of Section
2 of
the Public Water
Supplies Act and of Rules 2.01 through 2,90,
inclusive,
of the
Water Rules.
The complaint further alleges that from July
1,
1970,
to February
2,
1971,
Mr.
Reeves continued the aforesaid
violation by failing to secure written approval of the reGuired
plans
and specifications from the Agency,
in violation of Section 15
of the Environmental Protection Act and of Rules
2.01 through 2.90,
inclusive, of the Water Rules.
The record indicates that Mr. Reeves
initially hired
the engineering firm of Russell and Axon to draw up
plans and specifications for the water system
(R.
118)
.
Mr.
Reeves
testified that a representative of
the firm mailed the completed
plans to the office of the Sanitary Water Board and
later
told him
that
a construction permit had been received
(R.
119,
121).
At
that
time Mr.
Reeves began
to suppiy water to :~esidentsof Timber
3
—
75
Lakes Estates
(R.
142).
John Howard of the Division of Public
Water Supplies, Environmental Protection Agency,
stated that Russell
and Axon had submitted plans
but that these plans were never approved
(R.
103,105).
The record further indicates that in November of
1970,
Mr.
Reeves employed another engineering
firm, Barttelbort and
Rhutasel,
to draw up new plans
and specifications
for the water
system
(H.
152).
Plans were submitted and were approved by the
Agency February
3,
1971
(EPA Ex.
3).
Subsequently Mr.
Reeves found
the cost of constructing the new system prohibitive and directed
his consultants to submit revised plans.
The latter were approved
August
10,
1971
(EPA Ex.
2).
The revised system was put into
operation about October
4,
1971,
and the Agency was notified that
the system had been installed October
~,
the day before the hearing
in
this case
(H.
157,
Reeves Ex.
2).
The evidence clearly establishes that Mr.
Reeves constructed
t:r~e
initial water system at Timber Lakes Estates without prior approval
of the Department of Public Health.
The record indicates that he
began
to
supply water
to
the residents
in the
fall
of
1967
(A.
177)
Not
until
February
df
1971
were
plans
for
the
system
anproved,
and
the
system
had
still
not
been
inspected
as
of
October
7,
the
day
of
the
hearing
in
this
case.
The
fact
that
Mr.
Reeves’
original
consultants
told
him
that
a
permit
had
been
received
is
not an
adequate defense.
As
we
neld
in
a prior
case
(City_ofhattoonv.
EPA, POE 71—8, April
14,
1971),
responsibility for comriyirlg
with
the
law
cannot
be
abdicated
simply
by
employing
an
independent
contractor.
Mr.
Reeves
had
an
obligation
to
ensure
that
the
necessary
steps
had
been
taken
to
comply
with
all
auplicable
regulations.
We
find
Respondent
has
vaclatco.
Section
2
of
the
Public
Water
Sepplies
Pet
ar~o 4uJes
2
01
t1~r uc’t
2
90,
rCiUS_
‘e, o~the
Water
R~Jes
At
the
hoarin
Pr.
Reeves
disavowed
any
continuing
responsibility
for
ObLd
LP~’~J
aopr~ ~1
of
~uns
aflO
so~c~f~a~~on
for
~e
~ates
system
and
for
ensuring
that
the
water
suomly
conformed
to
State
standards
(P.
i40)
.
As
a
basis
for
his
disclaimer,
Mr.
Reeves
cited
an
agreement
made
July
26,
2969,
between
himself
and
certain
lot
owners
in
Timber
Lakes
Estates.
The
acreement
established
the
Timber
Lakes
Owners
Committee
whose
representatives
were
to
he
responsible
for
operating
and
maintaining
both
the
sanitary
sewer
system
and
the
water
system
in
the
subdivision.
Pr.
Reeves
argued.
that
as
a
result.
of
tois
agreement
he
was
no
longer
the
owner
of,
nor
in
control
of,
the
water
system.
However,
the
same
agreement
clearly
establishes
that
the
responsibility
for
bringing
the
water
system
into
compliance
with
State
regulations
lies
with
Mr
.~
Reeves,
11.
The
Owners
and
Developers
certify
that
as
of
the
effective
date
of this agreement,
the Sanitary
Sewer
System
and
Water
System
meets
the specifications of the Sanitary Water Board
of
the
State
of
Illinois
or
if not
that
the
systems will be
brought
up
to
said
specifications
at
the
Owners
and
Developers
sole cost
and expense.
Compliance had still
not been achieved by the date of the hearing.
Mr.
Reeves’
responsibility
with
regard
to the
water
system
does
not cease until full compliance is attained.
Respondent
is
in
violation
of
Section
15
of the Environmental Protection Act and
is
in
continuing violation of Rules
2.01
through
2.90,
inclusive,
of the Water Rules.
3
—
76
The complaint next alleges
that Mr.
Reeves failed to maintain
the
water supply to such an extent that the water was not assuredly
safe in quality, was not clean,
was not adeauate
in nuantity, and
was not of satisfactory mineral character for ordinary domestic
consumption,
in violation
of Section
7 of the Public Water Supplies
Act and of Section 18 of the Environmental Protection Act.
The
question of the adequacy of the water
in terms of quantity
is
considered later when we deal with the more specific allegation of
inadequate storage facilities.
Certainly
the
record indicates
that at times the water has not been of good quality, by any reasonable
standards.
Chemical tests of
the water indicated that
the
iron
and manganese content,
as well
as
the hardness of the water,
at times
exceeded the recommended maximums of the U.
S.
Public Health Service
Standards for Drinking Water
(Reeves Ex.
3).
On two occasions
bacteria indicative of pollutionwere present.
There
is ample
evidence
that the residents of Timber Lakes Estates found the water
to
be
unsuitable
for
most
domestic
uses.
Some
residents
had
obtained
drinking water from other sources ever since
they moved into the
subdivision
(H.
178,
185,
193).
Some testified that
the
water
could
not
be
used for cooking or bathing
(H.
186,
187,
188).
All described
it as having
a foul taste and odor
at times
(A.
177,
186,
188,
192).
Some residents testified that
the quality of
the water had improved
somewhat since the new sy~stemhad been operating
(A.
189,
193).
Nevertheless, we find Respondent has violated Section
7 of the Public
rArater Supplies Act and Section
18
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act.
The
Agency
further
alleges
that
Respondent
failed
to
provide
adequate
treatment
for
the
iron
content
of
the
water,
in violation
of
Rule
3.13
of
the
Water
Rules.
We
have
already
noted
that
at
times
the
iron
content
exceeded
the
recommendation
of
the
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service,
Rule
3.13
states
that
‘Ground
waters
with
mineral
characteristics
exceeding
the
recommended
maximums
of
the
United.
States
Public
Health Service Standards for Drinking Water
should
receive
proper
treatment
to
reduce
them
to
satisfactory
.Ltmits.
A
violation
was
clearly
provea..
The
complaint
next
alleges
that
Pr.
Reeves failed
to provide
calor~nation
Cac..iiti?s
for
the
water
suon.L,,
Ic
r~~iation
of
Rule
3,13
of
the
Water
Rules.
The
record
indicates
that
on
an
unspecified
date,
Charles
McGaughev,
who
operated
the
water
system
for
Mr.
Reeves,
was
informed by
“t.he State”
that
chlorination was necessary
•to assure
a
safe
water
supply
(R.
170).
The
approval
by
the
Agency
of
Respon-
dent’s
plans
and
specifications
for
the
water
system
indicate
that
chlorination
was
to
be
provided
(EPA Ex.
2
and
3)
.
Chlorination
was
apparently
provided only
as
of about October
4,
1971
(R.
158)
However,
Rule
3.15
relates
only
to
water
from
a
water
supply
located
in
a limestone aquifer.
There
is
no
evidence
that
the
water
supply
serving
Timber
Lakes
Estates
is
located
in
such
an
aquifer.
We
find
the
allegation
to
be
deficient.
3—
77
The Agency also alleges that Mr.
Reeves failed to provide adequate
storage facilities for the water
supply,
in violation
of Rule 3.30
of the Water Rules.
An inspector for the Agency stated that
until his last visit to
the site on October
6,
1971, only
thirty-
five gallons of storage capacity were rrovided
(H.
51,
52)
.
The
same inspector testified that the State requires
a capacity of
thirty-five gallons
per person.
This was not disputed by Respondent.
On October
6,
an additional storage tank was
present,
of unknown
capacity
(H.
75).
A violation was
shown.
The complaint further alleges that Mr.
Reeves failed
to assure the
continued maintonanue and operation of
the water supply by failing
to provide that
it. be under the direct supervision of an appropriate
corporation or organized body,
in violation of Rule
5.01 of the
Water Rules.
The
Rule requires
that supervision be provided by
.a municipal or private corporation or
a regularly organized
body governed by
a constitution and by-laws requiring regular
election of officers.”
The aforementioned agreement between
Mr.
Reeves and
the
lot ~wners
did establish such an organized body,
however.
According to the
terms
of that agreement the newly
formed Timber Lakes Owners Committee was to elect three trustees
to operate and maintain
the
sewage and water systems.
Pr,
Reeves
testified that
the Committee never did become functional
(R.
126)
While it
is
true
that Mr.
Reeves failed
to bring the water system
into compliance with
State standards
(and we have so ruled)
we hold that he did meet his obligation to provide for supervision
of the system by
an organized body.
It was the responsibility of
the
lot owners
to
organize
themselves
further
once
the Owners
Committee was established.
No violation
of Rule 5.01 was proved.
In summary, we
find violations with respect to construction of
a
public water supaly without proper approval,
failure
to maintain
the
water
supply
properly,
failure
to
supply
adequate
treatment
for
iron, and failure to provide adecuate storagn facilities.
For
these violations we will assess
a penalty of $3000.
Clearly,
an
intolerable situation has existed at Timber Lakes Estates
for an
extended period of time.
We
trust that the new water system approved
by
the
Agency
will
at
last
assure
the
long-suffering
residents
of
the subdivision
a water supply of adequate cruantitv and quality.
The
record
indicates
that
the
new
system
is
now
in
operation.
We
shall order Respondent
to
file an affidavit with
the Board by
November
30,
1971,
certifying
that
all
components
of
the
approved
system
are
in
operation.
But
since
operation
of
the
system
does
ric~
automatically guarantee
acceptable water quality,
we shall order
Responoent
to
file with
the
Board
a
report
no
later
than
December
ii,
id.
that the water meets applicable
standbrds.
Water quality
may
he
confirmed by tests
of the Agency
or an independent
laboratory.
The
tests
are
to
be
sunoorted
by
an
affidavit
of
the
Respondent
assuring
that
the
samnies
fairly
represent
the
water
supply.
This opinion constitutc~ the Board’s
C
H~q5
of
fact
and
cc’
of
law.
ORDER
1.
By
November
30,
1971, George Reeves,
Jr.
shall file
an
affidavit stating that
all components
of the water supply
system serving the residents
of Timber Lakes Estates are in
operation.
2.
By December
31,
1971, George Reeves,
Jr.
shall file
a
report showing that the water meets
all applicable provisions
of the Public Water Supply Systems
Rules
and Regulations.
Either
a report from the Environmental Protection Agency or
tests from an independent laboratory accompanied by
an
affidavit that
the samples tested fairly represent the
quality of the water
is acceptable.
3.
George Reeves.
Jr.
shall, within thirty-five days
from the
date
of
entry
of
this
order,
submit
to
the
State
of
Illinois
the
sum,
in penalty,
of
$3000.
4.
George Reeves,
Jr.,
individually and
d./b/a Timber Lakes
Estates,
shall
immediately cease and
desist
from
further
violations
of the Enviornrnental Protection Act,
the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder,
the Public Water
Suaplies
Act and the Public Water Supply Systems Rules
and Regulations.
I,
Christan
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board,
certify
that
the
Board
adopted
the
above
opinion
and
order
~
of
/~
:~.‘
,
1971.
3
-.
79