ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

17,

1972

FARNERS OPPOSED TO EXTENSION

OF

THE ILLINOIS TOLLWAY,

et al.

v.

)

##

71-306, 71_32~

ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

etal.

Opinion and Order

of the Board

(by Mr.

Currie):

The initial complaint

in this litigation we dismissed for

failure to state a cl~imthat would justify relief against the

construction

of

an extension of the Toliway to the Rock River,

with leave

to amend

(#71-159,

Aug.

13,

1972).

A motion for the

filing of the environmental statement required by section

of the Environmental Protection Act we construe&

as

a complaint

and authorized

for hearing

(#71-306,

Sept.

30,

1971).

The

amended complaint against the extension itself was assigned

a

new number and also authorized for

a hearing on certain narrowly

defined issues after a full opinion

(Nov.

11,

1971).

The complainants now move that the complaints be dismissed,

essentially on two grounds:

that our new proposed rule 4~R72-l,

which would require parties to pay the cost

of transcripts

because of the Board’s lack of funds,

imposes unforeseen litigation

costs;

and that during the pendency of these cases before the

Board construction has progressed and will further progress

“so far as to eliminate any possibility

of meaningful relief.”

If the sole issue were the ability of the complainants to

bear

a portion of the transcript costs, we might urge them to

apply for special relief as

is expressly provided

ir~

the proposed

regulation.

Presumably the petitioners are aware of that provision

and chose not to invoke it.

We may also be able to employ our

own court reporters and to assume more of the cost of transcripts.

But from the fact that the motion to dismiss came at a time when

the transcript rule had been merely proposed and not adopted, we

take it that the motion would have been made without regard to

the financial question simply because relief at this point would

come too late.

3

663

---

We regret the delay

in litigation.

But

our concern in

scrutinizing

the complaints carefully was

to

avoid the waste of

unnecessary hearings which the complainants would have had

no chance of winning.

As our last opinion pointed out, the only

possibility of success

for

the complainants was in the nature of

minor construction details to minimize pollution, not an

interdiction

of the highway itself

as was

the goal of the

complaint.

The principal issue in fact was one of

land use

planning,

over which this Board has no authority.

Any relief

~e could have granted would have been

too little from the

complainants’ point of view even if it had not been too late.

The motion to dismiss

is hereby granted and

the complaints

are hereby dismissed.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order

this

/7~

day of February,

1972 by

a vote of

.~-

0

3

—

664