1. COUNT I
    2. COUNT II
    3. COUNT III
    4. COUNT IV
    5. COUNT V
    6. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
      1. RECEIVEDCLERK’S OFFICE
    7. MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
  1. ANNUAL REPORT OFWATER ANDIOR SEWER UTILITIES
  2. TO THE
  3. ILLINOIS COMMERCE
  4. COMMISSION
      1. ILLINOIS
      2. A. FINDINGS
      3. Count Vi
    1. MOTION OF DEFENDANT RUSSELL D. THORELL TO DISMISSCOMPLAINT
      1. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
      2. - JUDGMENT ORDER
      3. Count
      4. Count II
      5. Count V
      6. Count VI
    2. B. PAYMENT OF PENALTY
    3. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
FEB ~O2
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
SThTE
OF
poUutton
Co
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 04-8 1
)
)
)
)
EMMETT UTILITIES, NC.
an Illinois
)
Corporation, and RUSSELL D. THORELL,
)
individually and as president of EMMETT
)
UTILITIES, INC.,
)
)
)
Respondents.
)
ANSWER
OF
DEFENDANT,
EMMETT
UTILITIES, INC.
Defendant Emmett Utilities, Inc., by its attorney, John M. Myers, answers the
complaint as follows:
COUNT I
1.
This Defendant admits the allegations
contained in paragraph
1.
2.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2.
3.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3.
4.
This Defendant admits the allegations in the first sentence ofparagraph 4
and denies the allegations contained in the second sentence in paragraph 4.
5.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph
5
except for
the allegation that Defendant Thorell “owns and operates a public water supply and waste
water treatment system”, which it denies.

6.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6 except for
the last sentence thereof. Further answering, this Defendant states that the 1996
action
was dismissed, and that the 2001
action resulted in finding ofno
liability on the part of
Defendant Thorell.
7.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7.
8.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained
in paragraph 8.
9.
This Defendant admits the allegations
contained in paragraph 9.
10.
This Defendant admits the allegations
contained in paragraph 10.
11.
This Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to
affirm a belief as to the
truth ofthe allegations in paragraph 11, and therefore denies them.
12.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 12. However,
this Defendant states that in fact the well
pump was fixed within the matter ofa couple of
days.
13
This Defendant admits that the malfunction ofthe pump resulted in a
temporary total water outage, and denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 13.
14.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14.
15.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph
15.
16.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained
in paragraph 16
COUNT II
1-12
This Defendant incorporates its answers to
paragraphs
1 through
12 of
Count I for its answers to paragraph 1-12 of Count II.
13.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 13.

14.
This Defendant
denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14.
15.
This Defendant
denies the allegations contained in paragraph
15.
16.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 16.
17.
This Defendant admits it was previously adjudicated in violation ofSection
18 ofthe Act and denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17.
18.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18.
COUNT III
1-7.
This Defendant realleges its answers to
paragraphs
1 through 7 ofCount
I
for its answers to paragraphs
1-7 of this Count III.
8.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8.
9.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 9.
10.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 10.
11.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 11.
12.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12.
13.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13.
14.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14.
15.
This Defendant
denies the allegations contained in paragraph
15.
16.
This Defendant
admits it was previously adjudicated in violation ofSection
18 of the Act and denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 16.
17.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17.

COUNT IV
1-7.
This Defendant realleges its answers to paragraphs
1
through 7 of Count
I
for its answers to paragraphs
1-7 ofthis
Count
IV.
8-13.
This Defendant realleges its answers to paragraphs 8 through
13 ofCount
III for
its answers to
paragraphs
8-13 ofthis Count IV.
14.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph
14.
15.
This Defendant denies the allegations
contained in paragraph
15.
16.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 16.
17.
This Defendant admits it was previously adjudicated in violation ofSection
18 ofthe Act and denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17.
18.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph
18.
COUNT V
1-7.
This Defendant realleges its answers to paragraphs
1
through 7 of
Count
I
for its answers to paragraphs
lthrough7 ofthis Count V.
8-13.
This Defendant realleges its answers to paragraphs
8 through
13 ofCount
III for its answers to paragraphs
8 through
13 ofthis Count V.
14.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor.
Respectfully
Its Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy ofthe ANSWER
OF
DEFENDANT,
EMMETT UTILITIES, INC.
was served upon
all counsel ofrecord by placing same in
the United States Post Office mail box, postage prepaid in
Springfield, Illinois on
February 6, 2004
and addressed to:
Thomas Davis, Assistant Attorney General
Office ofthe Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph Street, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL
60601
Carol Sudman
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box 19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
and that the original was filed with the Clerk ofthe Court in which said cause is pending.

RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
ILLiNOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
FEB
102004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pci
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 04-8 1
)
)
)
EMMETT UTILITIES, INC. an Illinois
)
Corporation,
and RUSSELL D. THORELL,
)
individually and as president of EMMETT
)
UTILITIES, INC.,
)
)
)
Respondents.
)
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
Now comes, Defendants, Emmett Utilities and Russell D. Thorell, by
their
attorney, John M. Myers and move the Board to stay all further proceedings in this matter
pending resolution of Illinois Commerce
Commission proceedings,
in re: Emmett
Utilities, number 04-0065. In support ofthis motion Defendants states as follows:
1.
On February 2, 2004, Defendant Emmett Utilities, Inc filed a Petition to
Abandon and Discontinue Service with the Illinois Commerce Commission, pursuant to
Section
8-508 ofthe Public Utilities Act.
A copy ofthe petition is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
2.
Ifthe Commerce
Commission allows the Petition to Discontinue or
Abandon Service, then the instant proceedings become moot.

WHEREFORE, Defendants
move the Pollution Control Board for an order staying
furtherproceedings in this matter pending the outcome of the Illinois Commerce
Commission proceedings.
John M. Myers
RABIN, MYERS,
HANKEN & DURR,
P.C.
1300
South Eighth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
217.544.5000
fax:
217.544.5017
Respectfully Submitted,
Emmett Utilities and Russell D. Thorell,
Defendants,
By:
Their
email:
jmyers~springfie1dlaw.com

IN THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMIS~9~c~1tsc
ION
7~FEB-2P
2:51
In Re:
Emmett Utilities, Inc.
)
I
p~Hrr
~l
)
No.
Petition to Abandon and Discontinue
)
Service
)
PETITION TO ABANDON
AND
DISCONTINUE SERVICE
Emmett Utilities, Inc., by its attorneys, Rabin, Myers, Hanken & Dun,
P.C.,
hereby petitions the Illinois Commerce
Commission pursuant to
Section
8-508 ofthe
Public Utilities Act for authority to
abandon and discontinue service, and in support
thereof~states as follows:
1.
Petitioner operates a water and sewer utility in McDonough County,
Illinois,
serving 22
customers.
Petitioner is one ofthe smallest public utilities, ifnot
the
smallest public utility, in the entire State ofIllinois.
2.
Petitioner is operating
at a loss, and has been for several years.
The 2003
annual report submitted to the Commission, a copy ofwhich is attached as Exhibit A,
showed a loss of $12,893 from the water operation and $8,117 from the sewer operation.
Prior years also showed losses.
3.
Petitioner is subject to
an order from the Circuit Court ofMcDonough
County in People v. Emmet Utilities et al, No.
01-CH-2
to perform certain repairs to its
water and sewer system
to bring the system into compliance with Illinois EPA
regulations.
A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit B.
The repairs will cost well in
excess of$350,000—or $16,000 per customer.
Petitioner lacks the funds, and has
no

realistic prospect of obtaining credit, to perform the repairs.
The Attorney General
continues to pursue certain findings adverse to the State ofIllinois by the trial court in the
Appellate Court, at huge expense to Petitioner.
4.
Petitioner’s president and sole shareholder, Russell
D. Thorell, is elderly,
nearly indigent, and in poor health, and is unable adequately to
supervise the day-to-day
operations ofPetitioner.
Mr.
Thorell has no
prospect of selling his
shares in Petitioner to
a third party who would be willing to oversee the daily operations ofPetitioner and
undertake the repairs to
the system
set forth above.
5.
Petitioner has recently been sued by the Attorney General in the Pollution
Control Board, which sits in Chicago,
People
v.
Emmet Utilities, Inc.,
et al.,
No. PCB 04-
81.
Petitioner lacks the funds to defend a lawsuit in Chicago, or to hire the engineers to
develop the technical data necessary to
defend the suit, which seeks substantial fines
against Petitioner.
6.
Under these circumstances, it is physically and financialy impossible for
Petitioner to
continue service.
-2-

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests the Commission to enter an order:
a.
Allowing it to
discontinue service;
b.
Allowing it to
abandon service;
c.
And for such other and further relief as the Commission deems appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,
EMMETT U)~tITIES,INC.
By:_____
One ofits attorneys
John M. Myers
RABIN, MYERS, HANKEN & DURR, P.C.
1300
South Eighth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
217.544.5000
fax:
217.544.5017
email:
jmyers~springfieldlaw.com
-3-

ó0RM22
ILCC
.

Back to top


ANNUAL
REPORT
OF
WATER ANDIOR
SEWER
UTILITIES

Back to top


TO THE

Back to top


ILLINOIS
COMMERCE

Back to top


COMMISSION
Year of Report
December31,
2OQ~
Exact Legal
Name of
Respondent (Company)
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
This agencyis
requesting
disclosure of information that
is necessary to accomplish the statutory purpose as
outlined in Section
5-109 ofthe Public Utilities
Act
1220 ILCS 5/5-109) (Ill. t~ev.
Stat. 1991,
Chapt
111 2/3, Par. 5-109). Disclosure
of this iriforniation is PEQUIRED.
Failure to provide any
information
could result in a fine of $100 per
day
under Section 5-109 of the Public Utilities Act.
Printed by authority of the State
of Illinois
65 copies
December2003—4 14r
I~~’TI
.

UTILITY
1LAME
Yearof Report
ENMETT UTILITIES,
INC.
Dec.31
2003
CERTIHCATION
STATEO~
-
ILLINOIS
COUNTYOF
HENDERSON
(Name of 4ff/ant)
makes
oath and says that he
~
RUSSELL
ID.
THORILL
(Official
The
of Affiant)
PRESIDENT
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
of
(Exact Legal Title or Name of Respondent)
that he/she has examined the
following report; that to the
best of his/her knowledge, information,
and belief,
all statements
of fact contained in the
said
report is
a correct statement of the business affairs of the above named
respondent in respect to each and every matter set forth therein during the
period fron’i and
including January 1,20
0
3to and including
December 31,
(Signature ofAffiant)
Subscribed and
sworn to before me,
a
n and for the
State and County named, this 2~2~Jay
of
~
.22~1
y
Commissi
n expires
~
~
-
/
“7~ignature
otl~OathAd
ister)
-
TMOFF1CIAL
SEAL’
MOLLY M. JONES
Notary Public, State of Illinois
My Commission
Exp. 09/05/2005
4
Page
1

UTILITY
).JAME
Year of Report
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
Dec.31,
7flfl~
Name
and
address
of
person to whom correspondence concerning this report should be
addressed:
I
RUSSELL
D.
THORELL
RR#2
BOX
58N
OQU~K1~, IL
61469
309—867—2387
Telephone
____________
List below the address of where
the utility’s books
and
records are located:
RR#2 BOX
58N
OQUAWKA,
IL
61469
Date
of
original organization of the
utility:
0 2
/
1 7
/
1983
List below the
names, titles and
compensation/salary of each:
OFFICERS
Name
Title.
Salary
1.
RUSSELL
D.
TEORELL
PRESIDENT
NONE
2.
RUSSELL
D. THORELL
SECREThRY
NONE
3,
4.
5-
DIRECTORS/MANAGERS
.
-
Thie
Salary
1,
RUSSELL
D.
THORELL
PRESIDENT
NONE
2.
3-
4,
5.
Page2
-

Utility Name
Year of Report
EMMETT,
UTILITIES,
INC.
Dec.31,
2003
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
.
-
1.
Utilities with annual revenues of $1,000,000 ormore shall complete all schedules including those marked witha star. Those utilities that have
annual revenues less than $1,000,000 need not complete the schedules marked with a star.
2.
Prepare this reportinconformity with the Uniform System ofAccounts forWater and/or Sewer Utilities.
3.
Completeeach question fully and accurately, even
if ithas been answered in aprevious annual report. Enter the word “None”where it trulyand
completely states the fact.
4.
For
arty
question, section orpages that is not applicable to the respondent enter thewords
Wot
Applicable.” Do
notomit any pages.
5.
Where dates are called for, the month and day should be stated as well asthe year.
6.
All schedules requiring dollar entries should be roundedtothe nearest dollar.
7.
Complete this report bymeans, which result in a permanentrecord, such as bytypewriter. Money items
(except averages, percentages and
statistics)
throughoutthe
report should be shown in units of dollars
adjusted to accord with footings.
8.
If there is notenough room on any schedule, an additional pageor pages may be added provided the format ofthe added schedule matches the
formatofthe schedule with not enough room. Such a schedule should reference the appropriate schedules, state the name of the
utility,
and state
the
year of the
report.
9.
The form of annual report is tobe completed in triplicate. The original and oneconformed copy
(which may be a carbon copy),
property completed
and verified, areto befiled with the ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, 527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701, on or before March
31
of the
year following the year
forwhich the report is made. One copy isto be retained by respondent.
ii
Page
I

TABLE OF
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Certification
I
General
Information
2
Composite
of Statistics
.3
FINANCIAL SECTION
Comparative
Balance
Sheet
..
4F-6F
Comparative Statement of Income for the Year
7F
Statement of Cash
Flows
8F-9F
Notes
tc
Financial
Statements
-
1OF
Utility Plant
~.~11F
Utility Plant Acquisition Adjustments
Accumulated Depreciation
and Amortization of Utility Plant
11 F
Accounts
Receivable from
Associated Companies
12F
Notes
Receivable from Associated Companies
Materials and Supplies
2F
Prepayments
12F
Miscellaneous Deferred Debits
12F
Unamortized Debt
Discount and Expense and Premium
on
Debt
13F
Extraordinary Property Losses
i.3F
Notes
Payable
13F
Accounts Payable to Associated Companies
...
14F
Capital Stock
~t4F
LortgTerm Debt
~l4F
Retained
Earnings
~4F
Bonds
1SF
Advances to Associated Companies
15F
Advances for Construction
15F
Contributions
in Aid of Construction
-taF
Reconciliation of Reported
Net Income with Taxable
Income for Federal
Income Taxes
16F
Reconciliation
of Gross Revenue Tax
16F(a)
WATER OPERATION
SECTION
Listing of Employees
17W
Water Operating Revenue
17W
Water Utility Plant
Accounts
18W
Water Operation and Maintenance
Expense
1 8W(a)&(b)~
Analysis of Accumulated Depreciation
by Primary Account
19W
Pumping and Purchases Water Statistics, Chemical Statistics and Electrical
Statistics
20W
Mains, Services, Meters and Fire Hydrants, Wells and Well Pumps
21W
Reservoirs and High Service Pumping &Other Water System Information
22W
SEWER OPERATION SECTION
Listing of Employees
23S
Sewer
Operating Revenue
23S
Sewer Utility Plant Accounts
and Sewer Operation and Maintenance
Expenses
24S(a)
& (b)
Analysis of Accumulated Depreciation
by Primary Account and Pumping Equipment Information
25S
Service Connections
26S
Collecting and Force Mains, Manholes and Treatment Plant
26S
Master
Lift
Station
Pumps
26S
p.
Page
ii

UTILITY
tAME
.
.
-
~Yearof Report
.1
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
Dec.
31,
200
3
,
.
.
COMPOSITE
OF STATISTICS FOR
ALL PRIVATELY OWNED
WATER &
SEWER UTILITIES UNDER ILLINOIS
COMMERCE COMMISSION JURISDICTION
WATER
SEWER
UTILITY
PLANT
41
,
11
8
11
6,
03
1
Plant
in So
rvice
Constructbn Work
in
Progress
.
.
.•
Plant Acquisition Adjustment
.
Plant Held-br Future Use
.
Materials
and Supplies
.
.
Less:
Accumulated
Depreciation
and
Accumulated Amortization
1 2,
0 1
0
50,
386
Contributions
in
Aid of
Construction
NetBookCost
.
29,108
65,645
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
.
OperatingRevenues
8,
423
1 2, 248
Depreciation
and Amortization
Expenses
674
1
,
8 40
lncomeTaxExpenses
Ixes
Other. Than Income
~w
OtherOperating Expenses
1
,
1 0
8
1
8
3
3 4
.
1 7, 325
Total Operating Expenses
.
Net Operating
Income
-
Other Income
-
Other
Income Deductions
(1
,
200)
(1 .200)
Netlnconie
(LOSS)
.
(12,893)
(8,117)
OTHER STATISTICS
Average Annual Residential
Use Per 1,000
Gallons
3
.
6
Average Annual
Residential Cost Per 1,000 Gallons
.
N
Average Residential
Monthly Bill
$2
~.
00
$~48.
8 ~
Gross Plant Investment
Per Customer
.
.
1
-
r
‘~
I,
Page 3F

UTILITY
NAME
Year of
Report
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
Dec.31,
-,rn-~
COMPARATIVE BALANCE
SHEET
Acct.
No.
(a)
ACCOUNTNAME
(b)
REF.
PAGE
(c)
CurrentYear
(ci)
Previous ‘Year
(e)
UTILITY PLANT
101-106
108-1 10
UtilityPlant
Less: Accumulated
Depreciation and
Amortization
hF
11 F
—5-7-
1
49
6
1 49,
c
26
6
6
114-1
15
NetPlant
Utility Plant Acquisition Adjustments
(Net)
11F
2,
~
~
~‘
~
~
2,
62
0
~
‘~
‘~
64
116
Other Utility Plant Adjustment
OTHER_PROPERTY AND_INVESTMENTS
121
Nonutility Property
122
Less:
Accumulated
Depreciation
and Amortization
Net Nonutility Plant
123
Investment in Associated Companies
124
Utility Investments
125
Other
Investments
126-127
Special
Funds
Total Other Property &
Investments
CURRENTANDACCRUEDASSETS
131
Cash
132
Special
Deposits
133
Other Special Deposits
134
Working Funds
135
Temporary Cash Investments
141-144
Accounts
& Notes Receivable, Less Accumulated Provision For
Uncollectible Accounts
4
,
5 9 0
5
145
Accounts
Receivable from Associated
Companies
12F
146
Notes Receivable from Associated Companies
12F
151-153
Materials
and
Supplies
12F
161
Stores Expenses
162
Prepayments
12F
171
Accrued Utility
Revenues
172
Rents Receivable
173
Accrued Utility Revenues
174
Miscellaneous Currentand accrued Assets
Total Current and Accrued Assets
i
~
‘~
F~
~sg
DEFERRED_DEBITS
,
181
Unamortized Debt Discount & Expense
13F
182
Extraordinary
Property
Losses
13F
183
Preliminary Survey & Investigation Charges
184
Clearing Accounts
185
Temporary Facilities
186
Miscellaneous Deferred Debits
i2F
187
Research & Development Expenditures
190
Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes
Total Deferred
Debits
TOTAL ASSETSAND OTHER DEBTS
1
0 2
,
886
90
,
7 23
Page 4F

Page5F
UTILITY
f~AME
.
Year of Report
EMMETT UTILITIES,
INC.
Dec.31,
2003
I
COMPARATIVEBALANCE SHEET
.
-
-
.
REF.
Acct. No.
ACCOUNTNAME
PAGE
-
CurrentYear
Previous Year
(a)
(b)
EQUITY_CAPITAL
(c)
(d)
(e)
.
201
Common Stock
Issued
14F
1 ,000
1,000
204
Preferred Stock Issued
14F
202, 205
-
Capital
Stock Subscribed
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
203,
206
Capital Stock Liability forConversion
207
Premiumon Capital Stock
.
1 ~S
c ~
77,
2
45
209
Reduction in Par or Stated Value of Capital Stock
.
.
-
210
Gain on
Resale or Cancellation of Reacquired Capital Stock
211
Other Paid-In Capital
.
212
Discount on Capital Stock
.
.
.
-
.__________________
213
Capital Stock Expense
-214,215
Retained
Earnings
.
.
.
-
14F
.
(101
,.01
‘~
)
(SC),
()0’~
216.
Reacquired Capital
Stock
.
.
218
Proprietary Capital
(Proprietorship &
Partnership Only)
-
Total
Equity Capital
LONG-TERM
DEBT
58, SC)
.
(1
r ~
C)
R)
221
Bonds
.___________________
222
Reacquired
Bonds
223
Advances from Associated Companies
224
Long-Term
Debt
Total Long-Term Debt
231
CURRENT_AND ACCRUED_LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
-
1
1
7 ~
232
Notes Payable
13F
,
233
Accounts
Payable to Associated
Companies
14F
-
234
Notes Payable
tà Associated Companies
13F
4fl,
ftflfl
235
Customer Deposits
236
AccruedTaxes
1
1
1
1
63
237
Accrued
Interest
.
-
,
238
Accrued Dividends
000
239
Matured Long-Term Debt
240
Matured Interest
241
,
Miscellaneous Current and Accrued
Liabilities
Total Current and Accrued
Liabilities
4 4
~
q ~
~
1
251
-
252
253
255
DEFERRED
CREDITS
Unamortized Premium
on
Debt
13F
Advances for Construction
15F
.
Other Deferred
Credits
Accumulated Deferred
Investment Tax Credits
Total Deferred
Credits
-

UTILITY
I~lAME
Year of Report
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
Dec.31, 2003
COMPARATIVE BALANCESHEET
I
REF.
Acct.
NO.
.
ACCOUNT NAME
PAGE
Current
Year
Previous Year
(a)
.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
• OPERATING_RESERVES
261
Property
Insurance
Reserve
262
jpjuries and Damages Reserve
263
Pensions and
Benefits Reserve
265
Miscellaneous Operating
Reserves
.
.
Total Qperating Reserves
CONTRIBUTIONS INAIDOFCONSTRUCTION
271
Contributions in Aid of
Construction
-.
1 6F
272
Accumulated Amortization of
Contributions in Aid
of Construction
Total
Net C.l.A.C.
ACCUMULATED DEFERRED_INCOME TAXES
281
Accumulated
Deferred Income Taxes
-
..
Accelerated_Depreciation
282
Accumulated Deferred
Income Taxes
-
Liberalized_Depreciation
.
Total Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes
TOTAL EQUITY CAPITAL
AND LIABILITIES
.
1)2
,.
S A~
91), 7
2 ~
NOTES TO THE BALANCE
SHEET
This
space is provided for important notes regarding the balance sheet.
I
-
Page 6F

UTILITY J~AME
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
Year of
Report
Dec.31,
2003
.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENTOFINCOME FOR THE YEAR
Acct
REF.
I
No.
ACCOUNTNAME
PAGE
Current Year
Previous Year
(a)
(b)
(C)
(d)
(e)
UTILITY_OPERATING_INCOME
400
Operating Revenues
17W, 23S
20
671
.
1 9
,
77 9
401
Operating
Expenses
-
-
18Wa, 24Sa
3 5
,
65 9
.
.
3 3
,
1
4 ~i
2
,
51
4
403
Depreciation
Expenses
.
.
19W, 25S
2,
51
4
406
Amortization of Utility Plant AcquisitionAdjustment
.
-
407.X
Amortization
Expense
-
.
408.1X
Taxes Other Than
Income
• 1,
1
1) A
9
2 7
409.1X
Income Taxes
-
.
410,10
Deferred
Federal Income Taxes
.
410.1X
Deferred
State Income Taxes.
411.10
Provision for Deferred
Income Taxes
.
412.10
Investment Tax Credits Deferred to Future
Periods
412.11
Investment Tax Credits
Restored to Operating Income
Utility Operating Expenses
3 9., 281
6, 55 6
Utility Operating Income
.
-
-
-
413.
Income
From Utility Plant Leased to Others
-
414
Gains (Losses)
From Disposition of Utility Property
•.
.
-
Total
UtilityOperating Income
(18,610)
(17,
~07
)
-
OTHER INCOME AND DEDUCTIONS
.
415
Revenues from Merchandising, Jobbing
& Contract Deductions
416
Costs& Expenses
of Merchandising, Jobbing
& ContractWork
419.
Interestand DividendIncome
420
Allowance for Funds Used
During Construction
-
421.
Nonutility Income
.
-
426
Miscellaneous
Nonutility Expenses
q
1
)
Total
Other Income and Deductions
-
TAXES_APPLICABLETOOTHER_INCOME
408.20
Taxes Other Than
Income
409.20
Income Taxes
-
410.20
Frovisior~for Deferred
Income Taxös
--
.
.
..-
.
411.20
Provision for Deferred
Income
Taxes-Credits
412.20
Investment Tax Credits
-
Net
412.30
Investment Tax Credits
Restored to Operating Income
-
Total Taxes Applicable to Other Income
INTEREST_EXPENSE
427.X
Interest Expense
.
2,
4 1)1)
428
Amortization ofDebt
Discount & Expense
.
•..
13F
429
Amortization
of
Premium on Debt
13F
Total Interest Expense
.
2,
4 0 0
EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS
433
Extraordinary Income
.
434
Extraordinary Deductions
9.30
Income Taxes, Extraordinary items-
.
Total Extraordinary Items
.-..
(21,010
)
(17,
898
)
NETINCOME
(LOSS)
-
.
Page 7F

UTILITY
N&?wIE
Year of Report
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
Dec.31,
2003
I
STATEMENT OF CASH
FLOWS
1.
If the
r-iotes
to
the
cash
flow statement
in
the
respondent’s
annual
stockholders
report are
applicable
to
this
statement,
such
notes
should
be
attached to
page
1OF.
Information
about noncash
investing
and
financing
activities should
be provided
on
page 1OF.
Provide also
on
page
1OF
a
reconciliation between
~Cash
and Cash
Equivalents
at End of Year”
with
related amounts on the
balance sheet.
2.
Under
“Other” specify significant amounts
and group others.
3.
Operating Activities
-
Other:
Include gains and
losses
pertaining
to operating
activities only.
Gains
and
losses pertaining to investing and financing
activities should be
reported in
those activities.
Show on page
1 OF the amounts of interest paid
(net of amounts capitalized)
and
income taxes paid.
(Further instructions are provided on page 9F)
________________________
Line
No.
DESCRIPTION
(See lnstruction No. 5 for Explanation of Codes (a)thru (d))
(a)
.
Aniount
(b)
.1
Net
Cash Flowfrom Operating Activities:
.
-
2
Netlncome(onpage7F)
.
471,011))
3
Noncash Charges
(Credits)
to. Income:
4
Depreciation and
Depletion
2,
5
1
‘1
5
Amortization
of
(Specify)
6
.
7
8
Deferred Income
Taxes
(Net)
9
Investment Tax Credit
Adjustments
(Net)
._
10
Net
(Increase)
Decrease in
Receivables
fl ~ ~
)
11
Net
(Increase)
Decrease in
Inventory
12
Net Increase
(Decrease)
in
Payables
and Accrued
Expenses
.
,
1
7 ~
13
(Less)
Allowance_for_Other_Funds_Used_During_Construction
14
(Less)
Undistributed
Earnings from Subsidiary Companies
15
Other:
~i
21
.
.
-I
Net Cash Provided by
(Used/n)
Operating Activities
(Total of lines 2 thru 20)
22
~18,408)
23
24
Cash Flows from Investment Activities:
25
Construction
and
Acquisition of Plant
(includi~ng
land):
26
Gross Additions to Water Utility Plant
1
0,
4 0 3
27
Gross Additions to Sewer UtilityPlant
28
Gross Additions to Common Utility Plant
.
29
Gross
Additions to
Nonutility Plant
.
30
(Less)_Allowance_for Other_Funds_Used_D uring_Construction
31
Other:
.
32
,
33
34
Cash Outflows
for Plant
(Total of lines 26 thru 33)
1 0,
403
35
36
Acquisition of Other Noncurrent Assets
(ci)
37
Proceeds from
Disposal of Noncurrent Assets
(d)
38
39
Investments in
and Advances to
Associated and Subsidiary Companies
40
Contributions and
Advances from Associated and
Subsidiary Companies
41
Disposition of Investments in
(and Advances
to)
Associated
and Subsidiary Companies
42
~DDITION~L
CAPITOL P~I-E~IN
~Y
STOCKHOLDER
~1),14~
43
44
Purchase
of Investment Securities
(a)
1
45
Proceeds
from Sales of
Investment Securities
(a)
I
Page 8F

UTILITY NAME
Year of
Report
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
-
.
Dec.31,2003
STATEMENT OF CASH
FLOWS
(continued)
4.
Investing Activities:
Include at Other
(line
31)
net cash outflow to acquire other companies.
Provide a reconciliation of assets acquired
with liabilities
assumedon page 1
OF. Provide a reconciliation of the dollar amount of leases capitalized
with the
plant cost
on page
1 OF.
-
5.
Net proceeds
or payments;
(b) Bonds, debentures and other long-term
debt;
(c) include
commercial
paper;
(d) identify separately such
items as
investments, fixed assets,
intangibles, etc.
6.
Enter on page
1OF clarifications and explanations.
Line
No.
-
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
..
DESCRIPTION
(See Instruction No.
5 for Explanation of
Codes (a) thru ~‘dj)
-
(a)
.
Amount
(b)
Loans
Made or
Purchased
Collections
on
Loans
.
Net
(Increase)
Decrease in Receivables
Net
(Increase)
Decrease in Inventory
Net_Increase_(Decrease)_in_Payables_and_Accrued_Expenses
Other:
-
.
.
Net_Cash_Provided_by_(Used in)_Investing. Activities_(Total
of lines_34_thru 55)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities:
Proceeds from
Issuance of:
Long-Term Debt (b)
Preferred Stock
Common Stock
Other:
66
Net Increase in short-term
Debt
(C)
67
Other:
68
69
70
Cash_Provided_by_Outside_Sources_(Total
of lines_61_thru
69)
7.1
72
Payments for Retirement of:
73
Long-Term Debt
(b)
74
Preferred Stock
75
common Stock
76.
Other:
77
-
78
Net Decrease in short-term Debt
(C)
79
-
80
Dividends on
Preferred Stock
81
Dividends on Common Stock
82
Net_Cash_Provided_by_(Used
in)_Financing_Activities
(Total oflines_70_thru
81)
-
83
.
84
Net Increase
(Decrease)
in Cash
and
Cash Equivalents
(Total of lines 22,
57 and 83)
85
.
.
86
87
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year
88
89
Cash and
Cash
Equivalents at End of Year
S
Page
9F

UTILITY
NAME
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
YearofRepor~
Dec. 31
,2 00
3
NOTES TO
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
4
1.
Use the space below for importantnotes regarding theComparative Balance Sheet, Comparative Income Statement for the Year, Statement of
Retained Earnings for the Year,
and
Statement of Cash
Flows or any account thereof. Classify the
notes according to each basic statement,
providing a sub-heading
for each statement except where
a note
is applicable to more than one statement.
2.
Furnish
particulars
(details)
as to any significant contingent assets or liabilities
existing
at end of year,
including
a brief explanation of any action
initiated
by the
Internal
Revenue Service
involving possible assessment of additional income taxes-of-materia~amount,
or of a claim for refund
of
income taxes of material amount initiated bythe utility. Givealso a brief explanation of anydividends in arrears on cumulative preferred stock.
3.
For
AccoUnts
114-115, Utility Plant Acquisition
Adjustments, explain the
origin of such amount, debits
and credits during the year,
and
plans
of
disposition contemplated, giving references to Commission orders orother authorizations respecting
classification of amountsas plant adjustments
and
requirements as to disposition thereof.
4,
Give a
concise explanation of any retained earnings
restrictions and state the amount of
retained earnings
affected
by such restrictions.
5.
If the
notes to financial statements relating
to the respondent company appearing
in the annual report to the stockholders
are
applicable, such
notes may be attached
hereto.
1
Page
1OF

UTILITY
~1AME
-
EMMETT UTILITIES,
INC.
Year of
Report
Dec. 31,2
C)
C)
UTILITY PLANT (ACCOUNTS 101
-106)
-
Acct..
No.
.
.
WATER
SEWER
TOTAL
PLANT ACCOUNTS
.
101
Utility Plant
In Service
41
,
11
8
.11 6, 031
1 57,
1
49
102
Utility
Plant Leased to-Others
-•
.
-
,
-,
103
Property Held
For Future
Use
.
.
-
104
Utility
Plant Purchased orSold
-
.
-
.
-
.
105
ConstructionWork in Progress.’
.
.
.
106
CompletedConstruction Not
Classified
.
.
-
Total
Utility
Plant
41
,
11
8
11 6, 031
1 57,
1
4 9
UTILITYPLANTACQUISITION ADJUSTMENTS (ACCOUNTS 114-115)
Report each
acquisition adjustment and
related accumulated amortization separately.
For any acquisition adjustment approved by the Commission,
include the Order Number.
.
WATER
SEWER.
TOTAL
ADJUSTMENTS
(114)
-
.
AMORTIZATION (115)
-
,
-
•‘.
I_____________________
ACCOUNT 108-110
WATER
SEWER
TOTAL
Balance First of Year
-
1 4,
11
6
48, 546
62,
6 6 2
Credits
During Year:
.
.
Accruals Charged to Depreciation Account
.
67 4
1
,
840
..
2,
5
1
4
Salvage
Other Credits (Specify)
Total Credits
-
.
.-‘--
-‘
-
Debits
During Year:
-
BookCost of Plant Retired
2,780
2,780
Cost of Removal
.
Other Debits (Specify)
-
otal
Debits
Balance End
of Year
.
12,01
0
50,38.6
62
,3~5
•.
.~••....
ACCUMULATEbpEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION
OF UTILITY
PLANT
-
I
-
Page
hF

I
I
~UTILITY
f~JA.ME
Year of Report
I
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
.
.
.
Dec.31,
f’~fl~3_
*ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FROMASSOCIATED COMPANIES (ACCOUNT 145)
DESCRIPTION
Li
I~I.
TOTAL
TsTi’,
Total
*NOTES
RECEIVABLE FROM ASSOCIATED COMPANIES (ACCOUNT 146)
Reoort
each note receivable from associated companies secaratelv.
DESCRIPTION
Total
~T
L’J~1
-
INTEREST RATE
TOTAL
Plant Materials
and Supplies
(Account
151)
Merchandise (Account
152)
Other Materials
and Supplies (Account 153)
*
MATERIALS
AND
SUPPLIES (ACCOUNTS 151-1 53)
Total Matenafs
and
Supplies
NI~
WATER
‘.
Prepaid
Insurance
Preoaid
Rents
SEW ER
Prepaid
Interest
Prepaid Taxes
TOTAL
.
*PREPAYMENTS
(ACCOUNT 162)-
Other Prepayments
(Specify):
M
Total
Prepavments
WATER
SEWER
TOTAL
*
MISCELLANEOUS DEFERRED
DESCRIPTION
DEBITS (ACCOUNT 186)
TOTAL
Miscellaneous
Deferred
Debits (Account
186)
Deferred Rate Case Expense (Account 186.1)
-
Other Deferred Debits (Account 186.2)
N
~
-
.
-
Total
Miscellaneous Deferred
Debits
Page 12F

S
e.1,
UTILITY
flAME
Year of
Report
EMMETT-
UTILITIES,
INC
-
--
-•-
,
-
-Dec.31,2003
.
*UNAMORTIZED DEBT DISCOUNT AND EXPENSE AND PREMIUM
DEBT (ACCOUNTS 181
& 251).
Report the net
discount and expense
or premium separatelyfor each security issue.
•-
Amount Written
Off
-During-Year
Year End
Balance
Unamortized Debt Discount and
Expense ~Account
181):
-
-
-
.
-
Unamortized Premium On-Debt fAccount 25h’~:
Total Unamortized Debt Discountand Exoense
-
Total Unamortized Premium on
Debt
Extraordinary Property Losses (Account
182):
.
*EXTRAORDINARY PROPERTY
LOSSES (ACCOUNT 182)
Reoort
each Item se~arateIv
-.
DESCRIPTION
~talExtraordinaryProperty Losses
I_-In
?~~T
7’.
TOTAL
-
*NOTES
PAYABLE (ACCOUNTS232 AND 234)
-
Nominal
Date of
-
Issue
.
-
Principal Amount
Date of Maturity
Interest
Per
Balance Sheet
-
Frequency of
Rate
Payment
Account
232
Notes Payable:
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
Total Account
232
-
.
.
-
Account 234— Notes
Payable to AssocIated
-
Companies~
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
.
STOC~HOL,DEP~
12-31-2003
demand
j
6
40.000
•-.
-
0
0~
0’
¼
:
--
-
Total Account 234
-
40
r
Page
13F

Principal
Amount
Per
Balance Sheet
,~
UTILITY
NAME
E
Year
-
Dec.31,
2003
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
-
*ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TO ASSOCIATED
COMPANIES (ACCOUNT 233)
-
-
Report
each
account payable separately.
-
0
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
Description of Obligation
0
(Including Nominal Date of Issueand Date of Maturity)
TOTAL
M
.
I
Shares Authorized
Shares Issued
and Outstanding
-
-
Total Par
Value of Stock
Issued
Dividends
Declared Per Share For Year
I—
If.’
11’.
(~P’~
T\1EM
~‘
00
*CAPITALSTOCK(ACCOUNTS 201
& 204)
-
Common Stock
Preferred
Stock
.
•_•
—-
I
Par or Stated Value Per Share
I flfl
-F--
LONG TERM DEBT (ACCOUNT 224)
-
Total
0
Rate
Interest
¼
¼
Frequency
OfPayment
I
p
¼
¼
5(~
RETAINED EARNINGS (ACCOUNTS 214—215)
-
-
.-
AMOUNTS
Balai~ceFirst of Year
-
(80,
003)
ChangesDuringtheYear(Specify):
(T.(’~)s$~)
0
0
(21
,
01-0-f-——
Balance End
of Year
(101
.
oiii~ii
I
Page
h4F

UTILITY
NAME
0
Y;ear of Report
~0
emmett utilities,
inc
,
-
0
-
0
0
Dec.31,2003
0
*BONDS
(ACCOUNT 221)
-
-
00
Description of Obligation
-
(Including Nominal Date of Issueand Date of- Maturity)
I
Interest
-
Principal Amount
Per
Balance Sheet
0
-Rate
0
Frequency
0
Of Payment
-
-
•0
0
0
~0
0
-
--
.
-
0•
-_
0•
0
..•
0
0
0
0
0
0’
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
~0
-
0
--
0
-
00
-
-.
-
0
0
-
0
-
.
0
-
-
-
••
..
0
.
-
-
-
0
Total
-
:
-
0
0
0
-
0
0•~
*ADVANCES TO ASSOCIATED COMPANIES (ACCOUNT 223)
R~p9rt
each advance separately.
-
DESCRIPTION
N~
~0
TOTAL
~-
0
TOTAL
-
*ADVANCES
FOR CONSTRUCTION (ACCOUNT 252)
-
Name
Payor
Balance
0
Debits
-
Beginning of
Year
Account
Debit
Amount
‘Credits
Balance
Endof Year
!al.
N~’-
•:_OH-
-
Page
15F

~~T1
~ME
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
Income
Recorded on Books
Not Included for Return:
Deductions
on Return Not Charcied Aciainst Book
Income:
-
Year of Report
-
Dec.31,
2003
I
-
0
-
CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OFCONSTRUCTION
WATER
SEWER
TOTAL
Balance First of Year
-
Add credits during
year:
0
-
Contributions received from
Customer Main
Extension Agreements
-
Customer Connection
Charges
0
0
Contributions received
from Developer or contractor Agreements
0
In cash Orproperty
0
-
Total Credits
-
-
0
,
0
Deduct Charges During Year
-
Balance End of Year
-
0
Less Accuniulated Amortization
-
0
-
-
0
Net
CIAC
0
NPL
-
-
0
-
*RECONCILIATION OF
REPORTED NET INCOME
WITH TAXABLE INCOME
FOR FEDERAL
INCOME TAXES
-
-
(UTILITY OPERATIONS)
0
1.
The
reconciliation should
include the
same• detail
as furnished on Schedule
M-1
of the federal tax return
for the year. The reconciliation shall
be
submitted
even though there ‘is no taxable income
for the year: Descriptions should clearly indicate the nature of each
reconciling amount and
show the
computation
of all
tax accruals.
-
2.
If the utility is a member of a
group which files a consolidated Federal
tax
return, reconcile
reported net income with taxable
net income-as-if
a
-
-
separate return were to
be filled,
indicating intercompany
amounts to be
eliminated in such consolidated return. State names of group
members,
tax assigned to each group member,
and basis of allocation,
assignment or sharing of the consolidated tax
amount among the group men-ibers.
0
-
-
Reference
AMOUNT
Net Income forthe Year
0
-
0
( ~
1
fli
n
Reconciling
Items for the Year:
Taxable_Income_Not_Reported_on_Books:
0
a
Deductions
Recorded
on Books Not Deducted for Return:
-
FederalTaxNet Income
Computation of Tax:
(21 .010’l
I
Page 16F

~Year of Report
‘I
~
UTILITY NAME
.emmett utilities,
inc.
0
0
0
-.
RECONCILIATION
OF GROSS
REVENUE
TAX
0
This schediale
is to reconcile
the amounts shown
in
the accompanying Annual Report with the amounts shown on the Amended/Annual Gross
RevenueT~xReturn:
0
-
-
-
0
0
-
-
0
-
0
(a)
-
-
-
0
-
0
As Shown on
Annual Report
-
0
(b)
Page
& Line
Where
Amount at Left Can
Be Found inthe
Annual Report
(c)
-
-
as shown inAnnual Report
-
20-, 671
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
Illinois
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
0
0
-
0
,
-
0
,
-
-
forResale
-
0
0
0
basis’used)
-
are included in 1-a. above)
Description
Account No.
0
~‘“0•
-•
~•0,
.
0
Annual Report (lines’1-2thru
14)
-
20, 671
Amended/Annual Gross
Revenue
Tax
Return
20
,
67
1
,
17
I
DIFFERENCE (line 15 minus line
16)
NONE
-
I
If difference calculated on line 17 is-i positive amount of $1,000.00 or more,
a revised
Amended/Annual Tax Return for the year plus payment of any
additional tax
due must be
promptly remitted to the Illinois Commerce Commission.
If the calculated difference is less than $1,000.00 or a negative
amount,
no -further action
is required regarding your tax reconciliation.
(The tax owed on
$1,000 at the.current tax rate of .1
001o
is $1.00. According to the
Public
Utilities Act a deficiency
in taxes paid of less than $1.00 need not be paid to the Commission.)
-
-
.
Page 1
6F(a)

Year of Report
~LITY~~E
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
Dec.31,2003
ANALYSISOF UNBILLEDREVENUE
w
This form 1510 becompleted by all water
and sewer utilities.
-
-
•PRIORYEAR
CURRENTYEAR
REFERENCE
-
1.
Water Utility Revenue
-,
,
-
-
2
3
Less: PriorYear Unbilled Revenud
0
Prior Yr. !LCC Form
22 Pg.
16F(b),Line3
Add: CurrentYear Uribilled Revenue
0
4
Gross Water Utility Operating Revenue
Pg 17W
5
Sewer Utility Revenue
-
-
-
-
6
Less: PriorYear
Unbilled Revenue
0
Prior Yr. ILCC
Form
22
Pg.
-
1 6F(b), Line7
7
Add:Current YearUnbilled Revenue
8
Gross Sewer Utility Operating Revenue
-
9
Total UtilityRevenue (Line
1
+
Line 5)
0
0
I
10
0
11
Less: Total PriorYear Unbilled Revenue
~
(Line2
+
Line 6)
0
0
-
-
0
Prior Yr.
ILCC Form
22 Pg.
16F(b), Line 11
Add: Total Current Year Unbilled
Revenue
(Line 3
+
Line 7)
0
-
0
12
Gross
Water Utility Operating
Revenue
-
Pg 16F(a), Line
1
-
Page
16F(b)
I

Page 17W-
•1
UTILITY
NAME
0
0
0
Year of
Report
0
EMMETT
UTILITES,
INC.
-
-
-
-
-
Dec.31,
2003
-
-
WATER OPERATION
SECTION
--
:
-
,
-
Listbelow
the
names and titles of all full time employees’whose
salaries and wages are recorded in Account Number 601, page
18W.
NOTE:’
Only those utilities with 2,500 or fewer customers are required to complete
this item.
NAME
-
TITLE
NONE
-‘
-
-
-
WATER OPERATING REVENUE
-
-
Acct
No.
0
0
0
,
-
Gallons Sold
Year End Number
of-Customers
Amounts
-
-
461.1
-
461.2
461.3
•461.4
461.5
O
0
-
462.1
462.2
464
465
466
467
O
0
469
470
471
472
473
-
474
-
-
-
Operating Revenues:
Unmetered Water Revenue
-
0
-
0
Metered Water
Revenue:
-q 9
.4 3
Q
0,
Metered Sales toResidential Customers
0
-
,
21
7 40 3
-
Metered
Sales to CommercialCustomers
-
,
Metered Sales to Industrial Customers
0
-
:
-
Metered Sates to Public Authorities
.
Metered Sales to Multiple Family
Dwellings
0
-
Total Metered
Sales
0
-
0
7,
403
Fire Protection Revenue:
Public’Fire Protection
,
Private Fire Protection
Total Fire Protection
Revenue
-
Other Sales to Public Authorities
-Salesto Irrigation Customers
0
0
Sales for Resale
0
Interdepartmental Sales
-
Total Salesof Water
-
-
~7,
403
Other Water Revenues:
-
0
0
-
Guaranteed Revenues
-
-
-
-
‘.
1
0
20
,
Forfeited
Discounts
-
Miscellaneous
Service Revenues
-
-
0
-
Rents from
Water Property
-
Interdepartmental
Rents.
-
-
,
-
0
-
-
0
Other’Water Revenues
,
0
0
.
-
Total Other
Water Revenues
-
.
-
-
-
0
.
Total
Water Operating Revenues
-
4 73

UTILITY
NAt~fE
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC
Yearof Report
-
,
-
Dec.312003
-
-
WATER
UTILITY PLANT ACCOUNTS
-
Acct.
No.
-
Account Name
~Previous
Year
-
-
Additions
-
Retirements
-
Current
Year
-
R
0 00
-
1
,
2 40
3
1
7 ~
1
3
~ 4
~
O
INTANGIBLE PLANT
-
301
Organization
0
8
000
302
Franchises
-
-
339
Other Plant &
Miscellaneous
Equipment
SOuRCE OF SUPPLY
,
0
,
-
.
-
303
Land and Land
Rights
-
1
240
304-
305
-
Structures
and
Improvements
Collecting
&
Impounding Reservoirs
~,,
-i
-~
ç
0
306
Lakes, Rivers
&
Other Intakes
-
-307
Wells & Springs
0
1
2
6
5
308
Infiltration Galleries & Tunnels
,
0
-
309
Supply Mains
339
-
Other Plant
& Miscellaneous
Equipment
-
PUMPING
PLANT
0
303
Land
and
Land Rights
304
Structures
and
Improvements
0
310
Power Generation
Equipment
-
311
339
PumpingEquipment
Other Plant
& Miscellaneous
Equipment
2
122
10 403
7,17~
-
-
10,
403
-
WATER TREATMENT
-
0
303
Land and
Land Rights
304
-
Structures and
Improvements
0
-
0
0
320
Water Treatment Equipment
0
339
Other Plant and
Miscellaneous
Equipment
-
-
-
1
TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTIONPLANT
0
,
303
Land and Land
Rights
0
0
304
Structures and Improvements
.
-
330
Dist.
Reservoirs
and
Standpipes
7
71 3
-
2 ,.2
1 3
331
Transmission & Distribution Mains
i
~c
~
2,
1 ~
333
Services
0
0
334
Meters
-
-
‘~
~1
5
-
1?
~
1
~
334
Meter Installations
-‘
-
335
Hydrants
336
Backflow Prevention
Devices
-
339
Other ‘Plant & MiCceItãneoU~Equipment
-
.
.
-
--
-
-
-‘
-
GENERAL PLANT
0
0
0
303
Land and Land
Rights
-
0
304
Structures and Improvements
0
340
Office Furniture&
Equipment
0
341
Transportation
Equipment
0
342
Stores Equipment
343
Tools,
Shops
&
Garage Equipment
344
Laboratory Equipment
345
-
Power Operated Equipment
-
0
346
Communications Equipment
0
-
347
348
Miscellaneous Equipment
Other Tangible
Plant
TOTALPLANTIN SERVICE
33
495
-
0
10,403
2,780
41
,118
Page 18W

Page 18W(a)
-
UTILITYNAME
-
-EMMETT UTILI-TIES,
INC.
-
Yearof
Report
-
0
0
.
0
-
Dec.31,~2003
WATER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCEEXPENSE
.
0
-
Acct.
No.
-
0
-
-
-
Account
,
Previous
-
-
Year
Current
-Year
-
‘SOURCEOFSUPPLY
0
-
0
-
601
$alaries and Wages-Employees
0
,~
0
-
-‘
610
Purchased Water
-
-
-
‘615
Purchased Power.
-
-
0
-
-
-
616
Fuel for Power Production
-
0
-
-
0
618
Chemicals
.
-
0
-.
-
-
-
-
-
0
620
I~4ateriaIs
and
Supplies
-
-
0
-
72 ~
-
-
-
1 98
-
‘63t’
Contractual Service
-
Engineering
0
-
-
635
Contractual Service
Testing
-
.
0
-
-
636
641
642
‘650
658
-
668
675
601
615
616
620
O
.631
635
-
636
641
642
50
Contractual Service —Other
-
-
0
0
Rental ofBuilding!Real Property
-
.
-
Rental of Equipment
0
Transportation Expenses
0
0
0
‘•
-
0
•.-
‘‘‘
-
-
lnsurancd-’Workmañ’s
Compensation
-
-
0
0
-
-
Water Resource Conservation
Expense
-
0
-
-
-
.
-
Ntiscellaneous
Expenses
-
0
-
-
PUMPING
EXPENSES
.
-
0
,,
0
0
-
-
Salaries and Wages-Employees
-
-“‘
.
Purchased Power
.
-
-
.
373
.
7g
Fuel for Power Production.
0
.
.
0
Materla!s
and
Supplies
,
0
-
0
-
Contractual Services-
Engineering
0
0
Contractual Services
Testing’
0
-
Contractual Service-s
Other
~0
-
-
Rental of BuIlding! Real Property
-
0
0
-
-
Rental of Equipment
-
0
,
-
0
Transportation
Expenses
.
••
0
0
Insurance- Workman’s
Compensation
0
5
Miscellaneous
Expenses
-
WATER TREATMENT
EXPENSE
-
601
Salaries and Wages-Employees
.
.
-
615
Purchased Power
0
0
-
O
-
616’
Fuel for Power Production
-
0
-
•‘
-
-
-
-
618
Chemicals
-
-
I________________________
620
-
Materials and
Supplies
.
0
0
-
-
-
631-
-Contractual
Services
Engineering
635
Contractual Services
Testing
0
-
636
Contractual Services
Other
0
-
,
-
641
Rental of Building/Real Property
-642---
-
‘R-entaI’of~Equipment
---.
--
-
-.•-
-.
..
‘-
650
Transportation Expenses
658
Insurance-Workman’s Compensation
0
0
675
Miscellaneous Expenses
TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION
601.
Salaries and Wages —Employees
-
615
Purchased Power
-
-
0
-
616
-
Fuel for Power Production
618
Chemi~als
-
-
-
620’.
Materials and
Supplies
-
-
631
Contractual
Services
-
Engineering
0
0
-
635
contractual Services
Testing
0
-
O
636
Contractual
Services
Other
0
0
6~1
Rental of Building/Real
Property
0
.
.
-
-642
-
-
Rental of
Equipment
-
650
Transportation
Expenses
-
I______________________________________________________
658
Insurance
Workman’s Compensation
675
Miscellaneous Expenses

UTILITY NAME
-
Year of Report
EMMETT
U~DILITIES,
INC.
Dec.31.
2003
WATER OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE EXPENSE
-
-
-.
-
Acct.
-
-
-
Previous
Current
No.
Account
0
Year
Year
CUSTOMER
ACCOUNT EXPENSES
-
0
~T
615
~alaries
and Wages-Employees
-
Purchased Power
.
Fuel
for Power Production
620
£~1ateriaIsand Supplies
0
-
631
Contractual Services
Engineering
-
0
-
-
0
635
636
Contractual Services
Testing
-
Contractual Services
Other
0
3
0
54
‘3
7 1
3
6
1
3
4
7 40
641
Rental of Building/Real Property
642
Rental of Equipment
0
0
650
Transportation Expenses
-
0
-
0
658
Insurance
Workman’s Compensation
0
0
670
Bad
Debt Expense
0
-
-
0
0
675
Miscellaneous Expenses
0
-
ADMINISTRATIVEAND GENERALEXPENSES
,
0
601
Salaries and Wages
Employees
0
-
0
603
Salaries and
Wages
Officers,
Directors, and
Majority Stockholders
-
-
604
Employee
Pensions and
Benefits,
615
-
Purchased Power
616
Fuel
for Power Production
620
Materials and
Supplies
.
631
Contractual Services
Engineering
-
-
-
-
632
Contractual Services
Accounting
-
0
0
634
Contractual Services
Management Fees
.
635
Contractual Services
Testing
-
636
Contractual Services
Other
-
tI
~
P
-
7
1
8
641
642
650
656
Rental of Building/Real
Property
0
Rental of Equipment
Transportation
Expenses
Insurance
Vehicle
-
3 ~ (1
2
1
5
3 60
•;
5 3
0
657
-
Insurance-General Liability
-
.
658
Insurance
-
Workman’s
Compensation
-
659
Insurance
-
Other
0
-
660
Advertising Expense
0
666
Regulatory Commission
Expenses
-
Amortization
Rate Case
Expense
0
667
-
675
Regulatory Commission
Expense
Other
.~
3
3 ~
-
-
-
1 8 6
Miscellaneous Expenses
-
453
1
287
TOTAL OPERATION
AND
MAINTENANCE
EXPENSE
-~
i
-
-
1
-
-
‘‘-~1~’-~
Page
18W(b)

TUT~TYN~
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
IN-C.
0
,
Yearof
Report
-
.
-
Dec.31,2003
0
,
ANALYSIS OFACCUMULATEDDEPRECIATIONBY PRIMARYACCOUNT
-
WATER
-
Acct
-
No,
301
302
339
-
303
304
305
-
306
307
308
309
339
303
304
310
-
311
339
~
4
-
O
303
304
330’
331
333
334
334
335
336
339
303,
304
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
~
~
Account
-
-
-
Average
Service
Ufe
in Yrs
Depr.
Rate
-
Applied
Acàumulated
0
Depreciation
Bal.
Prey. Yr.
Debits
,
1
Accumulated
Depreciation
Credits
Bal. End Yr.
INThNGIBLE PLANT
-
Organization
0
-
,‘
-
0
Franchises
0
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
Other Plant
&‘
Miscellaneous
Equipment
-
-
-
--0
-
SOURCEOFSUPPLY
-
-
.
-
-.
.
0
Lancf and Land
Rights
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
Structures and Improvements
-
-
-
..
Collecting
& Impounding Reservoirs
-,
-
-
-
0
Lakes, Rivers & Other
Intakes
0
0
-
-
0
0
Wells & Springs
-
-.
-
-
lnfiltraticn~
Galleries & Tunnels
-
-
0
-
0
-
Supply Mains
-
0
Other Plant & Miscellaneous Equipment
-
-
- -
0
PUMPINGPLANT
-
0
-
-
-
.
.
--
0
0
Land and Land Rights
.
Structuresand Improvements-
-
-
Power Generation Equipment
-
-
-
Pumping Equipment
-
0
0
Other Plant
&
Miscellaneous Equipment
-
WATER TREATMENT
-
.
-
0
0
0
Land and
Land Rights
-
0
Structures and Improvements
0
0
0
Water Treatment Equipment
-
Other Plant &
Miscellaneous Equipment
-
°“
0
0
TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION PLANT
0
-
-
Land and
Land Rights
0
Structures and Improvements
-
,.
0
-
Dist.
Reservoirs
and Standpipes
•.
0
~_____________
Transmission & Distribution
Mains
-
Services
.
Meters
-
-
Meter Installations
0
-
-
-
Hydrants
-
0
-
-
-
Backliow Prevention
Devices
Other Plant & ‘Miscellaneous
Equipment
-
GENERALPLANT
0
Land and LandRights
0
Structures and Improvements
-
Office Furniture& Equipment.
Transportation
Equipment
Stores Equipment
-
0
,
0
-
-
Tools,’Shop & Garage
Equipment
0
-
0
‘0
Laboratory
Equipment
,
•PQwer Operated Equipment
-
CommUnications Equipment
0
0
Miscellaneous Equipment
Other Tangible Plant
TOTAL PLANT IN SERVICE
-
i
33
-
3
3
-
I
1 4,
11
6
2
,
7 B 0
I
-67
4
1
2
,
‘01
0
Page19W

Estimated amount of water used
for flushing of the
distribution system:
gallons
NONE
Page 20W
UTILITY NAME
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
-
-‘
Year of
Report
Dec.31,
~r~n-~
I
p
-
f~lonth
PUM
Total Water
Pumped and
Purchased
PING AND PURCH
Water
Pumped
From
Well/Station
ASEDWATER STATI
Water Pumped
-
From
Well/Station
STICS (Gallons
Water Pumped
From
Well/Station
Water
Purchased
Water Sold
To
Customers
January
February
-
ApnI
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
0
0
.
.
0
:
May
-
.
-
-
0
June
-
0
0
July
0
August
-
0
0
0
September
0
-
-
October
0
November
-
0
0
0
-
December
.
-
Total
-
-
-
0
CHEMICAL STATISTICS
0
0
-
Type of Solution
Chlorine
Fluoride
Polyphosphate
Other
.
-
i~e(specifyGasorLiquid)
-
NONE
N0NF~
Quantity Used
0
-
-
NflNE
Cost
0
0
-
ELECTRICAL STATISTICS
-
0
-
0
KWH
-
$
Electricity consumed in pumping
Average Cost ofCurrent
Per KWH
If water is
purchased for resale,
indicate
the following:
a)
Vendor
N~
0
.
-
b)
Point
of Delivery
0
-
0
Ifwater is sold to
other water utilities for redistribution,
listnames of Distribution
Companies:

S
~UTILITY~
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
0
-
Year of Report
I
—~
-
-
.
-
-
0
,o
Dec.31,
2003
-
TRANSMISSION AND
DISTRIBUTION MAINS
0~
Size
In
Use
First of
Year
-
Laid
During Year
0
,
Total ,for
Year
Abandoned
DurIng Year
Total
1
-
Taken Up
Deductions For
In Use Close
During Year
Year
Of Year
2”
-
L5”.
1969
1969
-
-
1969
1969
343’
60’
-
.
0
0
343’
60’
-
1.25~’
1969
1969
168”
-
-
0
168’
2”
-
1972
1972
1026’
0
-
-
1026’
Total
-
i
c
~
-
‘0
-
,
-
1
,
~
-
SERVICES AND METERS
AT
CLOSE OF YEAR
-O
Services
in Use
.
Meters in
Use
-
Size of
Service
Owned or
Leased
by
Utility
Owned by
Consumer
Total
In Use
-
-
-
Size of
Meter
Owned or
Leased by
Utility
Owned by
Consumer
Total
In Use
O
½inch
Y2inch
-
5/8 inch
-
5/8 inch
77
.
77
¾
inch
77
7 7
-
¾
inch
0
-
1 inch
1 Inch
l½lnch
-
11/~inch
-
2lnch
•:::::;~
-
-
-
-
2inch
-
0
7’?
‘77
79
0
‘77
,
‘.
FIRE_HYDRANTS
-
Size
In
Service
Beginning of Year
,
--
Added During
Retired
During
The Year
.
The Year
In Service
End
of Year
.
-
-
NONE
0
UepthotWells
320’
0
Diameters of Wells
6”
.
-
Pump-GPM
.
--
38
Motor-HP
,
0
-
-
-
c
Yields of.WelIs inGPD
57,600
0
Auxiliary
Power
,
-
NONE
Year Constructed
0
-
WELLS ANDWELLPUMPS
Types of Well
Construction & Casing
Station
1
1
qççq
6”
~F,Pc~i
StatIon 2
Station 3
Station
4
Page
21
W

‘~
qI
UTILITY NAME
-
-
Year of Report
-
O
EMMETT UTILITIES,
INC.
,
Dec.31,
2003
O
RESERVOIRS
‘bescriptiori
(steel, concrete or pneumatic)
0
Capacity
of
Tank
-
0
0
Ground or
Elevated
0
HIGH
SERVICE PUMPING
-
Motor
-
.
Motor
-
Motor
Motor
Manufacturer
-
-
0
0
-
0
-
-________________________
Type’
-
Rated
Horsepower
.
0
0
-
0
Pump
Pump
Pump
-
Pump
-
Manufacturer
-
-O
-
0
-
Type
-
-
-
-
.
Capacity inGPM
.
Average Number of Hours
Operated Per Day-
-
-
0
0
-
BOOSTER
STATIONS
0
-____________________
0
O
-
-
-
Booster Station
-
,
Booster Station
KW-HR Used
0o
0
Average Cost PerKW-HR
-
-
0
-
GallonsPumped
-
0
0
0
-
SOURCE
OF SUPPLY
List for Each Source
of Supply
Gals. Per Dayof Source
Type of Source
-
NONE
-
0
~I
NONE
-
0
-
I
,
List forEach Water
Treatment Facility:
Type
0
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
-
.
Make
Gals.
Per Day Caoacity
Method of Measurement
Page
22W

UTILITYNAME
.
Year of Report
,
-
-
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
.
0
-
-
,
,
Dec.31,2003
-
0
-
SEWER OPERATION SECTION
,
-
List below ihe
names and titles of all full time employees whose salaries and wages are recorded
in
Account Number 701, page 24S.
Note:
Onlythose utilities with 2,500 or fewer customers are required to complete this item.
Name
Title
-
LARRY
YOUELL
-
-
-
CONTRACT
SEWER
OPERATOR.
-
-
-
SEWER
OPERATING REVENUE
.
‘,“,O,
Acct.
-
Year End
Number
-
-
No.
0
.
Of Customers
-
-
-
Amounts
Operating Revenues:
-
-
-
Flat Rate Revenues:
-
-
0
521.1
-
ResIdential Revenues
21
-
1
2,
24
P
521.2
-
Commercial Revenues
-
521.3
lnduétrial Revenues
0
0
521.4
Revenues from Public Authorities
-
-
521.5
Multiple Family Dwelling Revenues
-
‘521.6.
Other Revenues
Total Flat
Rate Revenues
0
.
-
21
1 2, 24 8
Revenues Based on
Metered Water Consumption
.
522.1
Residential
Revenues
0
-
-
522.2
Commercial Revenues
-
-
-
522.3
Industrial Revenues
0
-
-
522.4
Revenues from Public Authorities
0
-
-
-
O
522.5
Multiple Family Dwelling Revenues
.
-
-
-
-
-
Total Revenues
.
-
-
0
-
,
523
Revenues from Public Authorities
524
-
Revenues from Other Systems
-
-
Totals
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other Sewer
Revenues:
0
0
--
-
531
Sate’of Sludge
-
-
0
-
532
‘Forfeited Discounts
0
.
-.
-
536
-‘
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other Sewer Revenues
-
-
Total Other Sewer
Revenues
.
-
.
-
Total
Sewer Operating Revenues
-
-
1
2
,
24 8
-
.
Page 23S
.
.
I

UTILITY
l’1AME
.
-
Year of
Report
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
Dec.31,2003
SEWER
UTILITY PLANT ACCOUNTS
-
——
-
Acct.
No.
-
-
Account
Name
Previous
Year
-
-
Additions’
Retirements
Current
Year
INTANGIBLE PLANT
-
-
-
0
351
Or~anization
-
23
,
21
4
2
3
,
21
4
352
Franchises
~,
911
g
1
1
389
Other Plant and Misc.
Equipment
0
,
COLLECTION PLANT
.
353
Land and
Land
Rights
0
22,
864
22,
864
-
354
Structures and Improvements
-
-
355’
Power Generation Equipment
0
360
CollectionSewers
-
Force
5,
54 2
5, 542
361
CollectionSewers
-
Gravity
11
~
ii
~
362
Speèial Collecting
Structures
-
-
363
-
Services to Customers
0
364
Flow Measuring
Devices
365
Flow Measuring
Installation
389
Other Plant and
Miscellaneous
Equipment
-
SYSTEM PUMPING
PLANT
353
Land and Land
Rights
.
-
354
Structures and Improvements
-
355
Power Generation Equipment
370
Receiving Wells
371
389
Pumping Equipment
Other Plant and
Miscellaneous
Equipment
2.’?
R 3
fl
~
77
~t
-~
n
TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL PLANT
0
-
353
Landand’Land Rights
-
354
Structuresand Improvements
23,.
p04
-
2 3,
8
04
355
Power Generation Equipment
0
-
-
380
Treatment and Disposal Equipment
381
PlantSewers
-
382
Outfall Sewer
Line
.
‘389
Other Plant
& Miscellaneous
Equipment
-
GENERAL PLANT
-
-
.
353
Land and Land Rights
,
-
354
Structures and Improvements
0
390
Office Furniture and Equipment
-
.
391
Transportation Equipment
392
Stores Equipment
0
393
Tools,
Shop and
Garage
Equipment
-
394
Laboratory Equipment
.
-
-
395
Power Operated Equipment
0
396
Communication Equipment
0
,
0
397
-
Miscellaneous
Equipment
0
0
398
Other Tangible Plant
-
-
TOTALSEWER
PLANT
116,031
I
11
6, 031
4
Page 24S

UTILITY F-~AME
-
-
.
-
Year-of Report
-
emmett
utilities,
inc.
0
Dec.31,
2003
-
-
SEWER OPERATIONAND MAINTENANCEEXPENSE
N~
-
-
-
ACCOUNT
.
Previous
Year
-
Current
Year
-
701
COLLECTION
EXPENSES
0
-
0
-
Salaries and Wages
-
Employees
0
715
Purchased
Power
,
.
0
- -
716
Fuel for Power Production
.
-
718
Chemicals
-
0’
720
Materials and Supplies
-
0
731
.
Contractuat Services
Engineering
-
0
0
-
736
Contractual
Services
Other
-
-
-
0
0
,
-
-
-
‘-741
Rental of Building/Real Property
,
-
.
-
-
-
742.
-
Rental of Equipment
-
-
0
-
.
.
750
Transportation
Expenses
-
-
-
758
Insurance- Workman’s Compensation
0
-
-
0
-
-
,
775
Miscellaneous Expenses
-
0
--
-
0
PUMPING EXPENSES
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
701
715
‘Salaries and Wages-Employees.
Purchased
Power
559
-
,
.
868
-
716
Fuel for Power Production
-
718
Chemicals
.
0
720
Materials and Supplies
731
Contractual Services
Engineering
.
736
Contractual Services
Other
-
0
-
741
742
Rental of Building/Real
Property
Rental of
Equipment
0
0
435-3
-
4-85
750
Transportation
Expenses
-
-
-
58
jE
Insurance-Workman’s Compensation
-
-
-
Miscellaneous Expenses
-
-
-
-
-
4 4 ~
0
3 6
1
-
701
710
711
715-
716
718
720
731
736
741
742
750
758
775
-
715
-
716
720
731
736
-
741
-
742
750
758
770
775
TREATMENTAND DISPOSAL EXPENSES
-
0
-
--
0
Salaries and
Wages-Employees
-
0
-
Purchased Wastewater Treatment
Sludge Removal Expense
-
0
Purchased Power
-
-
-
.
Fuelfor Power Production
0
0
-
Chemicals
Materials and
Supplies
Contractual Services
Engineering
-
Contractual Services
Other
0
Rental of Building/Real Property
-
Rental of Equipment
-
Transportation Expenses
0
-
0
Insurance-Workman’s Compensation
Miscellaneous Expenses
.
0
CUSTOMER
ACCOUNTS EXPENSE
-
Purchased
Power
0
Fuel forPower
Production
0
-
-
Materials and Supplies
-
-
Confractual Services
Engineering
0
-
Contractual Services
Other
Rental of Building/Real Property
-
Rental of
Equipment
-
0
-
0
0
Transportation Expense
Insurance
-
Workman’s Compensation
Bad Debt Expense
Miscellaneous,,Expenses
0
0
Page 24S(a)

0
SEWER OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE
-
-
0
Acct.
No.
-
-
ACCOUNT
0
Previous
-
-
Year
Current
Year
ADMINISTRATIVE_AND_GENERAL
701
~‘Iiaries
and
Wages- Employees
0
0
-
703
~
~
Salaries and Wages —Officers
0
-
Emp~yeePensions and
Benefits
0
Purchased
Power
0
0
0
Fuel for Power Production
-
-
720
Mate~als
and Supplies
-
-
731
~i~-~tractual
Services
Engineering
0
-
732
~i-itractual
Services
Accounting
733
Contractual Services
Legal
734
Contractual Services
Management
Fees
0
-
-
735
~~-tractual
Services
Testing
-
3 605
3 600
736
‘~i~tractuaI
Services
Other
-‘‘
-
4998
4 677
741
Rental of Building/Real Property
0
-
3 60
3 6 0
742
Rental of Equipment
-
0
750
Tran~portationExpense
-
-
0
756
Insurance-Vehicle
-
-
757
Insurance
General Liability
-
-
758
Insurance
Workman’s Compensation
0
-
-
759
760
Insurance
Other
-
-
0
Advertising Expense
-
-
766.
7~T’~
Regulatory
Amortization Rate Case Expense
Regulatory Expense-Other
2,
3 33
4,
1 8 6
775
Miscellaneous Expenses
0
0
TOTAL SEWER OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES
-
6 ~ 9
1 7,
1 29
2,
78 ~
1
7
,
325
m
UTILITY NAME
EMMETT
UTILITIES,
INC.
-I
Year of Report
Dec.31,
2003
I
I
Page 24S(b)
41
Page 24S(b)
-

UTILITY
Nft~ME
‘-
Year
of Report
0
0
I
,
Dec.31,
-
ANALYSIS OF_ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION BY PRIMARY ACCOUNT
-
SEWER
-
Average
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Service
Depr.
-
Accumulated
0~
0
Accun,ulated
Acct.
Life in
Rate
-
Depr. Balance
Dept Balance
No.
-
Account
Yrs.
-
Applied
Previous
Year
-
Debits
Credits
End
of Yr.
INTANGIBLE
PLANT
0
0
0
.
-
351
Organization
-
-
-
0
-
352
Franchises
0
-
-
389
Other Plant and Misc. Equipment
0
0
0
COLLECTION
PLANT
0
-
-
-
-
-‘
-
-
0
353
Land and Land
Rights
-
-
0
0
354
Structures and Improvements
-
0
355
Power Generation
Equipment
,
-
0
360
Collection Sewer —Force
-
0
0
361
Collection Sewer-Gravity
0
-
-
362
Special Collecting Structures
-
‘‘
0
0
363
Services toCustomers
0
0
,
364
FlowMeasuring DeviCes
-
0
-
-
-
‘365
FlowMeasuring Installation
-
0
0
0
389
Other Plant
and Misc. Equipment
0
SYSTEM PUMPING
PLANT
-.
-
353
Land and Land
Rights
-
0
O
354
Structures &
Improvements
,
0
355
PowerGeneration Equipment
370
-
Receiving Wells
-
0
-
-
371
Pumpin9 Equipment
389
Other Plant & Misc. Equipment
0
0
-
TREATMENT& DISPOSAL
0
0
~,
O
4
PLANT
0
-
Landand Land Rights
0
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
Structures & Improvements
-
0
355
Power Generation Equipment
-
0
-
0
380
Treatment & Disposal Equipment
-
-
0
-
381
PlantSewers
-
-
-
-
0
382
Outfall Sewer Line
-
-
0
389
Other Plant & Misc. Equipment
0
.
-
GENERAL PLANT
0
353
Land and Land
Rights
-
0
-
354
Structures and Improvements
¾
390
Office Furniture&
Equipment
-
¾
0
391
Transportation
Equipment
¾
0
392
Stores Equipment
393
Tools, Shop & Garage
Equip.
¾
-
394
Laboratory
Equipment
-
395
Power Operated Equipment
-
0
396
Communication Equipment
-
¾
-
-
397
-
-
Miscellaneous Equipment
0
398
Other Tangible Plant
¾
TOTAL
PLANT IN SERVICE
-
-
-
PUMPING EQUIPMENT
Station
1
.
Lift Station
Number
Make or Type of Nameplate data of pump
Year Installed
Rated Capacity
Size
-
er:
-
Electric
-
Mechanical
-
-
-.
0
Nameplate data
motor
-
-
0
-
-
Station 2
-
Station 3
-
-
0
-
0
-
-
-
0
Page
25t~S)

UTILITY
i~~~ME
Year
of Report
-
Dec.31,
-
-
-
-
SERVICE CONNECTIONS
Size_(Inches)
Type
PVC,
I’CP, etc)
-
Average Length
0
No. of Active Service
Connections:
-
0
Beginning
ci
Year
Added During
Year
-
0
-
Retired
During
Year
0
End of Year
0
0
Give
Full Particulars Concerning
-
0
Inactive Connections
0
-
-
0
COLLECTIN
6 MAINS
-
-
Size(Inches)
-
0
-
Type- of Main
-
-
Length of Main (nearest
foot):.
0
0
-
0
Beginning
of
Year
Added During Year
0
-
0
Retired
During Year
End of Year
0
Type
Number:
MANH~
)LES
-
-
0~
-~
,~
Size
(Inches)
Beqinninq
of Year
Added Durinri Year
Retired DurinaYear
End of Year
0
FORCE MAINS
0
--—~
-
-
II
Type of Main
Size (Inches)
Length ofMain (nearest foot):
Beqinnin~of
Year
Added
Durino Year
Retired Durin~
Year
End ofYear
-
-
-~
I
TREATMENT PLANT
I
Manufacturer
Type (Steel or Concrete)
Total Capacity
Average
Daily Flow
Effluent Disposal
——
MASTER LIFT STATION
PUMPS
-
-
Size (Inches)
-
Manufacturer
0
Capacity
-
-
Motor: Mfr. Horsepower
-
Power (electric or mechanical)
I
Page 26S
-

~
IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR
THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MCDONOUGH
COUNTY, ILLINOIS
-
M
-
AY
~
2003
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Ju!JaA
\~‘
~
JAMES
E.
RYAN, Attorney General
)
CfrCUIjC~tal
of the State
of Illinois, and WILLIAM
PONCIN,
)
-
erk
McDonough County
State’s Attorney,
0
)
-
)
0
Plaintiffs,
)
)
V.
)
NO.
O1-CH-2
EMMETT UTILITIES, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation, and
)
RUSSELL D. THORELL, individually and
)
as president of EMMETT UTILITIES,
INC.
)
-
)
-
Defendants.
-
-
-
-
JUDGMENT
ORDER
This cause came before the court for an
evidentiary hearing on
July 22, 2002.
The plaintiff was present by a representative of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency and the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. The Defendant corporation
was
present by counsel
John Myers.
Defendant Russell Thorell was present individually and
as president of Emmett Utilities,
inc.., and by counsel John Myers.
This action was
commenced on
behalf of the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, on the Attorney General’s own
motion and at the request of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
A.
FINDINGS
The court heard testimony and
received documentary evidence
and makes the
following findings:
1.
The Illinois EPA is an
agency of the State of lllinois created pursuant to
Section 4 of the Environmental Protection Act, 415
ILCS 5/4
(1996),
and is charged,
inter
a!ia,
with the duty of enforcing the Act.
2.
The Defendant, Emmett Utilities,
Inc., is an
Illinois corporation which, by the time
_
-

of the hearing
in this cause, was-qualified to do business
in
Illinois.
3.
The Defendant
Russell Thorell is president of Emmett Utilities,
Inc.
At the time of
trial, Mr.
Thorell was before-the court in his capacity as president of Emmett Utilities,
Inc.
and
in his
capacity as an
individual.
4.
The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of
the complaint.
5.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Emmett Utilities,
Inc.
has owned and
operated a public water supply and sewer system in McDonough County, Illinois, which
serves approximately 22
direct service connections from one
drilled well.
6.
The court makes the following findings:
-
Count I
-
-
7.
The Plaintiff has
proven that on August
13,
1997
and April
20, 1999:
a.
No monthly.operating reports had been submitted, in
violation of
415
ILCS 5/18(a)(1) and (2), as well as 34111. Adm. Code Sections 611 .831, 653.605
and 653.704.
b.
-
No master flow meter had been installed
in
the well pump
discharge line,
in violation of 415 ILCS 5/18(a)(1) and (2), as well as 35111. Adm. Code
Sections 601.101, 653.106
and Section
3.21.3 (a)(4) of the Recommended
Standards
for Water Works.
-
c.
No hydro
pneumatic storage tank sight-glass tubes had been
installed, in violation of 415
ILCS 5.1 8(a)(1) and
(2), as well as 35
Ill.
Adrn. Code
Sections 601.101, 653.109 and section 7.2.4 of the Recommended Standards for Water
Works.
-
8.
The Court finds that
Defendant Emmett Utilities, Inc. failed
to prepare
and
distribute and failed to
submit certification of distribution of a
1999 Consumer
Confidence Report, in violation
of 415
ILCS 5/18(a)(2) AND 35
III. Adm.
Code 611.882

and 611.885.
9.
The remaining allegations
of Count
1 were not stipulated to
by the parties.
No
-
evidence was presented by the Plaintiff as to the condition of Defendant’s facilities on
the dates
in question. The Plaintiff has failed to
meet its burden as
to the remaining
allegations
of Count I.
10.
As a result of the findings indicated above, Defendant Emmett Utilities
is
-
permanently enjoined from further violations of Illinois’
Public Water Supply Regulations.
In
addition, based upon the standard set forth in People
ax. tel
Ryan
v.
McHenri Shores
Water Co., 295 lll.App.3d
628 (1998), Defendant is assessed a monetary penalty of
$10,000.
This amount is also based upon the Defendant’s repOrted operating revenues
and
is intended as an inducement to correct the conditions which have threatened
the
health of Defendant’s customers.
This penalty shall be paid by January 31, 2004 and
is
subject to remitturprovided Defendant Emmett Utilities, by that date, has corrected
the
conditions resulting inthe violations found
to exist.
11.
The Plaintiff presented no evidence
in support of its request pursuant to 415
ILCS 5/42(f) that. it be awarded its
costs
in this matter.
Therefore, that request is denied.
Countll
-
As to Count II, the court finds:
12.
Plaintiff has
proven that Emmett Utilities failed to-submit coliform
sample results
in violation
of 415 1LCS 5/18 and 5/19 and 35111. Admin. Code section
611
521 for the
following
periods:
a.
November
1,
1998 to November 30, 1998
b.
December 1,
1998 to December31,
I 998
c.
January 1,
1999 to January 31, 1999
d.
April
1,
1999
to April 30,
1999
e.
May 1,
1999 to May 31, 1999

13.
Emmett Utilities failed to
submit nitrate sample results for the period
from
January 1,
1999 to
March 31, 1999 in violation of 415 ILCS 5/18
and 5/19 and 35 Ill.
-
Admin.
Code 611.604(a)(1)(A).
-
14.
Emmett Utilities failed to submit lead and copper sample results for the
time period fr6m June
1,
1998 to September 30, 1998, in violation
of 415 ILCS 5/18 and
5/19
and
35 Ill. Admin.
Code 611 .356(d)(4)(B).
-
15.
Emmett Utilities failed to provide fluoridation to the water
being
discharged to
the distribution system in
violation of 415
ILCS 40/7a and
35
Ill. Adniin.
Code 611.125.
-
16.
As a result of these findings, Defendant Emmett Utilities is permanently
enjoined from further violation of the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board’s Public Water
Supply Rules.
In addition, based upon the standard set forth in People ex. ret Rvan~y~.
McHenry Shores Water Co, 295 lll.App.3d 628
(1998),
Emmett Utilities is assessed
a
monetary penalty of $1 0,000.
This penalty shall be paid by January 31, 2004 and is
subject to remittur provided Defendant Emmett
Utilities, by that date has corrected the
conditions
resuItir~g
in these violations.
-
17.
The Plaintiff presented
no evidence in
support of its request pursuant to
415 1LCS 5/42(f) that it be awarded, its
costs
in
this
matter.
Therefore, that request is
denied.
Count Ill
18.
The court finds that art or about
March 21,2000, April 17,2000, May 18,
2000, June
21, 2000,
July 26, 2000, August 23, 2000, October 10, 2000,
and November
28, 2000 Defendant Emmett Utilities allowed the discharge
of raw sewage such as to
threaten
pollution of water in violation
of 415 ILCS 5/12(a).
No evidence was presented
as to either the environmental effects of these actions or the cost of any cleanup that
took place.

19.
As a result of this finding, Defendant Emmett Utilities is permanently
enjoined
from further unauthorized discharge of raw sewage from its facility and
is directed to
-
correct the circumstances which resulted in these violations.
20.
The Plaintiff presented no
evidence in
support of its request pursuant to 415
ILCS 5/42(f) that it be awarded its costs
in this matter.
Therefore that request is denied.
Count IV
-
-
-
21.
The Plaintiff seeks to
hold Defendant Russell Thorell personally liable for the acts
of Emmett Utilities.
The burden is on the Plaintiff to make a substantial showing
that the
corporation is
really-a sham for another dominating entity.
In re
Estate
of Wallen,
262
Ill.App.3d
61(1994).
-
22.
In order to pierce the corporate veil a Plaintiff must show:
(1) such unity of
interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the
individual no
longer exist, and, (2) circumstances must be- such that
an adherence
to the
fiction of a.separate corporate existerice.would promote injustice orinequitable
consequences.
Pederson
v.
Parac~on
Pool
Enterprises, 214- Ut.App.3d 815
(1991).
23.
Factors to-be
considered in determining-whether a sufficient
unity
of interest
exists between
a corporation
and an individual to
warrant piercing the corporate veil
include:
1) inadequate
capitalization; 2) failure to
issue stock; 3) failure to observe
corporate formalities; 4) nonpayment of dividends;
5) insolvency
of the debtor
corporation at the time; 6) non-functioning of other officers or-direàtors; 7) absence of
corporate records; 8) whether the corporation is
a mere facade for the operation of
dominant stockholders.
Ted Harrison Oil Co. v.
Dokka, 247 lll.App.3d 791
(1993).
24.
The capitalization of a corporation
is a major factor in
assessing whether a
legitimate
separate corporate entity existed.
McCracken v. Olson
Co.,
149
lll.App.3d
104 (1986).
lii determining whether a corporation
is adequately capitalized
it is
necessary to
compare the amount of capital to
the amount of business to
be conducted

~~~00~~~
and obligations to
be fulfilled.
Jacobson
v.
Buffalo Rock Shooters Supply,
278
Ill.App.3d
1084 (1996).
In
the instant case the evidence has shown that Emmett Utilities has been
adequately capitalized to serve
the purposes for which the corporation was established.
25.
The evidence in the instant ca-se showed that
10
shares of stock were issued
when the corporation was formed.
Those shares
remain outstanding.
26.
Corporate formalities are sufficiently observed where the corporation completed
required
documents for its formation, issued shares
of stock and filed the appropriate
corporate tax returns.
Jacobson v.
Buffalo Rock Shooters Supply, 278
ilLApp.3d 1084
(1996).
The Plaintiff has failed to show that these corporate formalities were not
observed
in the instant case.
27.
There was
no
evidence in the instant case that any dividends were paid.
There
was no evidence that
Emmett UtilitIes was insolvent at any time relevant to the
allegations
in the complaint.
The evidence established that the only functioning officer
or director was DefendantThorell.
Evidence was presented that corporate records were
maintained.
-
28.
Afterweighing
all of the above factors, the court finds that the Plaintiff has not
made the substantial showing necessary to impose individual liability upon Defendant
Thorell.
Therefore, Count IV is dismissed.
Count V
For the reasons stated above,
Count V is dismissed.
Count Vi
For the reasons stated above,
Count VI is dismissed.
B.
PAYMENT OF PENALTY
1.
Subject to the terms of this order, in the event Emmett Utilities, Inc.
is obligated
to
make the penalty payment of twenty thousand
dollars ($20,000.00) as set forth
in this
order,
payment shall
be
made to
the Environmental Protection Trust Fund by Jan. 31,
-I,4

2004. As set
fOrth
above, this amount
is subject to
remittur provided Defendant Emmett
Utilities, Inc., by that date, has
corrected the conditions resulting. in the violations found
to exist.
In the event Emmett Utilities,
Inc. is obligated under the terms of this order to
pay the penalty assessed, this amount shall be
paid by certified check or money order,
payable to:
“Treasurer of the State of Illinois, for deposit in the Environmental Protection
Trust Fund,”, and be delivered to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal
Services Section
1021
North
Grand Avenue East, P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield,
lllinois 62794-9276
A copy of the penalty transmittal and check shall be simultaneously submitted to:
Illinois Attorney General’s
Office
do Donna
Lutes, Environmental Bureau
500 South
Second Street
-
Springfield, Illinois 62706
-
The name and
court number of this case and the Federal Employer Identification
-
Number (“FEIN”) of the Defendant shall appear on the certified
check or money order.
For purposes of
payment and collection, the Defendant may be reached at the following
address:
-
Emmett Utilities,
Inc.
do Russell D. Thorell, President
SR 2 Box 58N
Oquawka, lL61469
-
2.
-
In the event the penalty is not paid in
a timely fashion,
interest shall
accrue and
be paid by the Defendant at the rate set forth in
Section
1003(a) of the
Illinois
Income Tax Act, 35 ILCS
5/1003(a)
(1996), pursuant to Section 42(g) of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/42(g)
(1996).
C.
COMPLIANCE
-
1.
The Defendant shall diligently comply with, and shall cease and desist
from violation of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/1
etseq.
(1996), the Board’s
rules and regulations

~r.
(35
Ill.
Adm. Code Subtitles A through H (1994))
and any and
all federal laws
and
regulations.
2.
The Defendant shall implement corrective action and
shall completely
abate the violations set forth herein on or before January 31, 2004.’-4r-Wte-~lte
ati.v,e, ~i5~
Defe~daM-s-helEsecure, from-th~4llinois
~er~~merce
Co-cwn~ssion,an
Order allowing—iUoZP~
-tcr~’11h-ictoor,obpndoji ~crvicc purcu-2nt-tc-- Scction• 8508 of thc
Public-Utilitics-Act-i
3.
~
with
tt~e—l-tflçtois
~
-the- date—~’fthis Ofder..~
sop
of-ai~y-s-uch
~
~
D.
JURISDICTION
-
This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing this
order and
for the purpose of adjudicating all
matters of dispute among the parties.
The
Defendant agrees that
notice of any subsequent proceeding to enforce this Consent
Order may be made by mail and waives any requirement of service of process.
This is a
final order
subject to a
-
eal.
-
~chard~r~ociate~
A/
Agreed only as to form:
-
Deborah
L.
Barnes
~
17ftnM.
for Defendants

State ofIllinois
)
County of
~2Y~
)SS
)
VERIFICATION
RUSSELL D. THORELL, being duly sworn on his oath, deposes and states that he
is the President ofthe Petitioner, Emmett Utilities, Inc.; that he has reviewed the
foregoing Petition to Discontinue and Abandon Service; and that the statements
contained therein are true and correct.
SUBSCRIBED AND
SWORN BEFORE ME
THIS Z~DAY OF
(
CLIW4—’
,
2004
U
0
Russell D. Thorell
“OFFICIAL
SEAL
I
MOLLY M. JONES
Notary
Public, State
of Illinois
LMy
Comm~sk~n
Exp.
09/05/2005
-4-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy ofthe
MOTION FOR STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS
was served upon all counsel of record by placing same in the United
States Post Office mail box, postage prepaid in Springfield, Illinois on February 6, 2004
and addressed to:
Thomas Davis, Assistant Attorney General
Office ofthe Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188
W. Randolph Street, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Carol Sudman
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
and that the original was filed with the Clerk ofthe Court in which said cause is pending.

-
RECEIVED
ILLiNOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
FEB
10
200k
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 04-81
)
)
)
EMMETT UTILITIES, INC. an Illinois
)
Corporation, andRUSSELL D. THORELL,
)
individually and as president ofEMMETT
)
UTILITIES, iNC.,
)
)
)
Respondents.
)
MOTION OF DEFENDANT RUSSELL D. THORELL TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT
Now comes Defendant Russell D. Thorell, by his attorney, John M. Myers and
moves the Board for
an order dismissing him from these proceedings. In support ofthis
Motion, Defendant states as follows:
1.
Russell D. Thorell is named as a Defendant in these proceedings solely on
the grounds that he is a “responsible corporate officer”.
(See paragraph 3 and prayer for
relief contained in each count).
2.
Recently in
People
v.
Thorell,
Case No.
Ol-CH-2, the Attorney General and
Illinois EPA attempted to pierce the corporate veil with respect to Mr. Thorell, and were
rebuffed by the Court. A copy ofthe Court’s order finding Thorell not liable on a
corporate veil piercing theory is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.

3.
Illinois does not recognize a “responsible corporate officer” doctrine. That
doctrine has been recognized in a couple of otherjurisdictions
and is apparently our new
Attorney General’s weapon ofchoice.
However, the First District Appellate Court has
pretty much rejected, or at least severely limited, the doctrine. See
People ex rel.
Macligan
v.
Tang,
2004
Ill. App. LEXIS 74
(1st Dist. 2004). (copy attached).
4.
One aberrant decision ofthe Third District Appellate Court has recognized
that in
environmental cases under proper facts, a corporate officer who actively
participated in a violation can be held personally liable notwithstanding the absence of
facts sufficient to pierce the corporate veil.
People ex rel. Burns
v.
C.J.R. Processing,
269 Ill. App. 3d
1013
(3rd Dist.
1995).
5.
C.J.R. Processing
notwithstanding, the instant complaint merely alleges
in
a completely conclusory fashion Defendant Thorell’s involvement in
the alleged
violations, and as such, fails to
state a cause of action.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Russell D. Thorell moves the Board for an order
dismissing him as a Defendant in these proceedings.
~,
Defendant
Respectfully Submitted,
RUSSELL D.
By:
His Attorney

John M. Myers
RABIN, MYERS, HANKEN & DURR,
P.C.
1300 South Eighth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
217.544.5000
fax:
217.544.5017
email:
jmyers~springfield1aw.com

2 of 3 DOCUMENTS
THE
PEOPLE ex
ret.
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,
Plaintiffs-Appellant, v. CYRUS TANG, mdiv., and as Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Pielet Brothers Scrap Iron and Metal L,P., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 1-02-3337
APPELLATE
COURT
OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION
2004
Ill. App. LEXIS
74
February 2, 2004, Decided
February 2, 2004,
Opinion Filed
NOTICE:
*1
THIS
DECISION
IS
NOT
FiNAL
UNTIL EXPIRATION OF THE
21 DAY PETITION
FOR REHEARINGPERIOD.
PRIOR
HISTORY:
Appeal
from the
Circuit
Court of
Cook County.
01
CH
10095.
Honorable
Donald
J.
O’Brien,
Judge
Presiding.
DISPOSITION:
Affirmed.
COUNSEL:
For
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Lisa
Madigan,
Attorney General Chicago (Dianne M.
Potts, of counsel)
and Gary S. Feinerman,
Solicitor General, Chicago.
For
Defendant-Appellee,
Scalmoff
&
Weaver,
LTD,
Chicago
(Edward
V.
Walsh,
III
and
Michael
D.
Richman, of counsel).
JUDGES: JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the
opinion of
the
court. O’MALLEY, P.J., and McN1JLTY, J., concur.
OPINIONBY:
McBRIDE
OPINION:
JUSTICE
McBRIDE
delivered
the
opinion
of
the
court:
The
State
appeals
the
dismissal
of
its
second
amended
complaint
in
which
it
charged
Cyrus
Tang,
individually and
as
chairman
and chiefexecutive officer
of Pielet Brothers Scrap Iron and Metal
L.P.
(P Brothers
LP),
with
violations
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(415
ILCS
5/1
et
seq.
(West 2000))
(the
Act). We affirm dismissal of the complaint.
The
State
filed
its
original
complaint
against Tang
on
June
19,
2001.
It
charged
him,
under
the
Act,
with
open
dumping,
improper
waste
*2
disposal,
developing
a
waste
disposal
site
without
a
permit,
operation of
a waste
disposal
site
without an operating
permit,
water
pollution,
water
pollution
hazard,
and
failure
to
post
a landfill
bond. It
also
charged
common
law
public
nuisance.
The
complaint
alleged
that
Tang
was
chairman
and
chief executive
officer of and
had
a
controlling ownership in P Brothers
LP.
A nonparty was
the
chief operating
officer.
The
complaint
alleged
that
“Defendant
Tang
conducted
an
automobile
shredding
operation
at
the
site
through
the
business
entities.”
It
accused
him
of
causing
and
allowing
auto
shredder
residue and auto fluff to
be piled
outside for more than
one
year, both
from on-site
operations and other off-site
automobile
shredding operations.
It
further
alleged
that
the
decision to spend money to clean up
the wastes could
not have been made without Tang’s
approval. It
claimed
that
“defendant Tang had taken no
action, nor had caused
any action to be taken,
to institute
measure(s) to prevent
this material including auto fluff waste from entering the
environment
via
different
pathways,
including
but
not
limited
to,
storm
water
runoff
from
the
site.”
The
complaint
sought
declaratory
and
mandatory
*3
injunctive
relief and assessment of fmes.
Tang moved to
dismiss
the
complaint
under section
2-6 19.1
of the
Code of Civil
Procedure
(735
ILCS
5/2-
619.1
(West
2000)),
claiming
that
the
State
failed
to
“allege any personal involvement
in any wrongful act by
Mr. Tang,
and thus failed
to state
a claim under Illinois

Page 2
2004
Ill.
App. LEXIS 74,
*
law.”
Tang further claimed that
the court could not grant
the
requested
mandatory injunctive
relief because Tang
did not own
or have
control
over the site.
Although
the
order is not included in the
record
on
appeal, the parties
inform
us
that
the
State’s
original
complaint
was
dismissed on
December 7, 2001, without prejudice.
The
State
subsequently
filed
its
first
amended
complaint.
The
complaint
was
nearly
identical
to
the
original complaint, except
that it added counts
for failure
to file
an initial report on location and disposal practices,
violation
of the
annual
reporting requirement,
violation
of
the
groundwater
reporting
requirement,
violation
of
the
record-keeping
requirements,
and
accumulation
of
waste
on
site
for
over
one
year.
It
also
contained
an
allegation that
Tang “caused or allowed”
the violations
“as a part of his *4
performance of, and
as
a
direct
result
of,
his
duties
as
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
P
Brothers
LP,
and
because
of
his
controlling
ownership
interest
in
both
a
limited
partner and the
general partner of
P Brothers LP.
These duties included, and
his
controlling
ownership
interest
meant,
that
Defendant Tang was
a person,
if not
the
only one,
who
could
decide
to make
the
expenditure
in
such an
amount
to
be
sufficient to
dispose of the
auto
shredder
residue and/or auto fluffwaste at the
site.”
It further alleged:
“Defendant
Tang
failed
to
make
the
decision
to properly
dispose
of,
or direct
or authorize
sufficient funding
reasonably
necessary
for
the
disposal
of,
the
auto
shredder residue and/or auto fluff waste at
the
site.
In this
fashion, Defendant
Tang
caused
or allowed the consolidation of-the
auto
shredder
residue
and/or
auto
fluff
waste at the site.”
Tang moved
to dismiss
the
first amended
complaint
under
section
2-619.1
of the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
(735
ILCS
5/2-6
19.1 (West 2000)). The court grantedthe
motion and dismissed the first
amended complaint in part
with prejudice and in part without prejudice
on
April
12,
2002.
The
*5
portions
dismissed with
prejudice
were
the
requests
for mandatory
injunctive
relief,
which
the
court dismissed because it found that
the portion of the
Act under which the
State sought a mandatory injunction
did
not
permit
mandatory
injunctive
relief,
and
the
counts
charging
Tang
with
failing
to
comply
with
the
reporting requirements because the court found that those
sections
of
the
Act impose
duties
on
facilities,
not
on
individuals.
After
its
first
amended
complaint
was
dismissed,
the
State
filed
motions
to
reconsider
or
alternatively to enter a Rule 304(a)
(155
Ill.
2dR.
304(a))
finding, allowing
immediate appeal. The court denied the
motions.
The
State
sought
leave
to
file
its
second
amended
complaint.
The
State
included
those
claims
that
were
dismissed
with
prejudice
from
the
first
amended
complaint.
According
to
the
State,
the
claims
were
included
only
“to preserve
the
issue
for
appeal.”
Tang
objected to inclusion of the
previously dismissed claims,
and the court disallowed them.
As
filed,
the
second
amended
complaint
charged
open
dumping,
improper
waste
disposal,
developing
a
wastedisposal site without a permit, operation of a waste
disposal
site
without
an
operating
permit,
*6
water
pollution,
water
pollution
hazard,
common
law
public
nuisance,
failure
to post landfill bond, and accumulation
of waste on
site
for over one
year. Its
allegations
were
very similar to
the
allegations
made in the
original
and
first
amended
complaints.
With
regard
to
the
first
six
counts,
it alleged that
Tang
“conducted
an automobile
shredding
operation
at
the
site”
-
and
“caused
and
allowed”
(1) the resultant “auto shredder residue and auto
fluff
to
be
piled
outside,
uncontainerized
and
uncovered”;
(2)
“auto
shredder residue
and/or auto fluff
waste from
off-site
automobile
shredding
operations
to
be
accepted
at the site in addition to
that
generated on-
site”;
and
(3)
“auto
shredder
residue
and/or
auto
fluff
waste to
be
consolidated.”
Further,
it alleged that
Tang
“failed to take any action to remove the
wastes
‘~“~
to a
licensed disposal
facility”
and “failed
to
authorize
the
expenditure
necessary
for
proper
removal
of
the
wastes.”
The
complaint
again
sought
mandatory
injunctive reliefand, this time, alleged:
“On
information
and
belief,
Midwest
Metallics LP the
now bankrupt entity that
was formerly P Brothers
LP
will raise no
objection
to Defendant Cyrus
*7
Tang
entering the
site
and taking
such
actions
necessary
to
cease
the
violations
of
the
Act he
is
committing
at the
site if ordered
to do
soby this Court after trial.”
Tang
moved
under
section 2-619.1
(735
ILCS
5/2-
619.1
(West
2000))
to
dismiss
the
second
amended
complaint, claiming
that the
allegations were insufficient
to
state a claim
against him
personally,
that
mandatory
relief was not allowed under the
Act, and that he had
no
legal interest in
the property,
which prevented the
court
from ordering him to enter the property for remediation.
The
trial
court
agreed
with
Tang
on
all
three
grounds.
First,
it
found
that
the
allegations
were

2004 Ill.
App. LEXIS 74,
*
Page
3
insufficient to
state
a claim
against
Tang
personally.
It
found
that
Tang’s
“involvement
and
participation
as
alleged
was
not
because
he
was
operating the
facility
**
*
but
because
he
was
chairman
and
chief executive
officer
and
because
of
his
controlling
and
ownership
interest.”
At most, the court found that the
complaint
“alleged
that
Tang’s
personal
involvement
and
active
participation
was
due
to
his
activities
as
Chairman
and
Chief
Executive
Officer
and
controlling interest and his failure
*8
in
that
capacity to
dispose
of the
residue
or
to authorize
sufficient funding
to
dispose
of
the
residue
or
to
authorize
sufficient
funding
to
dispose of
the residue
and
‘in
this
fashion’ caused
or allowed the residue
on the
site.”
With regard to the
additional
issues, the
court recognized
that
“Illinois
law
is
clear
that
a
mandatory
injunction
may
not
issue
to
a non-owner
or non-controller
of the
property
citation
which
is
the
subject
matter
of
the
injunction.” It also
held that
the portion of the Act relied
upon
by
the
State
“allows
only
Restraining
orders
and
not
positive
mandatory
injunctions.”
Thus,
the
court
dismissed the
second amended complaint
with prejudice.
The State
appeals on
three grounds.
First,
it claims
that
its
first
and second amended
complaints
adequately
state
multiple
causes
of
action against Tang.
Second,
it
maintains that
mandatory injunctive relief is appropriate.
Third, the
State claims
that the trial court erred in finding
that
it
lacked
authority
to
grant
the
requested
relief
because
Tang
has
no
legal
interest
in
the
property
at
issue.
The State
urges us to
“reverse the
dismissal of its
first
and second amended
complaints
and to
remand
all
of
*9
the
counts
and
remedies
sought
therein
for
further proceedings in the circuit court.”
Tang contends that
our review
should be
restricted
to
the
State’s
second
amended
complaint
because
the
State
failed
to
“include
in
its
Second
Amended
Complaint by
restatement
or incorporation by
reference
each theory
of recovery
argued
in
the
First
Amended
Complaint”
and,
consequently,
waived
those
claims
on
appeal.
Regardless,
Tang
argues,
even
if
the
first
amended
complaint
is
considered,
the
trial
court’s
dismissal was proper
for the
same reasons
it was proper
to dismiss
the
second
amended
complaint.
In
reply,
the
State
argues
that
it did
not waive
its right
to appeal
the
dismissal
of
its
first
amended
complaint
by
failing
to
incorporate the
dismissed
claims
in its
second amended
complaint
because
the
State
attempted
to
incorporate
those
claims,
solely
for the
purpose
of preserving
them
for
appeal,
but was
prevented
from
doing upon
Tang’s
objection.
The
State
failed
to
include
the
order
dismissing its
first
amended complaint in its appendix in
violation
of
Rule
342(a)
(155
Ill.
2d
R.
342(a)
(“The
appellant’s brief shall include as an appendix,
‘~“
a copy
of
the judgment appealed
from
***I~)),
and
*10
we
need not
consider
the
State’s
arguments
with regard
to
that
order.
Regardless,
the
claims
dismissed
in
the
first
amended
complaint would be subject to dismissal
for the
same
reasons
as
the
claims
in
the
second
amended
complaint
as
discussed
below.
ni
Thus,
even
if
the
claims
were not waived,
we would
hold that
they
were
properly dismissed.
nl
Section
21(d) of the Act, under which
the
claims
for
failure
to
properly
file
reports
were
brought, requires
that
such reports
be
filed by
a
person
who
“conducts
any
waste-storage,
waste-treatment,
or
waste-disposal
operation.”
415
ILCS 5/21(d) (West2000).
As
to the
merits, we first
note that
our review
is
de
novo. Safeway Insurance
Co.
v.
Daddono,
334
Ill. App.
3d
215,
218,
777
N.E.2d
693, 267
Ill. Dec.
890
(2002).
“We
take
as
true
all
well-pled
facts and
reasonable
inferences therefrom and consider only those facts in the
pleading and included
in attached
exhibits.”
Safeway,
334
Ill. App. 3d
at
218.
Illinois
law requires
*11
a
plaintiff to “allege facts stating the elements ofthe cause
of action,”
and unsupported
legal conclusions
and factual
conclusions
are
insufficient
and
will
be
disregarded
in
ruling on
a motion to dismiss.
Safeway,
334 Ill. App. 3d
at 222. Dismissal of a complaint should be affirmed only
when
“it
is
clear
that
a
plaintiff
cannot
prove
a
set
of
facts that
will entitle
him to the relief sought.”
Safeway,
334 Ill.
App. 3d at 218.
In this case, we are not asked to determine
whether,
as
a
general proposition,
a corporate officer may ever
be
held
liable
for
corporate
wrongs
under
the
Act;
both
parties
concede
that,
under
certain
circumstances,
a
corporate officer may be individually liable. Instead, we
must determine
whether
the
pleadings
in
this
case
are
sufficient to state a claim
for Tang’s
individual liability.
Apparently,
only
one
Illinois
case
has
specifically
addressed
the
issue
of
a
corporate
officer’s
potential
individual
liability under the
Act.
The trial
court relied
on
this
case
in
rendering
its
decision,
and
both
parties
claim the
case
supports their contentions
on appeal.
In
People ex
rel.
Burns
v.
CJ.R.
Processing,
Inc.,
269 Ill. App. 3d 1013, 1015, 647 N.E.2d 1035, 207
Ill.
Dec.
542
(1995),
*12
the
appellate
court for the Third
District
considered “whether a corporate officer may
be
held individually liable for
a
corporation’s violations
of
the
Act when he or she is personally involved or actively

Page 4
2004 Ill. App.LEXIS 74,
*
participates
in those
violations.” The court found that the
officer
could
be
held
liable
under
those
limited
circumstances,
i.e.,
“active
participation
or
personal
involvement.”
C,J.R.,
269
Ill.
App. 3d at 1020. In
C.J.R.,
the
court
found
that
the
complaint
sufficiently
alleged
“active
participation
or
personal
involvement”
to
withstand
a
motion
to
dismiss.
Specifically,
the
complaint alleged that the defendant was “responsible for
CJR
and controlled
its activities.”
C.J.R.,
269
Ill. App.
3d
at
1014.
He
also
served
as
executive
vice president
and
chief
operating
officer
for
C.J.R.’s
parent
corporation.
C.J.R.,
269
Ill.
App.
3d
at
1014.
The
defendant was
also
alleged,
in
cooperation
with
C.J.R.
and
its parent corporation to “own and operate a facility”
to
which they “transported
large
quantities of
solid and
liquid waste materials.”
C.J.R.,
269
Ill.
App.
3d at
1014.
The
appellate
court
found
that
“the
*13
complaint
alleged
that
the
corporate
officer
was
personally
involved
and
actively participated
in
the
decisions
and
corporate
activities
which
caused
the
violations
of the
Act.”
CJ.R.,
269
Ill.
App.
3d
at
1018.
Specifically,
the
court placed
significance
on
the
fact
that
each
count of
the
complaint
alleged
that
the
defendant
personally
operated
the
facility.
CJ.R.,
269
Ill.
App.
3d
at
1018.
The
court also
considered significant
in
its
holding that
“the
operative,
allegations
charged
that
the
corporate
officer
‘caused
or allowed’
all
of the
violations to
occur
in conjunction with the other defendants.”
C.J.R.,
269
Ill.
App. 3d at 1018.
The State
argues
that under
C.J.R.,
it has adequately
stated claims
against Tang individually.
Tang also
relies
on
C.J.R.,
but claims
that
the
complaint
does
not state
a
cause
of
action.
No
Illinois
court
has
interpreted
or
applied those
portions of
C.J.R.
dealing
with a corporate
officer’s
potential
individual
liability
under
the
Act.
Accordingly, both parties have referred us to cases
from
other jurisdictions in support
of their positions.
Before
analyzing
those
cases,
we
outline
*14
some
of
the
principles
underlying
corporation
law
in
Illinois.
“One of the
purposes of a corporate entity is to
immunize
the
corporate officer
from individual liability
on
contracts
entered
into
in
the
corporation’s
behalf.”
National Acceptance
Co. ofAmerica v. Pintura Corp.,
94
Ill.
App. 3d
703,
706,
418
N.E.2d
1114,
50
Ill. Dec. 120
(1981).
Accordingly,
in
most
instances,
the
law
immunizes corporate
-
officers
from
corporate
liabilities
and debts.
Safeway,
334 Ill. App. 3d
at 219
(“Corporate
status
generally
shields
corporate
officers
and
shareholders
from
liability
from
corporate
debts
and
obligations”).
However,
“corporate
officer
status
does
not insulate
a
corporate officer
from individual liability
for
the
torts
of
the
corporation
in
which
he
actively
participates.”
Pintura,
94
Ill.
App.
3d
at
706;
see
also
Safeway,
334
Ill.
App.
3d
at
219
(“This protection does
not
shield
corporate
officers
from
their
own
wrongdoing”);
Simon
v.
Pelouze,
263
Ill.
App.
177
(1931) (recognizing that
corporate officers and directors
can
be
held
liable
for
tortious
acts
by
the
corporation
only where the
officer or director
participated
*15
in
the
tortious act).
Some torts for which corporate officers
may
be
liable
include
negligence,
fraud,
trespass
to
realty,
willfully
inducing
breach
of
contract,
and
conversion.
Pintura,
94 Ill. App. 3d
at 706.
We have reviewed the out-of-jurisdiction
cases
cited
by
the
parties
in
support
of
their
contrary
claims
regarding the
sufficiency
of the
allegations in this case.
Most of these cases
deal with liability under the
“owned
or
operated”
standard
for
liability
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA)
(42
U.S.C.
§
9601
et
seq.
(2000))
rather
than
the
Act’s
“caused or allowed”
standard, which is at issue
here
(415
ILCS
5/12(a)
(West
2000)).
Regardless,
the
cases
are
useful to
our
analysis because they
are premised on
the
same
general
principles
of
corporation
law
that
we
discussed
above
and because the
CERCLA provision is
inmany ways analogous to the Act’s provision.
Both
CERCLA
and
the
Act
impose
liability
on
“persons”
who
violate
their
provisions,
and
“person”
is
broadly
defined
in
both
statutes
to
include
individuals,
partnerships,
firms,
associations,
*
16
corporations,
and governmental
subdivisions
and
agencies.
Compare
42
U.S.C.
§
9601(21)
(2000)
and
415
ILCS
5/3.26
(West
2000).
Under
CERCLA,
however,
liability
attaches to those
who
“owned
or operated any facility at
which
such
hazardous
substances
were
disposed
of’
at
the time of disposal. 42 U.S.C.
§
9607(a)(2)
(2000).
Under the
Act,
on
the
other
hand,
liability
attaches
to
those
who
“cause
or
allow
the
open
dumping
of
any
waste”
(415
ILCS.5/2l(a)
(West
2000))
and those
who
“cause
or
threaten
or
allow
the
discharge”
of
contaminants that
cause
or tend
to cause
water pollution
within
the
state
(415
ILCS
5/12(a)
(West
2000)).
In
determining a corporate
officer’s liability
under the
Act,
this distinction is minimal. The
difference is that instead
of having to have been an owner or active operator of the
facility
where the
violations occurred to be
liable under
CERCLA,
the
officer
must have
caused
or
allowed
the
violations in order to be liable under the Act. n2
n2
We
note
that
this
reasoning
applies
equally
with
the
common
law
public
nuisance
claim
because “a
common
law public
nuisance
has been defined
as an act or failure
to act which
injures
the
safety, health or morals of the
public;
or
which
causes
substantial
public
annoyance,
inconvenience or injury.”
C.J.R.,
269
Ill. App. 3d

Page
5
2004
Ill. App. LEXIS
74,
*
*
17
at
1019. Thus, at
its very least, an individual must
be found
to
have
acted
or failed
to
act
in
such
way to have
caused the
public
nuisance
in order
for liability to attach.
/
In
United States
v.
Bestfoods,
524 U.S.
51,
141
L.
Ed.
2d
43,
118
S.
Ct.
1876
(1998),
the
Supreme Court
considered
whether
a parent
corporation
could
be
held
liable for its
subsidiary’s CERCLA violations. The Court
made
two
important and relevant
holdings.
First, it held
that
“a parent
corporation
that
actively
participated
in,
and exercised control over, the operations of a subsidiary
may
not,
without more,
be held
liable as
an operator of
a polluting facility
owned
or operated by
the
subsidiary”
“unless
the corporate veil may be pierced.”
Bestfoods,
524 U.S. at
55,
141 L. Ed. 2d at 52, 118 S. Ct. at 1881.
Second,
the
Court held
that
“a corporate parent
that
actively
participated
in,
and
exercised control
over,
the
operations of the facility itself may be held directly liable
in its
own right as an operator of the facility.”
Bestfoods,
524
U.S. at
55,
141
L. Ed.
2d at
52,
118
S.
Ct. at
1881.
The Court noted that
“it is hombooklaw that the exercise
of
the
“control”
which
stock
ownership
gives
to
the
stockholders
.
.
.
will
not
create
liability
beyond
the
assets of
the
corporation.”
Bestfoods,
524
U.S.
at
61-
62,
141
L.
Ed.
2d
at
56,
118
S.
Ct.
at
1884,
*18
quoting
W.
Douglas
&
C.
Shanks,
Insulation
From
Liability Through Subsidiary Corporations,
39
Yale L.J.
193,
196
(1929).
These
holdings
have,
guided
courts
across
the
country
that
have
considered
corporate
officers’
potential
liability
for
corporate
environmental
wrongs.
The facts of the out-of-jurisdiction cases
cited by the
parties
confirm
that
more
than
a
corporate
title
is
required
in
order
for
an
officer
to
be
held
liable
for
corporate
violations
of
environmental
protection
laws.
There
is,
however, no
precise
definition as
to what must
be
alleged to state
a claim
for
personal liability. As
we
review the cases, we note
that the federal courts impose a
notice-pleading
standard
whereas
we
impose
a
fact-
pleading
standard.
Compare
Redfleld
v.
Continental
Casualty Corp.,
818
F.2d 596, 605
(7th Cir.
1987)
(“Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
8(a)
permits
notice
pleading
***~~),
with
Grund
v.
Donegan,
298
Ill.
App.
3d
1034,
1039,
700
N.E.2d
157,
233
Ill.
Dec.
56
(1998)
(“Illinois
is
a fact-
pleading jurisdiction”).
“As
a consequence, a plaintiff in
federal
court
need
not
set
out
in
detail
the
facts
upon
which
his
claim
is
based.”
Redfield,
818
F.2d
at
605.
*
19
Thus, the burden on
the
State
may
be heavier in
this
case
than
the
burden
was
on
the
plaintiffs
in
the
cases from other jurisdictions that are discussed below.
The primary difficulty
in cases
like
this one
lies in
identifying
the officer’s actions and determining whether
they were personal acts or acts ofthe
corporation. As
one
court has
explained:
“The
line
between a
personal
act
and an
act that
is purely an act of the
corporation
(or
of
some
other
employee)
and
so
not
imputed
to
the
president
or
to
other
corporate officers is sometimes a fine one,
but often
it is clear
on which
side of the
line a particular act
falls. If an individual
is hit by a negligently operated train, the
railroad
is
liable
in
tort
to
him
but
the
president of the
railroad
is not.
Or rather,
not
usually;
had
the
president
been
driving the train when it hit the plaintiff,
or had been
sitting
beside
the driver and
ordered him to
exceed the speed limit, he
would be jointly
liable with the
railroad.”
Browning-Ferris
Industries
of
Illinois,
Inc.
v.
Ter Maal,
195
F.3d
953,
956
(7th
Cir.
1999).
In these examples the determination ofpersonal liability
is obvious,
but
the
situations
*20
are
not
always
so
clear-cut,
especially
in
the
environmental
protection
arena.
In
Insulation
From
Liability
Through
Subsidiary
Corporations Welfare Educ.
Fund,
25
F.3d 417,
418
(7th
Cir.
1994),
the
court reversed dismissal
of
a complaint
brought
against
corporate
officers,
asserting
liability
under
CERCLA.
The
court
emphasized
that
direct,
personal
liability
is
different
and distinct
from
liability
resulting
from piercing the
corporate veil.
Pipefitters,
25
F:3d at 420. The court found
the
allegations
sufficient to
state
a
claim
for
personal
liability under CERCLA:
“Pipefitters
alleged
not
only
that
the
Arst
officers
in
question
exercised
management
control
over
the
company’s
operations,
but
also
that
they
knowingly
exercised direct
and personal
control
over
the
handling
of
the
hazardous
substance
at
issue
in
this
appeal.”
Pipefitters,
25
F.3d at 421.
The court explained:
“To survive a motion to dismiss
a plaintiff
must
allege
that
persons
associated
with
the
corporation
directly
and
personally
engaged in conduct that
led to the
specific
environmental
damage
at
issue
in
the
case.
Without
such
direct,
personal
involvement,
the
corporation
*21
and
not
the
associated
individuals
must
be
regarded
as
owning
or
operating
the
hazardous waste site in question. It
would
certainly be
unreasonable to
infer
simply
from
general
allegations
of
corporate
ownership or operation of a waste site that

2004 Ill.
App. LEXIS
74,
*
Page
6
individuals
acting
on
the
corporation’s
behalf
are
themselves
liable.
Thus,
a
plaintiff
does not
state a claim
for owner
or operator liability if she
merely alleges
that
certain
individuals
had
general
corporate authority
or
served
generally
in
a
supervisory
capacity.
Active
participation
in,
or
exercise
of
specific
control
of, the
activities
in question must
be shown.”
Pipefitters,
25
F.3d at 42 1-22.
Courts
that
have
upheld
liability
have
similarly
required
more
than
a
showing
of
general
corporate
authority.
In
Carter-Jones
Lumber
Co.
v.
Dixie
Distributing Co.,
166
F.3d
840,
846
(6th Cir.
1999), for
example,
the
court
recognized
that
a
corporate
officer
could be liable
for the
corporation’s
CERCLA violations
because
the
officer
was
“actively
involved
in
the
arrangements
for
disposal.”
The
evidence
showed
that
the officer and the corporation purchased 10 transformers
containing polychlorinated biphenyls
*22
(PCB5),
that
the
officer negotiated
the
purchase
price and
signed
an
affidavit
in
which
he
acknowledged
the
problem
with
PCB
disposal,
that
the
transformers
were
moved
to
property
owned
by
the
officer,
that
some
of
the
transformers
were
sold
by
the
corporation,
that
those
same transformers were latersold to another buyer by the
officer,
that
the
officer
was
attempting
to
hide
the
transformers
from
the
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
and
that
the
officer
misstated
to
the
Ohio
Environmental
Protection
Agency
the
number
of
transformers he had.
Carter-Jones,
166
F.3d at 844.
In
State
ex
rel.
Webster
v.
Missouri
Resource
Recovery,
Inc.,
825
S.W.2d
916,
926
(Mo. App.
1992),
the
court
reversed
the
dismissal
of
a
corporate
officer
defendant,
finding
that
he
could
be
liable
for
the
corporation’s
violation of the Missouri Hazardous Waste
Management
Law
(Mo.
Rev.
Stat.
§
260.350
(1986),
because the officer
“was
a
‘hands-on’
operator.
He
individually
participated
in
and
directed
all
the
activities
of
the
corporation.
“~‘~‘
He had
responsibility for the day-to-day
operation of the
business.
His
decisions
and
his
actions
*23
were
the
source
of.
plaintiffs’
charges
against
the
corporation.
He had
the
ability to control
the
activities
of
the
corporation
which
gave rise to this lawsuit and he
did control
those activities.”
Likewise,
in
State
v.
Shore Realty
Corp.,
759
F.2d
1032,
1052
(2d
Cir.
1985),
the
defendant
officer
was
held
liable
where
he was
“in
charge of the
operation of
the
facility in question.” In
United States
v. Northeastern
Pharmaceutical & Chemical
Co.,
810 F.2d
726,
744
(8th
Cir.
1986),
the
court
found
a
corporate
officer
liable
under
CERCLA
because
“he
personally participated
in
the
wrongful conduct”
by arranging for the transportation
and
disposal
of hazardous
substances
on behalf of
the
corporation.
In
United States
v.
Carolina
Transformer
Co.,
978
F.2d
832,
837
(4th
Cir.
1992), the Court of Appeals
for
the
Fourth Circuit found
that
a plaintiff need only show
that
the
officer had
the
“authority to control” the
facility,
not necessarily that he did.
Still, the officers’ liability was
based
on
more
than
the
mere
fact
that
they
were
corporate
officers.
One
officer
“acknowledged
that
he
was
‘in
charge’ of the
company and
that
*24
he was
‘responsible’
for
what
went
on
upon
the
company’s
property.”
Carolina
Transformer,
978
F.2d
at
837.
The
other officer “operated or otherwise controlled operations
on
the
property
in
question,”
and
his
basic
responsibilities
included
“everyday
operations
of
the
company,
delegation
of authority,
and
management
of
the
company.”
Carolina
Transformer,
978
F.2d
at
837.
And
these
were
not
“all
of
the
many
facts,”
which
supported
a finding
of
liability.
Carolina
Transformer,
978 F.2d at 837.
One case, perhaps
more than any other,
exemplifies
that
it is not
a
person’s title
as
a corporate
officer that
creates
liability.
In
United
States
v.
Gurley,
43
F.3d
1188,
1194-95
(8th
Cir.
1994),
the
court
held
that
a
defendant
who
was
“not
an
officer,
director,
or
shareholder” was appropriately found liable for corporate
hazardous
waste
disposal
activities
in
violation
of
CERCLA because
the
individual
was
the
“director
of
operations’
* * *
‘in control of the
day to day operations of
the plant” and engaged in written communications
with
the
Arkansas
Department
of
Pollution
Control
and
Ecology regarding the
violations.
Applying
*25
rules
similar to those
applied in the
above
cases,
some
courts
have
found
insufficient
evidence
to
hold
corporate
officers
liable.
In
Riverside
Market
Development
Corp.
v.
International
Building
Products,
Inc.,
931
F.2d
327,
330
(5th
Cir.
1991),
for
example,
the
court
upheld
the
grant
of
summary
judgment in
favor of
an
officer defendant because
“the
plaintiffs
***
failed to come forward with any evidence
showing that
the
officer
personally participated
in any
conduct that violated
CERCLA.”
In
T. V.
Spano Building
Corp.
v.
Department
of
Natural
Resources
&
Environmental
Controls,
628
A.2d
53,
62
(Del.
1993),
the
court held
that
the
officer was not
personally liable
for
the
corporation’s
improper
disposal
of
hazardous
wastes
because
while
the
officer
“had
broad,
general
authority
for the
Raintree
project and
direct
knowledge
of
the
disposal
trenches,”
he
“did
not
direct,
control,
approve,
consent to,
or ratify
the
decision to
dispose of
the construction waste.”

Page 7
2004 Ill.
App. LEXIS 74,
*
From our analysis of
C.J.R.,
the other cases
cited by
the
parties, and
the
Act itself, we conclude
that
in order
to state
a claim ‘for personal liability
against
a corporate
officer
under
*26
the
Act,
a
plaintiff
must
do
more
than allege corporate wrongdoing. Similarly,
the plaintiff
must allege
more
than
that
the corporate officer held
a
management’
position,
had
general
corporate
authority,
or
served
in a supervisory capacity in
order to
establish
individual
liability
under
the
Act.
The
plaintiff
must
allege
facts
establishing
that
the
corporate
officer
had
personal involvement
or active
participation
in the
acts
resulting
in
liability,
not
just
that
he
had
personal
involvement
or active participation in the
management of
the
corporation.
Application
of
these
principles
in
this
case
shows
that
the
State
has
not pled
a cause of action
against Tang for individual liability.
The
State has made conclusory allegations that Tang
“caused or
allowed”
certain
actions to occur in
violation
of the
Act. The
State, however, offers no
explanation
as
to
how
Tang
“caused
or
allowed”
these
violations
to
occur, except
that he did so “as a part of his performance
of, and
as a
direct result of,
his duties
as Chairman and
Chief Executive
Officer of P.
Brothers
LP,
and because
of
his
controlling
ownership
interest
in
both
a
limited
partner
and
the
general
partner
of
P
Brothers
LP.”
In
other
*27
words, the
State
is
saying
that
because
he
was
an officer
and shareholder
of the
corporation, Tang
is
accountable
for
the
corporation’s
actions.
As
noted
above,
this
flies
in the
face
of
the
purpose
of creating
corporate entities.
To
state a claim, the
allegations must
show that Tang was personally,
as opposed to only in his
corporate
capacity,
involved
in
the
alleged
violations.
They
fail
to
do
so,
despite
the
State’s
multiple
opportunities to
state
its
claims.
Significantly,
the
State
does
not
even
allege
that
Tang
had
knowledge of
the
wastes or the
violations. The
allegations merely state
in
conclusory
fashion that
Tang
“conducted
an
automobile
shredding
operation
at
the
site
through
the
business
entities”
and
inexplicably
“caused
or
allowed”
the
violations
to
occur.
These
allegations
are
significantly
deficient
as
compared
to
the
allegations
in
C.J.R.
and
other cases
finding individually
liability.
As
pointed
out
above in
C.J.R.,
the
corporate
officer defendant actually
“operated”
the
facility
in
question.
In
this
case,
for
whatever reason, the chiefoperating officer of P Brothers
LP
was not made
a party
to this
action. The
allegations
are conclusory and insufficient to *28
state
a
claim for
personal liability.
The
State
urges
us
to
ignore
the
deficiencies
in
its
pleadings
because
“the
evidence
to
support
the
allegations
is
principally
within
the
defendant’s
knowledge
and
can
be
further
developed
through
discovery.”
The State cites
John Burns Construction
Co.
v.
City of Chicago,
234
Ill.
App.
3d
1027,
601
N.E.2d
1024,
176
Ill.
Dec.
326
(1992),
Christoffel
v.
Country
Mutual Insurance Co.,
183
Ill.
App. 3d
32,
538
N.E.2d
1171,
131
Ill.
Dec.
615
(1989),
and
Holton
v.
Resurrection Hospital,
88
Ill.
App. 3d
655,
410
N.E.2d
969,
43
Ill.
Dec.
836
(1980).
Those
cases
differ
significantly
from this
case.
In
Burns
Construction,
the
plaintiff argued
on
its motion
for reconsideration that
it
needed
to
conduct
discovery
in
order
to
make
more
specific
allegations.
Burns Construction,
234
Ill. App. 3d
at
1033.
In
Christoffel,
the
missing
information
was
a
copy of the
insurance
policy, which policy the defendant
insurer obviously had knowledge
of.
Christoffel,
183
Ill.
App.
3d
at
37.
In
Holton,
the
court
found
that
the
“defendant did
not
have
to
rely primarily
on
plaintiffs
complaint to formulate
an answer and prepare *29
for
trial.”
Holton,
88
Ill. App. 3d at
659. The defendant was
a hospital that
retained
copies of treatment records,
and
one
of the
primary
shortcomings of the
complaint
was
that
it
failed
to
indicate
the
hospital
employees
who
treated
the
deceased
on
June
29,
1974.
Holton,
88
Ill.
App. 3d at
657.
In this
case, the
State
never
petitioned the
court to
begin
discovery.
Instead, it
continued to
replead nearly
identical conclusions without indicating to the
trial
court
that
its complaint
might have benefitted from discovery.
Further,
the
State
has
not,
in
its
pleadings
or
in
its
appellate
briefs,
described
any of the evidence,
which it
believes
is
in
Tang’s
possession.
Nor
is
there
any
indication
that
Tang
has
any
evidence
that
would
be
useful
in
answering
the
complaint.
As
they
stand,
the
State’s
allegations
are
insufficient
to
apprise
Tang
of
what
acts
he
is
being
asked
to
defend.
Under
these
circumstances,
we
cannot
accept
the
State’s
claim.
Dismissal was proper.
-
The
State
alternatively
maintains that Tang is liable
as
a
corporate’
officer
because
“the
law
imposes
responsibility
upon
corporate
agents
who
do
not
proactively work to prevent violations *30
of statutes
that
effect the public’s heath and safety from occurring.”
In
some
jurisdictions this
is
known
as
the
“responsible
corporate
officer
doctrine.”
See,
e.g.,
BEC
Corp.
v.
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
256
Conn.
602,
775 A.2d 928
(2001);
Commissioner, Department of
Environmental
Management
v.
RLG,
Inc.\
755
N.E.2d
556
(Ind.
2001). Tang argues
that
the
State
has
waived
this
argument
by
not
raising
it
in
the
trial
court.
We
agree.
See
Sparapany
v.
Rexall Corp.,
249
Ill. App. 3d
388, 392, 618 N.E.2d 1098, 188 Ill.
Dec. 528
(1993) (“It
is settled law in Illinois
that a theory cannot be presented
on review which was not presented in the
trial
court; any
such
theory
not presented
below
is
deemed
waived”).
Regardless,
the
responsible
corporate
officer
doctrine
requires
specific
allegations
of
corporate
responsibility
with regard to the wrongful acts,
rather than just general

2004 Ill.
App. LEXIS 74,
*
Page 8
allegations of corporate responsibility.
See
United States
v. Park,
421 U.S.
658,
675,
44 L. Ed.
2d 489, 502-03,
95
S.
Ct.
1903,
1913
(1975)
(“The
main
issue
for
determination
was
not
respondent’s
position
in
the
corporate hierarchy, but
rather his
accountability,
*31
because
of
the
responsibility
and
authority
of
his
position,
for
the
conditions
which
gave
rise
to
the
charges
against him”);
United States
v. Dotterweich,
320
U.S.
277,
284,
88
L.
Ed.
48,
53,
64
5.
Ct.
134,
138
(1943) (“The
offense
is
committed by
all
who
do
have
such
a
responsible
share
in
the
furtherance
of
the
transaction
which
the
statute
outlaws
***“).
Thus,
consideration of the
argument
would lead us to the
same
conclusion: the
allegations
are insufficient to support
the
State’s claims against Tang.
The
State
also
argues
that
the
trial
court
erred
in
holding
that
the
Act
does
not
authorize
mandatory
injunctive
relief
and
that
the
court
lacked
authority
to
order Tang to remediate the property even though he has
no
legal
interest in it.
Because
of our disposition on the
liability issues, we need not address these relief issues.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial
court’s
dismissal
with prejudice
of the
State’s
second
amended
complaint.
Affirmed.
O’MALLEY, P.J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

-
4/
IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MCDONOUGH COUNTY, ILLINOIS
-
M
~
09
2003
PEOPLE OF
THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
)
Jul
ia
A
ex ~j.
JAMES E.
RYAN,
Attorney General
)
Cfrcujj~7~W
of the
State of Illinois, and WILLIAM
PONCIN,
)
erk
McDonough
County State’s Attorney,
)
)
-
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
NO.
O1-CH-2
EMMETT UTILITIES,
INC.,
)
an
Illinois
corporation, and
)
RUSSELL 0. THORELL,
individually and
)
as
president of EMMETT UTILITIES, INC.
)
-
)
Defendants.
-•
-
)
-
-
JUDGMENT
ORDER
This
cause came
before
the court for an evidentiary
hearing on July 22, 2002.
The plaintiff
was
present
by a
representative of the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. The Defendant
corporation
was
present
by
counsel
John
Myers. Defendant
Russell
Thorell was present individually and
as
president
of Emmett
Utilities, Inc.,
and
by counsel
John Myers.
This
action‘was commenced
on behalf of the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
by
the
Attorney
General of the State of Illinois, on the Attorney General’s own
motion
and at the request of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency.
A.
FINDINGS
The
court
heard testimony and
received
documentary evidence and makes the
following findings:
1.
The Illinois
EPA is an agencyof the State of Illinois created
pursuant to
Section 4 of the Environmental Protection Act, 415
ILCS 5/4 (1996), and
is charged,
inter a/ia,
with the duty of enforcing the Act.
2.
The Defendant, Emmett Utilities,
Inc., is
an Illinois
corporation which, by the time

of the hearing in this cause, was-qualified to do
business in
Illinois.
3.
The Defendant Russell Thorell is president of Emmett Utilities,
Inc.
At the time of
trial,
Mr. Thorell was before the
court
in
his capacity as president of Emmett Utilities,
Inc.
and
in his capacity as an individual.
4.
The court finds that
it has jurisdiction over the parties and
the subject matter of
the complaint.
5.
At all times relevant to this Complaint,
Emmett Utilities,
Inc.
has owned and
operated a public water supply and sewer system
in
McDonough County, Illinois, which
serves approximately 22 direct service connections from one drilled well.
6.
The court makes the following findings:
-
Count
7.
The Plaintiff has
proven that on August 13, 1997-and April 20,
1999:
a.
No
monthly. operating reports had been submitted,
in violation
of
415 ILCS
5118(a)(1)
and
(2), as well as
34111. Adm. Code Sections 611.831, 653.605
and 653.704.
b.
No master flow meter had been
installed in
the well pump
discharge
line,
in violation
of 415 ILCS
5118(a)(1)
and (2), as well as 35
III. Adm.
Code
Sections 601.101, 653.106 and Section 3.2.7.3 (a)(4) of the Recommended Standards
for Water Works.
-
c.
No
hydro pneumatic storage tank sight-glass tubes had
been
installed, in violation
of 415 ILCS 5/18(a)(1) and
(2), as well as 35
III.
Adm. Code
Sections 601.101, 653.109 and
section 7.2.4 of the Recommended Standards for Water
Works.
8.
The Court finds that Defendant Emmett Utilities,
Inc. failed to
prepare and
distribute and failed to submit certification of distribution of a
1999 Consumer
Confidence Report,
in violation
of 415
ILCS 5/1 8(a)(2) AND
35
III. Adm.
Code
611 .882

and
611.885.
9.
The remaining allegations of Count
I were not stipulated to
by the parties.
No
evidence was
presented by the Plaintiff as to the condition of Defendant’s facilities on
the dates
in
question. The Plaintiff has failed to
meet its
burden as to the remaining
allegations of Count
I.
10.
As a result of the findings
indicated above,
Defendant Emmett Utilities is
-
permanently enjoined from further violations of Illinois’ Public Water Supply Regulations.
In addition,
based upon the standard
set forth in People
ex.
rel
Ryan
v. McHenr~Shores
Water Co.,
295 lll.App.3d 628 (1998),
Defendant is assessed a monetary penalty of
$10,000.
This amount is also based upon the Defendant’s reported operating
revenues
and
is intended as
an
inducement
to correct the conditions which have threatened the
health of Defendant’s customers.
This penalty shall
be paid by January 31, 2004 and is
subject
to
remittur provided Defendant Emmett Utilities,
by that date, has corrected the
conditions
resulting in the violations found to exist
11.
The Plaintiff presented
no evidence in support of its request pursuant to
415
ILCS 5/42(f) that it be awarded
its costs
in this
matter.
Therefore, that request is denied.
Count II
As to Count
II, the court finds:
12.
Plaintiff has proven that Emmett Utilities-failed to submit coliform
sample results
in violation of 415 ILCS 5/18 and 5/19 and
35111. Admin. Code
section
611
521 for the
following
periods:
a.
November
1,
1998 to November30,
1998
b.
December
1,
1998 to December31,
1998
c.
January 1,
1999 to January 31,
1999
d.
April
1,
1999 to April
30, 1999
e.
Mayl, 1999to May31,
1999

13.
Emmett Utilities failed
to submit nitrate sample results for the period
from
January
1,
1999 to
March 31,
1999
in
violation of 415 ILCS 5/18 and 5/19
and
35111.
Admin.
Code
611 .604(a)(1 )(A).
14.
Emmett Utilities failed to
submit lead
and copper sample
results for the
time period from June
1, 1998
to September30,
1998,
in violation
of 415 ILCS 5/18
and
5/19 and
35
Ill. Admin.
Code 611 .356(d)(4)(B).
15.
Emmett Utilities
failed to provide fluoridation to
the water being
discharged to the distribution system
in violation
of 415
ILCS 40/7a and
35 Ill. Admin.
Code 611.125.
16.
As a result of these findings, Defendant Emmett Utilities is permanently
enjoined from further violation of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board’s Public Water
Supply Rules.
In addition,
based upon the standard set forth
in
People ex.
rel Ryan
v.
McHenry
Shores Water Co., 295 lll.App.3d
628 (1998), Emmett Utilities is assessed a
monetary penalty of $10,000.
This penalty shall be
paid by January 31, 2004 and is
subject to
remittur provided Defendant Emmett Utilities, by that date has corrected the
conditions
resulting in these violations.
17.
The P!aintiff presented no
evidence in support of its request pursuant to
415
ILCS 5/42(f) that it be
awarded
its costs in this matter.
Therefore,
that request is
denied.
-.
Count Ill
18.
The court finds that on or about
March 21,2000, April
17,2000, May 18,
2000, June 21, 2000,
July 26, 2000, August 23, 2000,
October 10, 2000,
and
November
28, 2000 Defendant Emmett Utilities allowed the discharge of raw sewage such
as to
threaten
pollution of water in violation
of 415
ILCS 5/12(a).
No evidence was presented
as to either the environmental effects of these actions or the cost of any cleanup that
took place.

19.
As a result of this finding,
Defendant Emmett Utilities is permanently enjoined
from further unauthorized
discharge of raw sewage from its facility and
is directed to
correct the circumstances which resulted in these
violations.
20.
The Plaintiff presented no
evidence in support of its request pursuant to 415
ILCS 5/42(f) that it be awarded
its costs in
this matter.
Therefore that request is denied.
Count IV
-
21.
The Plaintiff seeks
to hold Defendant Russell Thorell personally liable for the acts
of Emmett Utilities.
The burden is on the Plaintiff to
make a substantial showing that the
corporation
is really-a sham for another dominating entity.
In
re Estate of Wallen,
262
lll.App.3d 61(1994).
-
22.
In
order
to
pierce the corporate veil a Plaintiff must show:
(1) such
unity of
interest and
ownership that the separate
personalities of the corporation and the
individual no longer exist,
and, (2) circumstances must be-such that an adherence to the
fiction
of a.separate corporate existence would promote injustice or inequitable
consequences.
Pederson
v.
Parac~onPool
Enterprises,
2.14 lIl.App.3d
815 (1991).
23.
Factors to-be
considered in
determining whether a sufficient unity of interest
exists between a corporation
and an
individual to warrant piercing the corporate veil
include:
1) inadequate capitalization; 2) failure to
issue stock;
3) failure to
observe
corporate formalities; 4) nonpayment of dividends; 5) insolvency of the debtor
corporation at the time;
6) non-functioning of other officers or-directors; 7) absence of
corporate records; 8) whether the corporation is a mere facade for the operation of
dominant stockholders.
Ted Harrison
Oil
Co. v.
Dokka, 24T lll.App.3d 791
(1993).
24.
The capitalization of a corporation
is a major factor
in assessing whether a
legitimate separate corporate entity existed.
McCracken
v.
Olson Co.,
149 Ill.App.3d
104 (1986).
In
determining whether a corporation is adequately capitalized
it is
necessary to
compare the amount of capital to the amount of
business to be conducted

and obligations to
be fulfilled.
Jacobson v.
Buffalo Rock Shooters Supply,
278 llI.App.3d
1084 (1996).
In
the instant case the evidence has shown that Emmett
Utilities has been
adequately capitalized
to serve the purposes for which the corporation was established.
25.
The evidence in the instant case showed that
10 shares of stock were
issued
when the corporation was
formed.
Those
shares remain outstanding.
26.
Corporate formalities are sufficiently observed where the corporation
completed
required
documents for its formation, issued
shares of stock and filed the appropriate
corporate tax
returns.
Jacobson v.
Buffalo Rock Shooters Supply,
278 lll.App.3d 1084
(1996).
The Plaintiff has failed to show that these corporate formalities were not
observed
in the instant case.
27.
There was no evidence in the instant case that any dividends were paid.
There
was no evidence that Emmett Utilities was insolvent at any time relevant to the
allegations in the complaint.
The evidence established that the only functioning
officer
or director was Defendant Thorell,
Evidence was presented that corporate records were
maintained.
-
28.
After weighing all of the above factors, the courtfinds that the Plaintiff has not
made the substantia’ showing necessary to impose individual liability upon Defendant
Thorell.
Therefore, Count IV is dismissed.
Count V
For the reasons stated
above, Count V
is dismissed.
Count VI
For the reasons stated above, Count VI
is dismissed.
B.
PAYMENT OF
PENALTY
1.
Subject to the terms of this order, in the event Emmett Utilities, Inc. is obligated
to make the penalty payment of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) as set forth
in this
order,
payment shall
be
made to the Environmental Protection
Trust Fund
by Jan. 31,

2004. As set forth above,
this amount
is subject to
remittur provided Defendant Emmett
Utilities,
Inc., by that date, has corrected
the conditions resulting
in the violations found
to exist.
In the event Emmett Utilities,
Inc.
is obligated under the terms
of this order to
pay the penalty assessed, this -amount shall be
paid by certified
check or money order,
payable to:
“Treasurer of the State of Illinois, for deposit in the Environmental
Protection
Trust Fund,” and be delivered to:
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services
Section
1021
North
Grand Avenue East,
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
A copy of the penalty transmittal
and check shall
be simultaneously submitted to:
Illinois Attorney General’s Office
do Donna Lutes, Environmental Bureau
-
500 South
Second Street
-
-
Springfield, Illinois 62706
-
-
The name and court number of this case
and the Federal Employer Identification
Number (“FEIN”) of the Defendan-t shall appear on the certified
check or money order.
For purposes of payment and collection, the Defendant may be reached at the following
address:
-
Emmett Utilities,
Inc.
do Russell D. Thorell, President
RR2Box58N
Oquawka,
IL 61469
-
2.
-
In
the event the penalty is not paid in a timely fashion,
interest shall
accrue and be paid by the Defendant at the rate set forth in
Section
1003(a) of the
Illinois
Income Tax Act, 35
ILCS 5/1003(a) (1996),
pursuant to
Section 42(g) of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/42(g)
(1996).
-
C.
COMPLIANCE
-
1.
The Defendant shall diligently comply with, and shall cease and desist
from violation of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/1
et
seq.
(1996), the Board’s
rules and regulations

(
(35
Ill. Adm. Code Subtitles A through H (1994)) and any
and all federal laws
and
regulations.
2.
The Defendant shall implement corrective action
and
shall completely
abate the violations set forth herein on or before January 31, 2004.- 1~t~ea
~
~
_De~a~4-shall
secure,
fro
4he-Minois-Con~ecee--Co-mmission,
an
Order
allowing4tto
~
or abcndo1-1 ~crvicc-purcu~int
to
S~ctior-.8--•5O8-
of-thc Pu•blic-~LtilitbcAct~-~~’
-
3.
A~±i1ion4o-te~ina4e-ec-abandon
service
shall be filed~1h
th
tUi~ois
~
~
~
D.
JURISDICTION
-
This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing this
order and for the purpose of adjudicating all matters of dispute amOng the parties.
The
Defendant agrees that notice of any subsequent proceeding to enforce this Consent
Order may be
made
by mail and waives any requirement of service of process.
This is a
final order subject
to a
eal.
-
~hard~r~ociate~
A/
Agreed only as to form:
Deborah
L. Barnes
~
,4~meyfor
Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
The undersignedhereby certifies that a copy ofthe
MOTION OF DEFENDANT
RUSSELL D. THORELL TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT was servedupon all counsel
of record by placing same in the United States Post Office mail box, postage prepaid in
Springfield, Illinois on February 6, 2004 and addressed to:
Thomas Davis, Assistant Attorney General
Office ofthe Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph Street, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Carol Sudman
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
andthat the original was filed with the Clerk ofthe Court in which said cause is pending.

Back to top