RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
JUL 152004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,)
Pollution
Control
Board
)
Petitioner,
)
NO. PCB 04-186
)
vs.
)
(Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF
KANKAKEE
COUNTY,)
ILLINOIS,
)
)
Respondent.
)
MERLIN KARLOCK’S REPLY TO
KANKAKEE
COUNTY’S RESPONSE
TO MICHAEL WATSON’S MOTION TO INTERVENE
OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE,
TO FILE AN
AMICUS
BRIEF
Now comes Merlin Karlock, (Karlock), by his attorney, George Mueller, P.C., and for his
Reply to the Response of Kankakee County to Michael Watson’s Motion To Intervene Or, In The
Alternative, To File An
Amicus
Brief, states as follows:
1. Michael Watson (Watson) previously filed herein a Motion For Leave To Intervene
Or, In The Alternative, For Leave To File An
Amicus
Brief. Karlock subsequently filed his own
Motion For Leave To Intervene which, while making its own arguments, also adopted in their
entirety the legal arguments and authorities made and cited by Watson. While Kankakee County
has filed a Response in the nature of an objection to Watson’s Motion, Karlock is unaware ofany
response by the County filed as of this point in time and directed at his Petition.
2. That a central point in Karlock’s Petition To Intervene is his concernthat Karikakee
County would not zealously defend its denial ofWMI’s application for siting and his fear that
Kankakee County’s attorneys, Hinshaw
&
Culbertson, by reason of bias, interest, and
inconsistent positions taken in the past and currently in this and related cases, would not or could
not effectively advocate in defense of Kankakee County’s denial of siting.
3. That the Response filed by Kankakee County to Watson’s Motion To Intervene proves
unequivocally that the concerns and fears of Karlock, as set forth in Paragraph 2 above, are
justified. Kankakee County’s Response to Watson’s Motion is an objection to that Motion, not
only an objection to Watson’s intervention, but also an objection to Watson’s filing
anAmicus
Brief. While it is, in and of itself, curious and unusual that a party would oppose the
participation, either as an intervener or as an
amicus
ofan entity which supports the decision of
that party, the specific arguments and allegations contained-in Kankakee County’s Response to
Watson’s Motion conclusively prove the very point argued in Karlock’s original Petition.
A.
For example, in Paragraph 24 ofits Response, the attorneys for Kankakee County
argue that Watson’s rights as an adjacentproperty owner would not be affected in
the event of reversal of the County Board’s denial of siting since Watson would
be protected by WMI’s Property Value Protection Plan. Aside from the obvious
fact that WMI’s Property Value Protection Plan is not applicable to agricultural
property owners such as Watson (and Karlock), this statement by the County
Board’s attorneys is completely inconsistent with the finding ofthe Kankakee
County Board. On March 18, 2004, when the Kankakee County Board denied
WMI’s siting application, the Board voted 18 to 10 that siting Criterion iii
(Whether the facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the
characterofthe surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the value of the
surrounding property) had not been satisfied. In other words, the County’s instant
pleading alleging that WMI’s Property Value Protection Plan will protect the
property values of adjacent property owners in the event that the PCB reverses the
2
siting denial is completely inconsistent with the County’s finding that the facility
was not so located as to minimize the effect on the value of the surrounding
property.
B.
In Paragraph 32 of its Response to Watson’s Motion, the County opposes
Watson’s filing ofan
Amicus
Briefbecause Watson may advance new arguments
to the Board in favor ofaffirming the County’s decision. It is axiomatic that a
party would generally welcome additional arguments not raised by that party, but
which support that party’s position.
C.
Most shockingly in Paragraph 39 ofits Response, Kankakee County, through its
attorneys, Hinshaw & Culbertson, argues that Watson should not be allowed to
file an
Amicus
Brief because he “will not simply be advising this Board regarding
the law, but he will be advocating a point ofview and urging this Board to find in
favor ofthe County Board and against WMI.” The rationale behind the County
Board’s attorneys taking this position in their Response is simply
incomprehensible. The, authors of this statement cannot possibly be representing
the public Interest or the decision of the County Board when they oppose an
Amicus
Brief because they fear the Brief will argue points oflaw adverse to WMI
and in favor of the County Board’s previous decision.
4. This case presents such unique circumstances, as illustrated in the Petitions ofWatson
and Karlock and now in the Response to Watson’s Petition filed by the County, that it is clear
that Watson and Karlock should not only be allowed to intervene as participants in this matter,
but that they should, in fact, take the lead in defending the majority decision of the elected
3
representatives ofthe people of Kankakee County. One wonders whether those representatives
who voted to deny WMI’s application for siting even have knowledge ofthe pleading filed on
their behalfand in their name objecting to intervention and the filing ofan
Amicus
Brief by a
person who supports the decision ofthose representatives.
WHEREFORE, Merlin Karlock prays that his Petition To Intervene previously filed by
granted.
Respectfully Submitted,
Merlin Karlock,
BY:
~
VV\~~9L
Hi~~Attorney
GEORGE MUELLER, P.C.
Attorney at Law
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
Phone: (815) 433-4705
4
