1. Count IV: DUPAGE DEPARTNMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
      2. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
FLAGG CREEK WATER RECLAMATION
DISTRICT
)
)
)
Complainant
1
PCB 06-141
1
VILLAGE OF HINSDALE, METROPOLITAN
)
WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF
GREATAER CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DUPAGE COUNTY
)
)
Respondents.
Answer and Affirmative Defenses
Of Respondent. DuPage County
1.
DuPage County admits that this action has been filed by the Flagg Creek Water
Reclamation District (FCWRD). The remainder of this paragraph is not fact but legal
conclusion which DuPage neither admits nor denies.
2.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph
2.
3.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph
3.
4.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 4.
5.
DuPage admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5.
6.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 6.
7.
DuPage denies that DDOT denies that it contributes excess flow to the FCWRD
at any time. As to the actions of other respondents, DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to
either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph
7.
8.
DuPage denies the allegations of paragraph 8.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 9, 2006
9.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 9.
10.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 10.
11.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 1 1.
12.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 12.
13.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 13.
14.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 14.
15.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 15.
16.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 16.
17.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 17.
18.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny
the allegations in
Paragraph 18.
19.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 19.
20.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 20.
21.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 2 1.
Count IV: DUPAGE DEPARTNMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
81.
DuPage admits that it has jurisdiction over portions of
55'h Street within DuPage
County and is responsible for operation, repair and maintenance for those sections under
its jurisdiction.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 9, 2006
82.
DuPage admits that it has performed construction work on 55" Street west of
County Line Road throughout the years.
83.
DuPage admits that it installed storm sewers on some sections of
55" street and
fiirther admits that it has not install storm sewers to accept the runoff from the entire
length of
55th Street.
84.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 84.
85.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 85.
86.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 86.
87.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 87.
88.
DuPage denies that it is causing or contributing to or causing unauthorized
CSO's
within the FCWRD in violation of any ordinance or statute to which it is subject.
89.
DuPage denies that it is causing or contributing to or causing unauthorized
CSO's
within the FCWRD in violation of any ordinance or statute to which it is subject.
90.
DuPage denies that it in violation of any ordinance or statute to which it is
subject.
91.
DuPage lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph
9 1.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1.
The right to drain water from County Highway is a property right which may only
be adjudicated in a court of law.
2.
During its construction on
55th Street, DuPage sought and received input as to
construction means and methods from the Hinsdale Sanitary District, predecessor in
interest to the FCWRD. The input and requirements imposed by the Hinsdale Sanitary
District were complied with in good faith by DuPage during the construction. FCWRD is
now equitably estopped from asserting that the restrictions imposed by its predecessor
were inadequate.
3
At all times prior to and during construction of
55" Street, the Hinsdale Sanitary
District, predecessor in interest to the FCWRD was aware and had input into the plans
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 9, 2006
for the improvement, including storm water drainage, and no objection to the
improvements as planned and constructed was made. FCWRD is now barred by the
doctrine of laches from asserting any claim resulting from that construction.
4.
FCWRD and its predecessor in interest failed to mitigate any damage resulting
from the actions of
DuPage.
DUPAGE COUNTY
JOSEPH E. BIRKETT
DUPAGE STATE'S ATTORNEY
BY: Robert
E. Douglas
ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY
503N. County Farm Road
Wheaton, IL 601 87
Phone: 630-407-8305
Fax: 630
-407-8201
Robert.Dou~las@,duvarreco.org
Dated: May 9, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 9, 2006

Back to top