Wesley J. Brazas, Jr .
Petitioner
V .
Mr. Jeff Magnussen, President
Village of Hampshire
and the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Respondents
NOTICE OF FILING
TO :
Mr. Mark Schuster
Schnell, Bazos, Freeman, Kramer, Schuster & Vanek
1250 Larkin Ave., Suite 100
Elgin, IL 60123
Mr. James Day
Ms. Jane L. Collins
Division of Legal Counsel
13610 Kishwaukee Valley Road
Illinois Protection Agency
Woodstock, IL 60098
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 5, 2006, I filed with the Clerk of the Office of the
Pollution Control Board, and original and nine (9) copies
ofPetitioner's Response to Respondent
Jeff Magnussen's Motion to Strike Appellant's Brief and Argument on Appeal,
a
copy of which
is attached hereto and hereby served upon you
.
Subscribed and Sworn to me this
dayof,7kJ
Y
;W'
-\
PCB 06-131
(Appeal from IEPA decision
granting modified NPDES permit)
as, Jr .
oner
RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JUL 0 5 2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PROOF OF SER
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served on the date of July 5, 2006, the
attached
Petitioner's Response to Respondent Jeff Magnussen's Motion to Strike Appellant's
Brief and Argument on Appeal
upon each person/agency to whom it is directed by placing a copy
of same into an envelope correctly addressed as aforesaid and bearing sufficient first class
postage prepaid, and depositing same with the United States Post Office before 5 :00 p.m. on July
5, 2006 .
RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JUL
0 5 2006
Wesley J. Brazas, Jr.
)
STATE
O
Control Board
Petitioner
Pollution
)
v .
)
PCB 06-131
Mr. Jeff Magnussen, President
)
(Appeal from IEPA decision
Village of Hampshire
)
granting modified NPDES permit)
and the
)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency )
Respondents
)
PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT JEFF MAGNUSSEN'S MOTION TO
STRIKE APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND ARGUMENT ON APPEAL
NOW COMES THE PETITIONER, Wesley J. Brazas, Jr., and as for Petitioner's Response to
Respondent Jeff Magnussen's Motion to Strike Appellant's Brief and Argument on Appeal,
states
as follows
:
1 .
Petitioner admits Paragraph 1 of Magnussen's Motion that this matter comes before
the Board on the IEPA's December 9, 2005 modification of NPDES Permit No . IL
0020281 to permit the Village of Hampshire to more than double the discharge of its
wastewater treatment plant to 1,500,000 gpd (DAF) / 4,170,000 gpd (DMF) into the
Section 303(d) listed Hampshire Creek from the currently permitted 750,000 gpd
(DAF) / 1,880,000 gpd (DMF) issued on July 21, 2004 .
2
.
Petitioner admits Paragraph 2 of Magnussen's Motion
.
3
.
Petitioner denies Paragraph 3 of Magnussen's Motion
.
4 .
Petitioner denies Paragraph 4 of Magnussen's Motion . Petitioner's
Petition for
Review frames the issues before the Board .
Page] of4
5 .
Petitioner denies Paragraph 5 of Magnussen's Motion as it is not an accurate
restatement of the statute. The statute, and case law interpreting said statute, speaks
for itself
6 .
Petitioner denies Paragraph 6 of Magnussen's Motion as Appellant affirmatively
states said Orders were improperly decided. Said Orders are in contravention to the
mission of the Pollution Control Board "to restore, protect, and enhance the
environment for all Illinois citizens" .'
7 .
Petitioner cannot comment on Paragraph 7 of Magnussen's Motion as "The rule" is
without reference
.
8 .
Petitioner denies Paragraph 8 of Magnussen's Motion
.
9 .
Petitioner denies Paragraph 9 of Magnussen's Motion as it is an isolated statement
taken out of context. It is the nature of our legal system that if the existing statutes
and regulations are not sufficiently protective of the environment, their validity is
challenged through litigation of their application on a specific matter, such as, the
case at bar .
10 .
Petitioner denies Paragraph 10 of Magnussen's Motion. See the Mission statement of
the Board.
11
.
Petitioner denies Paragraph 11 of Magnussen's Motion
.
12
.
Petitioner states Mr. Magnussen did not provide prior notice of the filing of the
Magnussen
Motion
and that Petitioner is a member of the armed forces and was
outside the State of Illinois on active military duty including the period of the filing of
Magnussen's Motion to July 2, 2006 . In accordance with the provisions of the
Page 2 of 4
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Pub . L. No. 108-189 (2003), Petitioner request that
the Board find this Response timely filed ."
CONCLUSION
The Board must clearly understand that Hampshire Creek became a 303(d) listed stream
back when Hampshire's permitted maximum Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge was only
456,000 gpd (DAF)
.
Since Hampshire's WWTP discharge is one of the suspected causes of
stream impairment, Mr. Magnussen has an affirmative duty to perform a TMDL study to
determine the specific causes of stream impairment and maximum loadings from point and non-
point sources in order for Hampshire Creek to regain its environmental health. The requirement
for a TMDL study is even more urgent as Mr. Magnussen is now requesting a more than
threefold increase in the point source discharge of the WWTP and the non-point source pollution
from Mr. Magnussen's approval of the conversion of over 15,000 acres of agricultural farmland
into rooftops
.
It is sadly unfortunate Mr. Magnussen, as the local government authority, continues to
willfully fail in his duty to protect the environment of the Village of Hampshire by steadfastedly
refusing to perform a TMDL study for Hampshire Creek. This litigation could have been easily
avoided if Mr. Magnussen had performed a TMDL study for Hampshire Creek and demonstrated
the increase in discharge for the WWTP was within the TMDL limits . But Mr. Magnussen has
not .
This litigation could have been easily avoided if Mr . Magnussen had completed the
potable water supply study and had determined the effects of changing the permitted land use
over the most sensitive recharge area of the Bloomington Aquifer from agriculture to condos and
parking lots would not degrade the aquifer. But Mr. Magnussen has not .
Page 3 of 4
This litigation could have been easily avoided if Mr. Magnussen had completed a Motor
Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) study on the effects of converting over 15,000 acres of
farmland (with a net positive contribution to air quality) to rooftops and highways (with a major
net negative to air quality) and demonstrating said conversion of farmland to rooftops was within
the MVEB's set by the RTP and would not cause backsliding in the Northeastern Illinois Ozone
Non-Attainment Area. But Mr. Magnussen has not .
This litigation could have been easily avoided if Mr. Magnussen had has designed the
proposed WWTP increased flows to 4,170,000 gpd (DMF) to not increase the flood stage
elevation on Hampshire Creek . But Mr. Magnussen has not .
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Petitioner requests this Board deny Mr.
Magnussen's
Motion to Strike
Appellant's Brief and Argument on
Appeal. Respondents Mr
.
Magnussen and the IEPA have failed in their statutory duty to protect the air quality and water
quality of the Hampshire area by the issuance of this modified permit and Petitioner asks that the
Illinois Pollution Control Board grant the relief Petitioner seeks by setting aside said modified
permit and remanding to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for issuance of a permit
denial letter
.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: July 5, 2006
Jr., P
r,
Seewww.ipcb.state .il.us'AboutTheBoardlMissionStatementandStrategicPlan.asp.
ii
The Illinois Pollution Control Board is an "administrative agency" subject to the requirements of the Act
.
See Section 101(3)
which
gates' Te tam 'court' means a court or an administative agency of the United States or
of any State (including any political subdivision of a State), whether or not a court or administrative agency of
record"
Page 4 of 4
