People v. Pollution Control Bd.

• Decision Date: 27 December 1984
• Docket Number: No. 84-126,84-126
• Citation: 129 Ill.App.3d 958,85 Ill.Dec. 84,473 N.E.2d 452
• Parties: , 85 Ill.Dec. 84 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent, v. The POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, Respondent, Santa Fe Park Enterprises, Inc., (Petitioner).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 452

473 N.E.2d 452

129 Ill.App.3d 958, 85 Ill.Dec. 84

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent, v.The POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, RespondentSanta Fe Park Enterprises, Inc., (Petitioner).

No. 84-126.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Fourth Division.

Dec. 27, 1984.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1985.

Richard J. Kissel, Jeffrey C. Fort, Frederick L. Moore, Martin, Craig, Chester & Sonnenschein, Chicago, for petitioner.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., William J. Barzano, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

JIGANTI, Justice:

This appeal involves the constitutionality of an enactment by the Illinois General Assembly which excludes from the regulatory purview of the Illinois Pollution Control Board(the Board) noise emissions emanating from sporting events.The People of the State of Illinois, represented by the Attorney General, initiated this action in March, 1976, by filing with the Board a complaint against Santa Fe Park Enterprises, Inc.(Santa Fe), a corporation owning and operating a motor racing facility, alleging that Santa Fe had violated through certain noise emissions section 24 of the Environmental Protection Act(Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1024) and Pollution Control Board Rule 102(35 Ill.Adm.Code 900.102.)

During the pendency of this proceeding, the Illinois General Assembly, on two separate occasions, enacted legislation intended to remove from the Board's jurisdiction complaints concerning noise emissions from sporting events, and particularly to prohibit enforcement of the Board's noise regulations applicable to motor sports facilities.When the first exemption statute became effective in October, 1978, the Board dismissed the instant complaint and the Attorney General appealed.In that case, People v. Pollution Control Board(1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 802, 38 Ill.Dec. 928, 404 N.E.2d 352, this court held the exemption statute unconstitutional as an improper delegation of law-making powers and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

In September, 1981, the General Assembly enacted P.A. 82-654, the statute involved in the instant appeal.P.A. 82-654 served to exclude from the Board's regulatory purview "organized amateur or professional sporting activity", which includes "motor sports."Thereafter, on September 23, 1983, the Board issued an order wherein it declared that P.A. 82-654 amounted to an unreasonable limitation of the Illinois Constitution's article XI, section 2 right to a healthful environment, and thus was unconstitutional.Santa Fe then, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308(87 Ill.2d R. 308) filed application for an interlocutory appeal to this court raising the following certified question of law on appeal:

"Whether the Board correctly determined that Public Act 82-654 is a constitutionally impermissible legislative enactment."

The source of law which gives rise to the instant dispute is found in article XI of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.(Ill.Const.1970, art. XI.)Article XI provides:

Section 1.

Public Policy--Legislative Responsibility

The public policy of the State and the duty of each person is to provide and maintain a healthful environment for the benefit of this and future generations.The General Assembly shall provide by law for the implementation and enforcement of this public policy.

Section 2.

Rights of Individuals

Each person has the right to a healthful environment.Each person may enforce this right against any party, governmental or private, through appropriate legal proceedings subject to reasonable limitation and regulation as the General Assembly may provide by law.

In order to implement the public policy to provide and maintain a healthful environment, the General Assembly enacted the Environmental Protection Act("EPA").(Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1001 et seq.)The EPA provides for the creation of the Pollution Control Board to define and regulate the environmental control standards for the State.(Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1005.)Further, the Board derives its jurisdiction to entertain complaints such as the original complaint from Section 24 of the EPA which states:

"No person shall emit beyond the boundaries of his property any noise that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life or with any lawful business or activity, so as to violate any regulation or standard adopted by the Board under this Act."Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1024.

The Board's noise regulations, which directly form the basis for the instant complaint, were established pursuant to Section 25 of the EPA(Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1025) which reads in pertinent part:

"The Board ... may adopt regulations prescribing limitations on noise emissions beyond the boundaries of the property of any person and prescribing requirements and standards for equipment and procedures for monitoring noise and the collection, reporting and retention of data resulting from such monitoring.

The Board shall, by regulations under this Section, categorize the types and sources of noise emissions that unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life, or with any lawful business, or activity, and shall prescribe for each such category the maximum permissible limits on such noise emissions ..."

When enacted in 1981, P.A. 82-654 served to amend EPA Sections 25and3(v) so as to exclude certain sporting and entertaining events from the Board's noise regulations.P.A. 82-654amendedSection 25 to provide:

"... No Board standards for monitoring noise or regulations prescribing limitations on noise emissions shall apply to any organized amateur or professional sporting activities ..."(Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1025.)

P.A. 82-654 further amended Section 3(v) to define organized amateur or professional sporting activity as:

"[A]n activity or event carried out at a facility by persons who engaged in that activity as a business or for education, charity, or entertainment for the general public, including all necessary actions and activities associated with such an activity.This definition includes, but is not limited to skeet, trap, or shooting sports clubs in existence prior to January 1, 1975, organized motor sports, and sporting events organized or controlled by school districts, units of local government, state agencies, colleges, universities or professional sports clubs offering exhibitions to the public."(Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1003(aa).)

As a result of these amendments, the Board in response to a constitutional challenge issued an order as follows:

"The Board finds that P.A. 82-654's removal of most sporting events noise from the purview of the act amounts to an unreasonable (as opposed to a permissibly reasonable) limitation of the Article XI, Section 2 enforcement of the right to a healthful environment.Deletion of the sole statutory cause of action when coupled with elimination of the Board Forum, which can provide speedier and less costly adjudication than can most overburdened circuit courts, renders the right to combat this type of noise pollution virtually meaningless."

On appeal Santa Fe contends that this court should reverse and vacate the order of the Board for either of two reasons.First, Santa Fe argues that the Board is without authority to decide the constitutionality of the instant statute and thus the Board's order is void.Alternatively, Santa Fe argues that even if the Board can determine the constitutionality of P.A. 82-654, there is little doubt that P.A. 82-654 is a valid exercise of the General Assembly's legislative power.

With respect to Santa Fe's first argument on appeal, this court finds that we have jurisdiction and are in a position to decide the instant matter on its merits and therefore we believe it unnecessary to address the argument regarding the Board's authority.

It is fundamental that the Constitution is not regarded as a grant of powers to the legislative department, but every subject within the scope of civil government rests in the General Assembly unless inhibited by some constitutional provision.(Droste v. Kerner(1966), 34 Ill.2d 495, 217 N.E.2d 73.)Moreover, the General Assembly is presumed to have acted in a constitutional manner and its legislation may be overturned only if it is conclusively established to be arbitrary and unreasonable.(Laffoon v. Bell & Zoller Coal Co.(1976), 65 Ill.2d 437, 3 Ill.Dec. 715, 359 N.E.2d 125.)Neither the Board nor the Court may inquire into the wisdom and propriety of the legislature's act and cannot strike down an act because of a disagreement with the policy choice made by the legislature.The Court should not substitute its judgment for that of the General Assembly.Pozner v. Mauck(1978), 73 Ill.2d 250, 22 Ill.Dec. 727, 383 N.E.2d 203.

The intent of the framers of article XI of the 1970 Illinois Constitution is ascertainable through the committee comments and the recorded proceedings of the constitutional debates.The comments reveal that the pivotal point of article XI was standing:

"The Committee emphasizes that this Section affords individuals the opportunity to seek relief.It wants to be very clear that it does not by this Section(or by any Section in this Article for that matter) create or establish a new remedy.Nor does this Section assume the individual's ability to prove a violation of his right.It merely declares that individuals have 'STANDING' TO ASSERT VIOLATIONS OF HIS RIGHT."(ill.ann.stat.1970 const. art. XI, sec. 2, Constitutional Commentary, at 276(Smith-Hurd 1971).)

Furthermore, Chairman McCracken indicated that the Committee did not intend article XI to create any new substantive rights, it merely intended to create standing for individuals to represent the public interest.(4 Record of Proceedings, 6th Illinois Constitutionat 3008, 3014(1970).)Expanding on the concept of standing, the Committee stated:

"Because the wrong here has reached crisis...