Quad Cities Waterkeeper v. Ballegeer

Decision Date26 March 2015
Docket NumberCase No. 4:12–cv–4075–SLD–JEH
Citation84 F.Supp.3d 848
PartiesQuad Cities Waterkeeper, an Illinois not for profit corporation, and Prairie Rivers Network, an Illinois not for profit corporation, Plaintiffs, v. David G. Ballegeer, an individual, Ballegeer Trucking, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Ballegeer Excavating, Inc., an Illinois corporation, and Francis Ballegeer, an individual, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois

Kevin Michael Cassidy, Lewis & Clark Law School, Norwell, MA, Albert F. Ettinger, Law Office of Albert Ettinger, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.

Jack L. Brooks, Jeffrey C. McDaniel, Peter Joseph Wenker, Brooks Law Firm, P.C., Rock Island, IL, for Defendants.



Plaintiffs Quad Cities Waterkeeper (Waterkeeper) and Prairie Rivers Network (Prairie Rivers) bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief and civil penalties under the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1). Plaintiffs claim that Defendants David G. Ballegeer, Ballegeer Trucking, Inc., Ballegeer Excavating, Inc., and Francis Ballegeer have violated and continue to violate the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 –1387, by discharging pollutants without a permit issued under the Act. Now before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment1 and three related motions. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 61, GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, ECF No. 81, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, ECF No. 84, and DENIES the parties' Joint Motion to Request Status Hearing, ECF No. 87.


Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from the parties' statements of material facts submitted in compliance with Rule 7.1(D) of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

I. The Parties and the Areas of the Green River Where CWA Violations Are Alleged to Have Occurred

Waterkeeper, a not-for-profit organization, was incorporated on November 13, 2009, in the State of Illinois. Certificate of Good Standing, ECF No. 83–1. Its purpose is to promote conservation of the Rock River and other bodies of water in the vicinity of the Quad Cities. Waterkeeper Bylaws at Art. 1, § 2, ECF No. 73–5. To that end, Waterkeeper monitors and investigates sources of pollution and undertakes litigation to protect and restore these bodies of water. Id . Waterkeeper's bylaws specify that it “shall have no members,” id. at Art. III, § 1, but that its governing body “shall be the Board of Directors ... and all rights which would otherwise rest in the members shall rest in the Board.” Id.

Prairie Rivers is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of Illinois. Kim Knowles Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 66. Founded in 1967, the corporation has more than 800 members who live in Illinois, including in Henry County. Id . Prairie Rivers' primary mission “is the protection of the rivers and streams of Illinois and the promotion of the lasting health and beauty of watershed communities.” Id . at 5. Prairie Rivers' membership is composed of individuals who provide support either by voluntary efforts or financial contributions, although the Board of Directors may add a member who has demonstrated an active commitment to waterway conservation. Prairie Rivers Network Bylaws at Art. III, Sec. 1, ECF No. 73–8.

The members of Waterkeeper and Prairie Rivers boat, fish, recreate in, and otherwise use and enjoy the lower Green River and the Rock River on a regular basis and have specific plans to return to that area in the future.2 Pls.' Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 6, ECF No. 61.

Prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiffs sent statutorily-required notice of intent letters to Defendants, Defendants' registered agents, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the regional Administrator of the EPA, and the Executive Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) regarding Defendants' alleged violations of the CWA. Parties' Joint Stipulation to Undisputed Material Facts (“JUMF”) at ¶ 30, ECF No. 37. Plaintiffs identify six sites along a section of the Green River where they claim Defendants discharged pollutants and engaged in illegal dredging activity.3 See Plaintiffs' Notice of Intent Letters, ECF No. 52.

David Ballegeer is the owner and operator of a trucking and excavation company, Ballegeer Excavating, Inc., which does business as Ballegeer Trucking, Inc. JUMF ¶¶ 1, 2. Francis Ballegeer owns several hundred acres of property that are directly adjacent to the Green River in Henry County, Illinois, id. at 3, including property north of the Green River that corresponds to Sites 1–5.4 The Green River is a water of the United States under the CWA. Id. at ¶ 11.

II. Alleged Illegal Activity on the Ballegeer Property

At some point after 1985, Francis Ballegeer asked David Ballegeer to bring concrete down to Francis's farm. JUMF at ¶ 3. Francis Ballegeer was aware of and authorized all of the activities that have occurred at Sites 1–5 since 1985 through the present day. Id. at ¶ 4. David and Francis Ballegeer have used an excavator to push concrete generated by Ballegeer Excavating, Inc. onto the banks of the Green River, id. at ¶¶ 7, 9, into the river channel, Pls.' SMF ¶ 3, ECF No. 61, and onto the river bed and bottom. Pls.' Mot. Summ. J. at 20. This concrete was previously used for driveways, garage floors, housing, and road pavement. JUMF at ¶¶ 6, 10. Most of the concrete added by the Defendants or their agents on the banks of the Green River below the ordinary high water mark remains there today, with the exception of several large slabs of concrete near Site 5 that were removed by David Ballegeer around March 2012. Id. at ¶ 16. Ballegeer Excavating, Inc., its agents, and David Ballegeer did not wait for no-or low-flow conditions on the Green River to discharge concrete and other materials on its banks below the ordinary high water mark. Id. at ¶ 23. Rather, Defendants and their agents would add concrete and other materials on the Green River's banks below the ordinary high water mark so long as the river was not flooding. Id. at ¶ 24. In the course of their activities at Sites 1–5, Defendants discharged dirt onto the Green River's banks down to the waterline that would be subject to erosion by expected high flows. Id. at ¶ 27.

Defendants did not seek nor did they receive written authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) prior to discharging concrete on the banks of the Green River below the ordinary high water mark. Id. at ¶ 17. Defendants did not and do not presently have an individual CWA Section 404 permit for any materials they discharged on the banks of the Green River below the ordinary high water mark. Id. at ¶¶ 19, 20. At no time did Defendants ever give pre-construction notification to the Corps regarding any of the activities that are the subject of this litigation. Id. at ¶ 20. During his March 7, 2012 on-site inspection, Corps employee Gene Walsh did not view Sites 1–5 from a boat or otherwise from the river, but only viewed the sites from the land. Id. at ¶ 32. Defendants have cut protruding rebar from concrete pieces on the banks of the Green River below the ordinary high water mark at the request of the Corps after the filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Id. at ¶ 29. As set forth in Section III. B. i. infra, David Ballegeer removed sand bars from the Green River at Site 3 with an excavator that had a bucket attached to the end of its boom. Defs.' UMF ¶¶ 18, 19. The parties dispute the nature and extent of the sand and other dredging materials which spilled from the bucket.


Defendants seek judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit. On the merits, Defendants contend that they are entitled to judgment as to the Third Claim of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint because their activities did not constitute the discharge of dredging-related pollutants without an authorizing permit. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have standing and a determination as to the First and Second Claims of their Amended Complaint that Defendants violated the Clean Water Act by discharging construction waste on the banks of and into the Green River without a permit.


Summary judgment is appropriate where there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) ; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Disputes regarding material facts are genuine where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Courts construe all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, id. at 261, 106 S.Ct. 2505, and draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmovant in deciding whether genuine issues of material fact exist. Id . at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. However, neither the “mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties,” id . at 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, nor the existence of “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), will defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.

The movant “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Elite Legacy Corp. v. Schvaneveldt
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • November 17, 2016
    ...Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal Dist ., 925 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. 1996) ; see also Quad Cities Waterkeeper v. Ballegeer , 84 F.Supp.3d 848, 858 (C.D. Ill. 2015). Thus, for example, minors, though they may have standing, "have no legal capacity to sue." Lee v. Gaufin , 867 P.2d ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT