Village of Wilsonville v. SCA Services, Inc.

Decision Date21 September 1979
Docket Number15081,Nos. 15080,s. 15080
Citation77 Ill.App.3d 618,33 Ill.Dec. 163,396 N.E.2d 552
Parties, 33 Ill.Dec. 163, 13 ERC 1809, 10 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,195 VILLAGE OF WILSONVILLE, Illinois, County of Macoupin and Macoupin County Farm Bureau, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SCA SERVICES, INC., successors in interest to Earthline Corporation, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. William J. Scott, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. SCA SERVICES, INC., successors in interest to Earthline Corporation, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Fred C. Prillaman, Mohan, Alewelt & Prillaman, Springfield, Stuart Dobbs, Denby, Dobbs & Meno, Carlinville, William C. Brashares, and Melvin J. Duvall, Jr., Cladouhos & Brashares, Washington, D. C., Lawrence C. Hutchings, Boston, Mass., for defendant-appellant.

Paul C. Verticchio, Gillespie, Kenneth R. Boyle, State's Atty., Carlinville, William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., State of Illinois, Springfield, for plaintiffs-appellees; Ann L. Carr, A. L. Zimmer, Springfield, Rick Verticchio, Gillespie, of counsel.

Dorothy A. Darrah, Atty., Water & Solid Waste Division, U. S. E. P. A., Washington, D. C., Mary Bryant Kodani, Asst. Regional Counsel, U. S. E. P. A., Region V, Chicago, for amicus curiae.

GREEN, Justice:

Defendant SCA Services, Inc., successor in interest to Earthline Corporation, appeals a judgment of the circuit court of Macoupin County entered in two consolidated cases enjoining it from continuing operation of a chemical hazardous waste landfill near Wilsonville in that county and ordering it (1) to remove all toxic waste buried there together with any contaminated dirt and (2) to restore and reclaim the site area. We have found the questions presented to be very difficult but conclude that the decision of the trial court was not erroneous. We affirm.

On April 18, 1977, plaintiff Village of Wilsonville (the Village) filed suit against defendant seeking injunctive relief. On April 29, 1977, and May 9, 1977, respectively, plaintiffs Macoupin County and Macoupin County Farm Bureau were granted leave to intervene and filed separate complaints making allegations and seeking relief similar to that of the Village. This case is our No. 15080. Our case No. 15081 arises from a somewhat similar complaint filed by the Attorney General on May 26, 1977. After various preliminary proceedings, the cases were consolidated for a bench trial which began on June 7, 1977, and culminated in the appealed judgment entered on August 28, 1978.

The general theme of the complaints was that the operation of the landfill and the transportation of hazardous substances to it constituted a common law nuisance and also brought about pollution as prohibited by the Environmental Protection Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 1111/2, pars. 1001 Et seq.).

The difficult decisions involved in this case are of considerable public importance. The need for a proper method of disposal of hazardous chemicals is not disputed. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has licensed defendant to operate the landfill and to receive the substances which are being buried there. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has been permitted to file an Amicus curiae brief which sets forth its need for the use of the landfill and requests that this need and that of the public for the use of the landfill be taken into consideration in our determination of "the remedy appropriate to abate any actionable harm that may exist." On the other hand, the great need for a proper place to bury these substances indicates that they are capable of causing substantial harm to people if not sufficiently contained. Plaintiffs and many persons living in the area are greatly concerned with the dangers involved and question the adequacy of the site for such a landfill and also the manner of its operation.

The conflicting considerations involved are reflected in the issues raised by defendant on appeal. It contends that (1) the trial court either lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with the case or should have deferred to the jurisdiction of administrative agencies under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; (2) that court's decisions that the site constituted an active nuisance and a prospective one were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; (3) the trial court committed reversible error in (a) basing its decision primarily on the theory that defendant's use of the site constituted a nuisance Per se, (b) failing to consider equitable factors favoring continuance of the operation of the landfill, (c) refusing defendant's motions for change of venue, and (d) ruling on various motions and evidentiary matters; and (4) the judgment amounted to a taking of its property without just compensation.

The landfill is located on 130 acres of land in and adjacent to the southern border of the Village. The site is surrounded on the west, south and east by farmland. The Village itself is also surrounded to the west, north and east by farmland. The entire site, the Village and much of the surrounding area is located above the now abandoned Superior Coal Mine No. 4, which operated from 1917 to 1954. The mine exploited the No. 6 seam, found in this area at a depth of 312 feet, using the room and panel method whereby about 50% Of the coal is left in pillars. The byproducts from the coal extraction and cleaning were dumped behind the mine buildings. That "gob pile" was more than 30 feet high and covered more than 30 acres. Its depth was unknown. About a foot of that same mine spoil covered the surface of the ground in random areas throughout the site.

The Village has no sewage treatment plant and no municipally owned sewage system. Most homes are served by septic tanks and some homes and businesses are connected to private sewers. The water distribution system is centralized and water is purchased from Gillespie. The system was built in 1952 after the Village tried unsuccessfully to find sufficient water by drilling municipal wells in the area. There are still 73 water wells in the Village, some of which are used to water gardens or wash cars. At least one well is used to water pets, and another is used for drinking water. South of defendant's site, approximately one-half mile from the gob pile, is the Vassi Spring, the owner of which intends to use it as his water supply when he builds his home. Further south are four more springs used to water livestock.

On February 11, 1976, defendant Earthline Corporation applied to IEPA for a permit to develop and operate a solid waste management site on the 130 acres. The original application included information on ground water, soil permeabilities, subsidence, and subsurface and hydrogeologic conditions. Additional information and revisions were also submitted. A developmental permit was issued May 19, 1976. On September 8, 1976, defendant applied to the IEPA for an operational permit, which was issued on September 28, 1976. Defendant was required to obtain separate supplemental permits from the IEPA for each waste sought to be buried at the site. Defendant had obtained 185 such permits prior to the first day of trial.

The existence under the mine spoil of stratas of tight clay was a principal reason for defendant's selection of the site for a landfill. The top strata extended to a depth of 10 to 12 feet. This was followed by a very thin layer of more permeable saturated clay called the Sangamon Paleosal. This layer was not continuous but existed in various places throughout the area. A strata of tight clay for an additional depth of more than 10 feet existed underneath the Paleosal.

Defendant dug trenches in the clay to a depth of 10 to 12 feet, a width of 50 feet and a length of 75 to 350 feet with a space of 10 feet between the trenches. The hazardous substances delivered to the site were placed in the trenches and covered with the clay dug from the trenches or, on at least one occasion, with soil from the "gob pile." By the time of trial, 7 trenches had been dug. Three had been completely filled while 2 were 2/3 full and the other 2 had not yet been used. Defendant operated in this manner, receiving and burying hazardous materials for which it had permits, from November 1, 1976, until closed by the order on appeal.

Before we consider the evidence of the geology of the site and defendant's method of operation we must pass upon defendant's assertion that the trial court either lacked jurisdiction to hear the case or, in the alternative, should have deferred to the concurrent jurisdiction of the administrative agencies, IEPA and the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB).

Defendant's theory that the trial court lacked jurisdiction is based upon analogy to the decisions in O'Connor v. City of Rockford (1972), 52 Ill.2d 360, 288 N.E.2d 432, and Carlson v. Village of Worth (1975), 62 Ill.2d 406, 343 N.E.2d 493. There the court held that non-home rule units of local government could not, by zoning or requiring permits, prohibit the operation of a landfill licensed by IEPA. The court's theory in those cases was that to permit a local unit to prevent the operation of a landfill by "locally empowered conditions" would negate the legislative intent of the Environmental Protection Act "to establish a unified, state-wide program supplemented by private remedies." Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 1111/2, par. 1002(b); Carlson, 62 Ill.2d 406, 416, 343 N.E.2d 493, 498-99.

The issue in the foregoing cases was the power to license and to zone as between the state agency and local units of government. Even as to that issue, the supreme court has held that there is a concurrent power in local units that have home rule power. (County of Cook v. John Sexton Contractors Co. (1979), 75 Ill.2d 494, 27 Ill.Dec. 489, 389 N.E.2d 553; City of Chicago v. Pollution Control Board (1974), 59 Ill.2d 484, 322 N.E.2d 11.) Here,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Village of Bensenville v. City of Chicago
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 7 Enero 2009
    ...not displace the judiciary's equitable powers in these circumstances. Such is the lesson of Village of Wilsonville v. SCA Services, Inc., 77 Ill.App.3d 618, 33 Ill.Dec. 163, 396 N.E.2d 552 (1979), where a municipality and a county sued to enjoin the operation of a newly operational landfill......
  • Chappell v. SCA Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • 3 Mayo 1982
    ...Court for the Fourth District and the Illinois Supreme Court have affirmed the trial court's judgment. See 77 Ill.App.3d 618, 33 Ill.Dec. 163, 396 N.E.2d 552 (1979); 86 Ill.2d 1, 55 Ill. Dec. 499, 426 N.E.2d 824 (1981), The instant action was filed to recover damages which have accrued as a......
  • Village of Wilsonville v. SCA Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 22 Mayo 1981
    ...The defendant appealed. The Appellate Court for the Fourth District unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment. (77 Ill.App.3d 618, 33 Ill.Dec. 163, 396 N.E.2d 552.) We allowed the defendant's petition for leave to appeal. (73 Ill.2d R. 315.) We The record in this matter is over 13,000......
  • Getto v. City of Chicago
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 19 Octubre 1979
    ... ... [77 Ill.2d 350] the transmission of messages, * * * and for all services rendered in connection therewith valued in money, whether received in ... Citing Vause & Striegel, Inc. v. McKibbin (1942), 379 Ill. 169, 39 N.E.2d 1006 and Agron v. Illinois ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • State Citizen Suits, Standing, and the Underutilization of State Environmental Law
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 52-6, June 2022
    • 1 Junio 2022
    ...locations, to test the waste, and to deposit the waste in steel drums buried in 221. Village of Wilsonville v. SCA Servs., Inc., 396 N.E.2d 552, 556, 10 ELR 20195 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979), af’d and remanded , 426 N.E.2d 824, 11 ELR 20698 (Ill. 1981): We are painfully aware of the lack of expert......
  • CHAPTER 9 EVOLVING ISSUES IN TOXIC TORT LAW: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN CLEAN-UP IS NOT ENOUGH?
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Environmental Considerations in Natural Resource and Real Property Transactions (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment of a person's property-related rights. Village of Wilsonville v. S.C.A. Services, 77 Ill.App.3d 618, 396 N.E. 2d 552 (1979), aff'd 82 Ill. 2d 1, 426 N.E. 2d 824 (1981) (operation of a hazardous waste). Federal and state governments, as well a......

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