Village Of Wilsonville v. Sca Serv., Inc.

426 N.E.2d 824 (1981)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On February 11, 1976, D applied to the IEPA for a permit to develop and operate the hazardous-waste landfill. A developmental permit was issued by the IEPA on May 19, 1976. D operated a chemical-waste landfill since 1977 comprising 130 acres, 90 of which are within the village limits of the Village (P). The remaining 40 acres are adjacent to P. After a pre-operation inspection was conducted by the IEPA, an operational permit was issued to the defendant on September 28, 1976. Each delivery of waste material to the site must be accompanied by a supplemental permit issued by the IEPA. There are seven trenches at the site. Each one is approximately 15 feet deep, 50 feet wide, and 250 to 350 feet long. Approximately 95% of the waste materials were buried in 55-gallon steel drums, and the remainder is contained in double-wall paper bags. After the materials are deposited in the trenches, uncompacted clay is placed between groups of containers and a minimum of one foot of clay is placed between the top drum and the top clay level of the trench. P et al. sought injunctive relief against the operation of the D's chemical-waste-disposal site in that it was a public nuisance and a hazard to the health of the citizens of the village, the county, and the State. The trial was for 104 days and resulted in judgment for P. The trial court's judgment order concluded that the site constitutes a nuisance and enjoined D from operating its hazardous-chemical-waste landfill in Wilsonville. It ordered D to remove all toxic waste buried there, along with all contaminated soil found at the disposal site as a result of the operation of the landfill and to restore and reclaim the site. D appealed: (1) whether the finding of the circuit and appellate courts that the waste-disposal site is a prospective nuisance is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) whether those courts applied the wrong legal standard in finding that the waste-disposal site constitutes a prospective nuisance; (3) whether the circuit and appellate courts erred in failing to balance the equities, either in finding a prospective nuisance or in fashioning relief; (4) whether the court erred in failing to defer to, or to otherwise weigh, the role of the IEPA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS); (5) whether the court erred in finding that plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law; (6) whether the court erred in ordering a mandatory injunction; and, finally, (7) whether the courts' decisions constituted a taking of property without due process of law.