Judicial Rulings

The City of Chicago, Appellee, v. The Pollution Control Board et al.. Appellants. Decided November 1974

THE CITY of Chicago, a home-rule unit, must comply with the Environmental Protection Act and its accompanying rules when performing its governmental function of collection and disposal of garbage, according to the Illinois Supreme Court's decision which reversed the judgments of the circuit court of Cook County.

The case involved four complaints filed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against Chicago before the Pollution Control Board (PCB).

The issue was whether Chicago, as a home-rule unit, had to comply with the state Environmental Protection Act and its accompanying rules. The city contended that Article VII (local government) of the Illinois Constitution had grunted it home-rule powers and these included the collection and disposal of garbage. The city also argued that the General Assembly had not acted under Article Vll to restrict the city's exercise of this home-rule power.

The EPA and PCB argued that exclusive legislative authority in the areas of environmental protection and pollution control is vested in the General Assembly by section 1 of Article XI (the environment article) of the Constitution, and thus, they argued, the home-rule powers granted by Article VII are limited. The EPA and PCB also contended that the state has preempted the area of environmental and pollution matters in the Environmental Protection Act. But, if home-rule units do have the authority to act in these areas, the state has concurrent authority, they argued.

The Court did not agree that the Constitution had vested exclusive authority in the General Assembly in environmental and pollution matters. Reading the documents of the Constitutional Convention, the Court said that "it was the intention of that committee [General Government] that the General Assembly must provide the leadership in the fight against environmental pollution (6 Record of Proceedings, Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention 696-709).... However, the report does not in- dicate the exclusivity of State authority in this field."

Justice Ryan, writing the Court's opinion. states, "It was not the intention of the committee that the local government units be prohibited from acting in this field. It was instead the intention of the committee that under the leadership of the General Assembly the intergovernmental efforts complement one another."

Continuing on the question of home-rule powers, the Court states that the indications from the Local Governmental Committee are that "If the State legislates but does not express exclusivity, local governmental units retain the power to act concurrently, subject to limitations provided by law."

The law in this instance is the Environmental Protection Act, but it does provide that it is "the obligation of the State Government to encourage and assist local governments to adopt and implement environmental-protection programs consistent with this Act'" (section 2(a) (iv) III Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1002 (a)(iv)

The Court concludes that the local governmental unit may legislate concurrently with the General Assembly on environmental control, but, that a ,local governmental unit must conform with the minimum standards established by the legislature.

The opinion cites Section 9 of the transition schedule of the 1970 Constitution which states:

"All laws, ordinances, regulations and rules of court not contrary to, or inconsistent with, the provisions of this Constitution shall remain in force, until they shall expire by their own limitation or shall be altered or repealed pursuant to this Constitution."

60/Illinois Issues/February 1975