The Village of Wilsonville et al. v. SCA Services, Inc.
86 Ill. 2d 1, 426 N.E.2d 824 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may enjoin the operation of a hazardous waste landfill as a prospective public and private nuisance if there is a high probability that it will cause substantial future harm, even if the facility is operating under a government permit. In such cases, the public benefit of the facility does not outweigh the unreasonable interference with individual rights to health and safety.
Facts:
- In 1977, SCA Services, Inc. (the defendant) began operating a 130-acre hazardous chemical waste landfill, with a majority of the site located within the village limits of Wilsonville.
- The landfill was situated directly above an abandoned, tunneled coal mine, creating a significant risk of ground subsidence that could compromise the integrity of the landfill's trenches.
- The defendant disposed of large quantities of highly toxic chemical wastes, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), cyanide, arsenic, and mercury, which were stored in 55-gallon steel drums and paper bags.
- Expert testimony indicated that the soil at the site was more permeable than the defendant had represented and than state standards recommended, creating a risk of chemical migration into the groundwater.
- During operations, residents experienced noxious odors, airborne dust, and spills of toxic liquids from trucks traveling on village streets.
- Evidence showed that many drums arrived at the site already leaking or rusting, and were sometimes dropped into trenches rather than being carefully placed.
- Expert witnesses for the plaintiffs testified that due to the site's geology and the nature of the chemicals, there was a high probability of future harm from subsidence, chemical migration (the "bathtub effect"), and explosive chemical interactions.
Procedural Posture:
- The Village of Wilsonville filed a complaint against SCA Services, Inc. in the circuit court of Macoupin County (trial court), seeking to enjoin the operation of its chemical waste landfill.
- Macoupin County, the Macoupin County Farm Bureau, and the Illinois Attorney General joined the lawsuit, which was consolidated for trial.
- Following a 104-day bench trial, the trial court found the landfill constituted a public and private nuisance.
- The trial court issued a permanent injunction ordering SCA Services, Inc. to cease operations, remove all toxic waste and contaminated soil, and restore the site.
- SCA Services, Inc. (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District.
- The Appellate Court unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois granted the defendant's petition for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state-permitted hazardous chemical waste landfill constitute an enjoinable public and private nuisance where evidence shows it is highly probable that it will cause substantial future harm to the surrounding community, even if that harm has not yet occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Clark
Yes. A state-permitted hazardous chemical waste landfill constitutes an enjoinable public and private nuisance when it is highly probable that its operation will lead to substantial future injury. The court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, finding that the trial court's factual conclusions—that the site was geologically unsuitable and posed a serious threat of chemical contamination through subsidence and migration—were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court held that it does not have to wait for an environmental catastrophe to occur before granting injunctive relief; a high probability of future harm is sufficient. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial court properly balanced the equities, concluding that the defendant’s right to operate a necessary business did not outweigh the community's right to be free from the substantial and unreasonable interference posed by an imminently hazardous operation in an unsafe location. The permits issued by the IEPA did not shield the defendant from nuisance liability because those permits were based on inaccurate data provided by the defendant.
Concurring - Justice Ryan
Yes. The author agreed with the majority's conclusion and reasoning but wrote separately to propose a more flexible standard for enjoining prospective nuisances involving ultrahazardous activities. He advocated for a balancing test where the required probability of harm is inversely related to the severity of the potential harm. Under this approach, if the potential harm is catastrophic, a court of equity should be able to grant an injunction even if the probability of the harm occurring is less than certain or highly probable. A court should not have to wait until a community is on the brink of certain disaster to provide relief from an extremely dangerous activity.
Analysis:
This landmark environmental law decision establishes that compliance with regulatory permits does not provide a complete defense against a common law nuisance claim. The ruling empowers courts to intervene and prevent future environmental harm by enjoining dangerous activities before a catastrophe occurs, based on a high probability of substantial injury. It solidifies the principle that the specific location and geology of a hazardous waste site are paramount, and that a community's right to health and safety can outweigh the asserted economic utility of a dangerous facility. The case serves as a powerful precedent for citizens' groups seeking to challenge environmentally hazardous facilities, even those with governmental approval, by demonstrating a significant risk of future harm.
