Illinois Compiled Statutes
415 ILCS 5/33 (2026)
Board orders
✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: 415 ILCS 5/33 (2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(415 ILCS 5/33)
(from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 1033)
Sec. 33.
Board orders.
(a) After due consideration of the written and oral
statements, the testimony and arguments that shall be submitted at the
hearing, or upon default in appearance of the respondent on return day
specified in the notice, the Board shall issue and enter such final order,
or make such final determination, as it shall deem appropriate under the
circumstances. It shall not be a defense to findings of violations of the
provisions of this Act, any rule or regulation adopted under this Act,
any permit or term or condition of a permit, or any Board order, or a bar to
the assessment of
civil penalties that the person has come into compliance subsequent to the
violation, except where such action is barred by any applicable State or
federal statute of limitation. In all such matters the Board shall file and
publish a written opinion stating the facts and reasons leading to its
decision. The Board shall immediately notify the respondent of such order
in writing by registered mail.
(b) Such order may include a direction to cease and desist from
violations of this Act, any rule or regulation adopted under this Act,
any permit or term or condition of a permit, or any Board order, and/or the imposition by the Board of civil
penalties in accord with Section 42 of this Act. The Board may also
revoke the permit as a penalty for violation. If such order includes a
reasonable delay during which to correct a violation, the Board may require
the posting of sufficient performance bond or other security to assure the
correction of such violation within the time prescribed.
(c) In making its orders and determinations, the Board shall take
into consideration all the facts and circumstances bearing upon the
reasonableness of the emissions, discharges or deposits involved including,
but not limited to:
(i) the character and degree of injury to, or | interference with the protection of the health, general welfare and physical property of the people; |
(ii) the social and economic value of the pollution | source; |
(iii) the suitability or unsuitability of the | pollution source to the area in which it is located, including the question of priority of location in the area involved; |
(iv) the technical practicability and economic | reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions, discharges or deposits resulting from such pollution source; and |
(v) any subsequent compliance.
Whenever a proceeding before the Board may affect the right of the
public individually or collectively to the use of community sewer or water
facilities provided by a municipally owned or publicly regulated company,
the Board shall at least 30 days prior to the scheduled date of the first
hearing in such proceeding, give notice of the date, time, place, and
purpose of such hearing by public advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area of the State concerned. The Board shall conduct a
full and complete hearing into the social and economic impact which would
result from restriction or denial of the right to use such facilities and
allow all persons claiming an interest to intervene as parties and present
evidence of such social and economic impact.
(d) All orders issued and entered by the Board pursuant to this Section
shall be enforceable by injunction, mandamus, or other appropriate remedy,
in accordance with Section 42 of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 93-152, eff. 7-10-03.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: Roti v. LTD COMMODITIES
Roti v. LTD COMMODITIES (2005)
“*** (b) Such order may include a direction to cease and desist from violations of the Act or of the Board’s rules and regulations or of any permit or term or condition thereof, and/or the imposition by the Board of civil penalties in accord with Section 42 of this Act.”
Obasi v. Department of Professional Regulation (1994)
“In upholding the Environmental Protection Act’s penalty provisions and finding that those provisions did not violate the separation of powers provisions of the Illinois Constitution (Ill.”
ESG Watts, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1996)
“ANALYSIS Section 33(b) of the Act authorizes the Board to impose civil penalties for violations of "the Act or of the Board’s rules and regulations or of any permit or term or condition thereof *** in accord with Section 42 of this Act.”
Discovery South Group, Ltd. v. Pollution Control Board (1995)
“” 415 ILCS 5/33(a) (West 1992). Furthermore, to show "unreasonable interference” Matteson was not required to show that all of its citizens were affected or that those affected were affected to the same degree.”
Toyal America v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (2012)
“¶ 28 The Board then considered the factors set forth in section 33(c) and 42(h) of the Act in determining whether a civil penalty was warranted and, if so, what amount was reasonable (415 ILCS 5/33(c), 42(h) (West 2008)). With regard to section 33(c), the Board found that the…”
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (2008)
“” 415 ILCS 5/33(a) (West 2006). A final judgment has been defined as “a determination by the court on the issues presented by the pleadings which ascertains and fixes absolutely and finally the rights of the parties in the lawsuit.”
Park Crematory v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd. (1994)
“” (415 ILCS 5/33(c) (West 1992).) (Southern Illinois Asphalt, 60 Ill.”
In Re Bloomingdale Partners (1993)
“415 ILCS 5/33(b) (1993). But see O’Brien v.”
City of Morris v. Community Landfill Co. (2011)
“" 415 ILCS 5/33 (West 2008). ¶ 33 CLC's first argument that it had adequate financial assurance in place through the Frontier bonds is not supported by the evidence.”
People v. Ironhustler Excavating, Inc (2022)
“¶ 27 To determine whether to impose a penalty, the PCB is guided by the considerations set forth in section 33(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/33(c) (West 2018)). Southern Illinois Asphalt Co.”
The Belt Railway Company of Chicago v. Weglarz Hotel III, L.L.C. (2020)
“415 ILCS 5/33(b); see also 415 ILCS 5/42 (providing what fines may be imposed).”
City of Morris v. Community Landfill Company (2011)
“” 415 ILCS 5/33 (West 2008). ¶ 33 CLC’s first argument that it had adequate financial assurance in place through the Frontier bonds is not supported by the evidence.”
— 415 ILCS 5/33(a) — 2 cases
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (2008)
“” 415 ILCS 5/33(a) (West 2006). A final judgment has been defined as “a determination by the court on the issues presented by the pleadings which ascertains and fixes absolutely and finally the rights of the parties in the lawsuit.”
Discovery South Group, Ltd. v. Pollution Control Board (1995)
“” 415 ILCS 5/33(a) (West 1992). Furthermore, to show "unreasonable interference” Matteson was not required to show that all of its citizens were affected or that those affected were affected to the same degree.”
— 415 ILCS 5/33(b) — 6 cases
Obasi v. Department of Professional Regulation (1994)
“In upholding the Environmental Protection Act’s penalty provisions and finding that those provisions did not violate the separation of powers provisions of the Illinois Constitution (Ill.”
ESG Watts, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1996)
“ANALYSIS Section 33(b) of the Act authorizes the Board to impose civil penalties for violations of "the Act or of the Board’s rules and regulations or of any permit or term or condition thereof *** in accord with Section 42 of this Act.”
In Re Bloomingdale Partners (1993)
“415 ILCS 5/33(b) (1993). But see O’Brien v.”
City of Morris v. Community Landfill Co. (2011)
“" 415 ILCS 5/33 (West 2008). ¶ 33 CLC's first argument that it had adequate financial assurance in place through the Frontier bonds is not supported by the evidence.”
The Belt Railway Company of Chicago v. Weglarz Hotel III, L.L.C. (2020)
“415 ILCS 5/33(b); see also 415 ILCS 5/42 (providing what fines may be imposed).”
— 415 ILCS 5/33(c) — 9 cases
Roti v. LTD COMMODITIES (2005)
“*** (b) Such order may include a direction to cease and desist from violations of the Act or of the Board’s rules and regulations or of any permit or term or condition thereof, and/or the imposition by the Board of civil penalties in accord with Section 42 of this Act.”
Toyal America v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (2012)
“¶ 28 The Board then considered the factors set forth in section 33(c) and 42(h) of the Act in determining whether a civil penalty was warranted and, if so, what amount was reasonable (415 ILCS 5/33(c), 42(h) (West 2008)). With regard to section 33(c), the Board found that the…”
ESG Watts, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1996)
“ANALYSIS Section 33(b) of the Act authorizes the Board to impose civil penalties for violations of "the Act or of the Board’s rules and regulations or of any permit or term or condition thereof *** in accord with Section 42 of this Act.”
Park Crematory v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd. (1994)
“” (415 ILCS 5/33(c) (West 1992).) (Southern Illinois Asphalt, 60 Ill.”
Discovery South Group, Ltd. v. Pollution Control Board (1995)
“” 415 ILCS 5/33(a) (West 1992). Furthermore, to show "unreasonable interference” Matteson was not required to show that all of its citizens were affected or that those affected were affected to the same degree.”
— 415 ILCS 5/33(c)(i) — 1 case
People v. Ironhustler Excavating, Inc (2022)
“¶ 27 To determine whether to impose a penalty, the PCB is guided by the considerations set forth in section 33(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/33(c) (West 2018)). Southern Illinois Asphalt Co.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|