Town of Cicero v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
976 N.E.2d 400
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act (Act) created the District to provide a common outlet for sewage and to manage floodwaters, including the main channel (Sanitary and Ship Canal) reversing Chicago River flow.
- Section 19 imposes strict liability for damages to property caused by construction, enlargement, or use of channels or other improvements, with notice-based attorney fees provision, intended to compensate downstream property damaged by the main channel.
- Historically, the main channel was built to address contamination of Lake Michigan and to dilute sewage, with anticipated flooding in river valleys; damages from such construction were contemplated.
- In 2010 Cicero alleged the District caused or failed to prevent backup flooding and sought damages under §19 and equitable relief.
- The circuit court dismissed counts seeking accountability, injunctive relief, and damages; Cicero amended to replead count II for equitable relief and to preserve §19 claim.
- The court ultimately held that §19 does not apply to damages from heavy rainfall-induced backups, and that equitable relief claims failed for lack of a recognized underlying action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §19 authorize damages for flooding from heavy rainfall not caused by main channel construction? | Cicero contends §19 covers water-related damages to property. | District argues §19 only compensates downstream damages from main channel construction. | No; §19 does not apply to heavy rainfall backups. |
| Does Cicero have a viable claim for equitable relief to compel District coordination in anticipation of rainfall? | Cicero seeks an injunction requiring communication and preemptive action. | Act does not confer a right to such coordination or equitable relief. | Count II properly dismissed; no underlying right or action supports equitable relief. |
| Was the §19 claim derivative of the District's construction-era damages, or could it extend to modern wastewater control actions? | Cicero argues broad application of §19 to current systems and backups. | §19 targets main channel construction damages, not contemporary backflows. | Court construes §19 as limited to construction-related damages, not modern backups. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 238 Ill. 258 (1909) (establishes background on main channel and dilution of sewage; defines scope of §19)
- Gentleman v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 260 Ill. 317 (1913) (discusses §19 liability and public benefit vs. downstream damages)
- Pineschi v. Rock River Water Reclamation District, 346 Ill. App. 3d 719 (2004) (second district on §19 applicability to maintenance/repair context)
- Jones v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 265 Ill. 98 (1914) (recognizes strict liability under §19 for damages)
- Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network v. National Union Fire Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 398 Ill. App. 3d 710 (2010) (standard for reviewing 2-615 dismissals and de novo statutory interpretation)
- Beretta U.S.A. Corp. v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 351 (2004) (injunctions require underlying merits; remedies are not standalone actions)
- Green v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 238 Ill. 258 (1909) (historic interpretation of main channel scope and §19)