so by way of background the property at issue in this case is a piece of property owned by my client landfill which is located in the wake county illinois near the city of clay it's being developed for uses a in november of last year the muhammad valley water authority resolved in a special meeting of support of trustees to contest c allies permit application leading up to that point see a line it's attorneys ha legislature specific to forty four well your honor to take it to what might seem an unreasonable conclusion but nevertheless let's say there's a divorce case that the mahanta valley water authority has an opinion about it clearly does not have the statutory authority to express whether what it thinks about the divorce  been an ongoing theme throughout the briefing which is the question of when and when is it appropriate to challenge the intention or the future activities of this government's life the position that's been taken by the hum of delhi water for you think that our prevent them from filing such a report was not right but then the moment that they filed it our action became that's not the law under the to clarify adjustment act we feel quite comfortable but when they resolved in november of two thousand to contest the power that they expressed their intention as a body as a governmental entity to take this action and then they in fact set about doing just wrong under dillon's where we go to the to the statute the constitution we look and see is there any expressed great story well clearly there's no it would have been amazing if the legislature had thought well we can give them the power to intervene and us e p a proceedings so of course it's not going to get it right so the next question is is there something in the act that would support a finding that the legislature intended that and if you like this have the power to take the actions that it seeking to take and that's really where we get into a discussion of what the what the purpose what the what the job is of a water authority in the state of illinois and that's been briefed again extensively by both parties but the only part of the act that either party has really highlighted that could possibly the right to have some sort of general lee's power or general power for them to actually the public good  no it's a price i'm sorry i have a cold but if you can't understand me just tell me to rephrase so it's a partial sentence it's incomplete it doesn't it hangs there in the middle of the statute and it's pretty clear why czar before they can render an opinion about something or some concern to their entity that has the specific statutory authority to underpin it's say this is not a good idea justin's rule they're not really limited to just things that are expressed here it's they have it's necessary powers that are intended to be effectuated their purpose so the question that with that we're left with really is what is the a so and in the i p a is in acting of legislation there's substantial background and there's substantial support for the position that the legislature intended that there be a humidifier and system a unified state wide system because they're interfering with our process we don't know what it's what frankly your honor we don't know if their decision if they're in their opinion is going to have a have an enormous impact or not i  to say this well this whole idea of stifling just teach strikes me as very problematic well it's too soon to elaborate on that a little i don't think there's a thing preventing the individual trustees in place and it permits the construction of the new cell to the landfill and so on and proves the projects are generally but the i p a does not have the authority to approve the specific composition of ways that we're seeking to  point system because they don't even regulate this area that's true i mean in so far as we're concerned about state agency my focus on me i mean i yeah is that if we're concerned about what  a second i need to based upon only if we weren't you were at your request here here say the trial court erred by not joining the mohammed valley water authority from expressing your view what then this is more equivalent to the cases where there is improper result there's improper actions that are taken by various public and and individuals have to stand up their rights and ask that governments might be restrained in some way from doing something that first just as you were asking about the process i want to address that a little bit i realize the record is a little light on this point i think that's a result of the procedural posture of this case raise a case hasn't gone to trial yet so in the event that something i miss please feel free to correct that it's not meant to mislead the court at all the process as i understand it the i p a issues a permit to switch the purpose of the landfill or what the landfill is allowed to do from residential ways to industrial waste that was the point of my cation it was requested by clinton and full that has been granted by p a there is a separate process regulated by us e p a exclusively related to the type of waste that's fifteen us c i believe it's twenty six hundred it's the tax acceptance control act my understanding of the act is there actually fewer than fifteen landfills in the country i believe that can except that type of waste product that is why it is highly regulated by us e p a and not simply left to itas she will from it or that process so hopefully that addresses a little bit about the process as far as leaving it to i p a to take a and is i totally separate matter from actually issuing an ordinance will there be an argument if an ordinance were issued perhaps that would just depend on the language of ordinance it would depend on the statutory interpretation and how the water authorities act interacts with  even to the extent of the right issue and the reason there is concern about that is as explained to the trial court there's a question of fact about what exactly i'm home value water authority intends to do it is not clear that the belly wire three intends to oppose this permit application since the filing of this appeal the depositions of the three board members have been taken to a person they've all stated under oath we just want more information and if you look at the letter that was sent to us the p a from the engineer the behind the valley water three higher it's full of questions we need more information in order to form an informed opinion about whether we want to object to this probe application at this point hundred valley water authority doesn't know that's why there's a rightness issue so perhaps they will want to annex express an opinion in opposition that's entirely possible and if that comes to pass then there is nothing in the statute that makes that inappropriate or improper in fact if you look at section twenty four others saying they're trying to enjoin something that hasn't even been decided oh yes your honor and that's why we're saying this is not a right issue it needs there needs to be a decision first there hasn't been a decision yet and when i say there needs to be a decision i mean by muhammad ali water authorities were members need to make a decision whether or not they want to object to a permit application that  application has not received pulmonary approval from us u p a u s e p a has had on someone's desk for at least two years there's been no preliminary approval it is only after preliminary approval is granted that the public comment period opens for us the p a at that point that would be when the mahanta valley water authority would offer an opinion to the extent that it elects to object it hasn't made that decision yet but we're not authority has met and as you've seen from the record there are minutes from the water authority meetings that state we have decided to object to this process that's why the testimony becomes important because the individual were members have all testified now it was in artfully drafted the way the minutes were drafted these aren't attorneys they weren't contemplating what acacia they drafted it their purpose was to look into this process and make a determination about whether they wanted to object but more important than at is that if they wanted to object the statute gives them the ability to do that and that's in section twenty four of the statute the statute section twenty four states of the seventy i l c s thirty seven fifteen twenty four for the protection of public health as applied to the water authority it states to make the worth what he can quote to make such regulations as it deems necessary to protect public health welfare and safety and to prevent pollution of its water supply the water authority is concerned about wanting to you water in its district here if the water in the district is polluted there is obviously a concern about quantity and you can see the authorities responsibilities e a that process exists in the daylight that process exists so the citizens who live within the water authority have the right to offer their opinions expressed their concerns and investigate what is going on that could potentially affect their water supply it makes no sense it defies logic as you suggested rather that the water authority responsible for the quantity of water in that district would have the same right if the individual board members would have in expressing an opinion again if they tried to enact some sort of words that would potentially be a preemption problem that this court would have to determine that's not what we have here at this point more it's all for greed because the water authorities minutes are public as your honor asked and apparently someone affiliated with clinton landfill learned that the water authority was interested in investigating her busybodies everywhere  were no appeal from the denial of that filner injunction this case would already have been decided on its merits it was set for trial on november first and the circuit court elected not to proceed with the merits of the trial because this preliminary injunction was pending i found nothing that suggests that a governmental entity does not have the right to offer combat related to an application for employment if this credit is no further questions i believe that that if i may i'd like to first address a point that counsel made when she when she read from the statute she had a little trouble quoting directly from section twenty four because section twenty four doesn't say the water authority cannot do something it says quote to make such regulation starts in the middle well gosh that's exactly the same format as the prior sections hearing if they were really sure it is seventy i'll s if they want to contest it we believe them and you know your honor to address just briefly a question of whether this is open but this is something that we could get ahead of because really that's what we need to do we didn't know that they were going to file this report sixteen page engineering report that they filed with the u s u k they didn't need board of trustees approval to do that so there's no sign of that in the minutes that was done by the attorneys and by the engineers so similarly we don't necessarily have a head from the port of trustees on what are essentially litigation decisions or strategic decisions being made internally by by the board of trustees further as is clear in the in the in the minutes itself themselves  went into legislative session to decide when to close session to discuss the question of whether to become involved in contesting the permit application again so this isn't really a fully open process where you know everything that the board knows and  can keep up to date and we know what their thinking is what's in their minds frankly as counsel and stated this is to a small businessman and to farmers they probably don't understand what the nuances are are they are of this until they are actually instructed how the process works and given advice to go forward as a practical matter we would never have the opportunity to cut off an intervention between the don't have to guess what they're thinking and what they're going to do next when they have taken a strong position and stated what their intentions are they are going to contest land in landfills permit application did they do that  same grounds i believe we can now the question is whether it's appropriate to have a governmental body clothed in the in the garb of its authority as a governmental body speaking for the public interfering with and participating in processes which it is not empowered to to participate in council made the point that the individual trustees could take these actions and i can see that if it's equivalent if it's just exactly the same then why