Nos. 2-09-1283 & 2-10-0162 co ns. Fi le d: 12-22-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ HELPING OTHERS MAINTAIN ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ENVIRONM

ENTAL STANDA

RDS, ) o f Jo Da vie ss Co un t y. LEROY BEHRENS, L

AU REL B EHREN S, ) MA RY JO BUR

KE, J UA NITA CRO PPER, ) JEF FR EY GR AV ES, DEA N B. HI CK S, ) KA THLEEN M. HICKS, STEVE ) HOLESINGE R, WILL LIBERTON, LORI ) RUNK LE, an d RIC HA RD R UNK LE, )

) Pl ai ntif f s-A ppel l ees , ) ) v. ) No. 08-- CH--42 ) A.J . BOS, TR

AD ITIONS IN

VESTMENTS, ) LLC, a nd TH E DE PART MEN T OF ) AG RICU LTUR E, ) Ho no r ab le ) Kev in J. Ward, Defendan ts-Appellan

ts. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ HELPING OTHERS MAINTAIN ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ENVIRONM

ENTAL STANDA

RDS, ) o f Jo Da vie ss Co un t y. LEROY BEHRENS, L

AU REL B EHREN S, ) MA RY JO BUR

KE, J UA NITA CRO PPER, ) JEF FR EY GR AV ES, DEA N B. HI CK S, ) KA THLEEN M. HICKS, STEVE ) HOLESINGE R, WILL LIBERTON, LORI ) RUNK LE, an d RIC HA RD R UNK LE, )

) Pl ai ntif f s-A ppel l an ts, )

) v. ) No. 08-- CH--42 ) A.J . BOS, TR

AD ITIONS IN

VESTMENTS, ) LLC, a nd TH E DE PART MEN T OF )Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-2-

AG RICU LTUR E, ) Ho no r ab le ) Kev in J. Ward, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEBO WMA

N del i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Plai ntif fs, Helpi ng Others Ma i n ta in

Envi ronmental Standards (HOMES ), Lero y Beh rens, Laurel Behrens, Mary Jo Burke, Juanita Crop per, Jeffrey Graves, Dean B. Hi

cks, Kathl een M. Hicks, Steve Holesi

nger, Wi ll Li berton, Lori Runkl

e, and Ri chard Ru nk l e, s ough t to ha l t the con stru cti on of a " me gad ai

ry " by def endan ts A.J . Bos an

d Tradi tions In ve stm en ts, LL C (col

l ecti ve l y Bos). Pla int iff HOMES is

a not-for-pro fi

t cor porat ion that wasorganize d to oppose t he l iv estock facility's
co nst ru ct ion. Th e r ema ining p laint iffs are in div idua ls li vi ng i n the gen eral v ic in ity of the proposed dai ry i n N ora, Ill i

noi s. Af ter Bos obtai

ne d approval

f rom d ef endan t the De partm en t of A gricul ture (D ep ar tmen t) t o begin co nst ru ct ion, plaint iff s bro ught suit aga inst B os and t he De par t ment. The Dep ar t ment mov ed

to dism i ss th e c oun ts a gai n st i t, and i ts motion was gran

ted. Plai ntif fs obtaine d
a pre l i m i na ry i njun cti on a gai ns t Bos , ef f ec ti ve l y ha l ti ng con stru cti on of the li vestock faci

li ty, but they
were subse quently

deni ed a perm anen t inj unction. In

appeal No. 2-- 10--0162, plai

ntif fs argue th at: (1) they have standi

ng to seek judi

ci al review of the Departme

nt's approval

to begi n construction, (2) t he trial cou rt e rre d i n a n um b er of i ts e v i den ti ary ru lings , a nd ( 3) t he t ria l co ur t 's d enia l o f a per manent inju nc t io n is agains t t he m ani fest wei ght of the evi

dence. W e allowed the Il

li nois chapter of the Si erra Club , the Ill

in ois Counci

l of Trout Unl

im ited, and the Prai

rie R iv ers Network t o file

a joint am ic us curi ae bri ef i

n support of plai

ntif fs . In ap peal

No. 2- -09--1283, which has b een co nso li dated wit h p laint iffs' ap pe al, Bo s a r gu es t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in d en ying his mo t io n t o disso lvethe p r elimi

nar y injunct ion and t hat he is ent itled t o d amage s. We affirm the t rial co ur t 's j udgm en t in al l resp ects.Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

1 A mil king da i ry

cowis 1.4 ani ma l un its wh il e a y oung dai ry cow i s 0.6 ani

ma l un its. 510 ILCS 77/10 .10 (W

est 200 8). -3-

I. BACKG

ROUND A. Bos Obtai

ns Departm

ental Approval On Oc tob er 31 , 20 07 , B os f

i l ed wi th th e D ep ar

tmen t n oti ce s of

i n ten t t o c ons truct two li vestock manage ment faci

li ties. The proposed

dai ri eswere n

am ed "Tr adi ti on North " a

nd "Tr adi ti on So ut h" and w ere l

ocated i n N ora Towns

hi p, Jo Da vi ess Coun ty. Ea ch dai ry would ha

ve 6,8 5 0 "ani ma l un i ts" i n th e f orm of dairy cows and calves. 1 The Tradition Sou th dairy' s plans, as am ended, propo sed to use three liv

estock waste holdi

ng ponds, one wi

th dim ensi ons of 300 b

y 855 by 20 f eet; t he se con d 76 0 by 850 by 20 f ee t; a nd the thi rd 4 00 b y 400 by 20 f ee t. Bos so ught t he Dep ar t ment's app ro val of t he dai

ries pursuant to t he Li

vestock Managem

ent Faci li ties A ct (Livestock Act) (510 ILCS 77/1 et seq. (We st 2008 )). In accordance

wi th th e L i v estock A ct, th e D ep ar

tmen t se n t n oti ce of th e i n ten t to construct to th e Jo Da

v i es s C oun

ty Boa rd (B oard) , a

n d th e B oard r eq

ue ste d th at t he Departmen

t hold an in form ational me eting on the

pr opos ed

con st ruc t io n. Se e 5 10 I LC S 7 7/ 12 ( a) ( We st 20 08 ) ; 8 I ll. Ad m. Code §900.403 (Conway Green e CD-ROM

June 200 2) . At t he me eting, the Depa rtment was required to recei ve ev ide nce on the f

oll owing e igh

t sitin g criteri a: whether (1) regi st ra t ion and li vestock wast e m an ag em en t pl an certif i ca ti on re qui re men ts wer e m

et b y th e n oti ce of i n ten t to con str uc t; (2 ) t he de sign, loca t ion, or pr op os ed o per at ion wo uld p ro t ect t he enviro nment by being
co nsist ent wi

th th e L i ve stoc k Act; (3) the

l oca ti on mini mized inco mpat ibil

ity wit h t he area's ch

aracter by bei ng zoned f or agricul ture or co mplyi

ng wit h t he Livest oc k Act 's set back re quir ement s; (4 ) if the f ac i l i ty was in a 100-yea

rf l ood pl ai n or an en vi ron men tal l y sens i ti ve are a (d ef i ne d a s a ka rs t are a orNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-4-

wi th aq uif er m ateri al wi thi n f i ve f ee t of the bottom of the wa ste f ac i l i ty ), the p ropos ed

con stru cti on standards werecon

siste n t wi th pr ot ect ing t he ar ea's safet y; (5) t he o wner or op er at or submitt ed p lans to mi ni mi ze the like li

hood of envi

ronmen tal dam age fro m sp ills, r uno ff, an

d leach i ng ; ( 6) od or con trol plans were

re aso nable and in

corpo rated odo r reduction technologies; (7) tr aff ic patter ns m

in im iz ed t he eff ect on exi stin

g traffi c fl ow; an d ( 8) con str uc ti on of th e f ac i l i ty wa s c on siste

n t wi th com m un i ty grow th, tourism

, re cre ati on, oreco nomic de velop ment t hro ugh c omp liance wit h app licable zo ning
and setback requ

i rem en ts. 510 ILCS 77 /12(d)(We st 2008 ). The i nf orma tion al meeti ng took pl ace on Ja nua ry 10, 200 8, and the publi

c was all owed t o ask que st ions and m

ake comm

ents. See 510 ILCS 77/12(a) (West 2008). On Jan uary 31, 2008 , t he Jo Davies s Co unt y Develo pment and Pl an ni ng C omm i ttee voted to rec omm

end to the Boar

d t hat t he propo sed dai

ries did n ot me et all

ei ght si ting cri teria. On Feb ruary 11, 2008, t he Board found tha t five o f t he eig ht sit ing cr it er ia

had no t been met and vot ed 1 1 t o 5 t o r eco mmend t hat t he De par t ment not appro ve the dairies. See 510 I LCS 77/12(b) ( West 2008) ( the county b oard shall s ubm it an ad vis o ry, nonbi

ndi ng recomm

endati on to the Departmen t as to whether

t he pr opos ed

f ac i l i ty meets t he ei gh t si ti ng cri teri a). How ever, on

May 30 , 2 008 , t he De par t ment rule d t ha t it wa s " mo r e lik ely than not" that t he Li

vestockAct's provi si ons had b een met r ega rd ing t he T ra dit ion S ou t h facility, and it approved its construction. See 510 ILCS 77/12.1 (West 2008) (if the Departmen

t deter mi nesthat it is "m ore li ke l y th an n ot" th at t he Livest oc k Act 's pr ovisio ns have been met , c ons t ru ct ion o f the f ac i l i ty ma y proceed). Bos was sub je ct to in spection b

y the Departmen

t before, durin

g, and af ter co nst ru ct ion. 51 0 I LC S 7 7/ 13 ( g) ( We st 20 08 ) ; 8 I ll. A dm. Co de § 900 .5 05 ( Co nway Gr eene CDROM Jun e 200 2). Bos d

i d not su bs eque ntl y pursue ap

prova l of the Trad

i tion North f aci l i ty.Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

2 The dairy

site i s not

in a si nkhole area accordin

g to Map 8. -5- One of the m

ai n con troversi es su

rroundi ng the approval of the Tra

di tion So ut h d air y was whether it was i n a "karst area" un

der the Li vestockAct. The Li

vestock Act defi

nes "ka rst area" as "an area wi th a la nd surf ace contain

in g si nkholes, la

rge sprin gs, dis rupt ed l an d dr ainage , a nd unde rg ro und dr ain ag e s ys t ems ass oc iate d wit h kar st ifi ed c ar bona t e bed ro ck a nd ca ves o r a land surfac e wi

thout those features bu t co nt ain ing a k ar st ified ca r bo na t e b ed r o ck un it ge ne r ally o ve r lain by le ss than 60 f

eet of unconsolida

ted mat er ia ls ." 510 ILCS 77/10.24 (West 2008). "Karstif ie d
ca rb on ate b ed roc k" i s def

i n ed as "a ca rb on ate b ed roc k u n i t (l i meston e or

dol om i te) th at h a s a pr ono unce d co nduit or sec ond ar y por os ity du e t o d isso lut ion o f the ro ck a long j oi nts , f racture s, or bedd ingpla

in s." 510 ILCS 77/10.26 (West 2008). Under adm in is trat iv e regula tions, i f the " propo sed li vestock wa st e h an dlin g fa cilit y is t o be lo cat ed w ithi n a n a rea de si gnate d a s ' Si

nk hol e a rea s' on 'Karst Te rr ains and Ca rb o nat e R o ck s o f Il l i noi s' , ID NR-ISGS Ill in ois Map 8" 2 ( Ma p 8 ) , o rif so il
sam ple s f rom wit hin 20 feet of t he livest oc k wa st e hand ling facili t y bound ar ies indicat e t hat t he wa ste handling fac ilit y is in

a "k ar st ar ea, " ad dit ional inspe ct ions and tests are required (35 Il l. A dm. Code §§506 .302(b), (g ) ( Co nway Gr eene CD- ROM June 20 02 ) )
. I f a liv es t o ck wa st e h an dlin g fa cilit y is in a kar st a re a, th e w aste f

ac i l i ty m us t b e des i gn

ed to prevent seepage

of waste i nto gro undwater (510 ILCS 77/13(b)( 2) (West 20 08); 35 Ill. Adm. Co de §5 06. 312 (a ) ( Co nway Gr eene CD- ROM June 2002) ) and i s to be construct ed usi ng a ri gid m aterial such as concrete or steel (35 Ill . Adm . Code §506.3 12(b ), am

ended at 25 I ll. Reg. 14883, eff . Novemb er 15, 2001. However, t he f acili ty's owner oropera tor m ay re ce i v e th e D ep ar tmen t' s p er m i ss i on to "m odif y orexceed thes e standards i n order to meet si te specifi c obj ectives." 35 Il l. A

dmi n. Code §506.312(c), amended a t 25 Ill . Reg. 14883, eff. Novem

be r 15 , 20 01. In

such a s i tua ti on, the own er or ope rator must demo nst ra t e t hat t heNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-6-

m odif i ca ti on is at l east as protecti

ve of the groun

dwater, sur face w at er , a nd st ru ct ur al integ rit y of t he waste facil

ity as are the reg ulation's

requiremen

ts. 35 Ill . Adm . Code §506.312(c), am ended at 25 I ll. Reg. 1 4883, e f

f . Nove m ber 15, 20 01. No l

i v estock wa ste f ac i l i ty ma y b e constructed withi

n 400 feet of a natural depression i n a karst area . 510 I LCS 77/13(b)(2) (West 2008); 35 Ill . Adm . Code §506.3 02(g)(1 ) (Con

way Greene CD-R OM J une 2002)
. B. Pla int iffs F ile S uit On Ju ne 3, 2 008 , pl

ai nti f f s f i l ed a p eti ti on wi th th e D ep artm

en t, se ek i ng rec ons i de rati

on or a st ay of t he co nst ru ct ion ap pr ova l. The Dep ar t ment r esp ond ed t hat plaint iff s did no t have s t anding t o c hallenge it s ad mini

st ra t ive dec ision. Al so on Ju n e 3 , 20 08 , pl

ai n ti f f s f i l ed a f i v e- cou n t com pl ai n t ag ai n st defen dants i n the trial
cou rt. Count I was d irect ed a gainst bot h defend ant s. I t alleged individual plaint iff s' co ncer ns re gar ding gr ou nd

water c ontam

i na tion and ai r pol l uti on f rom th e f aci l i tie s. It al le ged that the bedrock unde rlying

and surroundi

ng the dai ry s ites was

ma de up of "Gal

ena Group Car

bonate Ro ck " wi

th karst fea t ur es , wh ic h

con sti tute d a ka rs t aq ui f er , m ea n i n g th at i t wa s h i gh l y su sc ep ti b l e to groundwater contami

nation b y the seepage of a

ni ma l waste. Count I alle ged that Bos 'sprop osed
wa ste han dli ng ponds were n

ot going to be constructedusi ng a ri gi d m ateri al such ascon cre te or st ee l, but ra

ther c omp acted s oil

, and woul

d theref ore l eak. It

further alleged t hat t he Livest oc k Act 's
re qui re men ts fo rmi nimu m setback distances from resi dences had not been m

et. See 510 ILCS 77/35(c) (West 20 08 ). C oun t I s oug h t a dec l arator

y j udgm en t th at the lives t o ck fac ilit ies we r e in vi ol ati on of the Li vestock Act; a decl

arator y judgme

nt that t he Departm

ent's deci si on that Tradi

ti on Sou th compl ie d with the Liv

estock Act wa s "unlawf ul, illegal and void "; and pr elimi nar y and permanen t inj unctions enj oini

ng Bos from construct in

g and operat in

g the li vestock facil

ities
.Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-7-

The remai ni ng counts were di

rected ag ain st Bo s. Co un t I I alle ge d p ub lic nu i sa nc e b as ed on nois e, of f en si ve odors , groun

dw ater con

tam i na ti on , in cr eas ed ve hicle tr affic, int er fere nce a nd
ann oyan ce im pai rin g the use o f pla int iffs' pr o pe rt y, in co nve nie nc e, inju ry t o he alt h, diminu t io n in pr operty v al ue s, an d dam ag e to the area's reputation. Count II further al le ged that t he da irie s w o uld
v i ol ate pla int iffs' st at e c o nst it ut io na l rig ht t o a h ea lt hfu l en vir o nme nt an d w o uld co nst it ut e p ub lic nui sances pur sua nt t o s t at ut e. Co unt II so ught an o rd er t empo ra rily rest ra ining Bos f rom pr oc eed ing wi th constr uction of the facil ities ; preli

mi nary an d permanent i

nj unctions enj oini

ng Bos f ro m constructing an

d operating the f

acili ties; and a decl

aration that the operat ion was a nuisance. Co unt III al l eg ed com mon -law pu b l i c n ui sa n ce an d c oun t IV al l eg ed com mon -law pri v ate nui sance. Both

sou gh t th e s am e r el i ef as cou n t II. Cou n t Vall eged common-law contin

uin g tr espass and co nt ain ed man y o f t he sa me all egations as the nuisan

ce count s. It also re qu es t ed t he s ame re lief, except t hat it request ed a declaration that t he operat ion was a continui ng trespass. Further on June 3, 2008, the trial court deni

ed pl ai ntif fs ' em ergency motion f or atem porary re st ra ining

order. On

Jun e 26, 2 008, p laint iffs fil ed a m ot ion reques

ting certiorari

re view o f the Dep ar t ment's adm

in is trat iv e deci si on al lowi

ng construction to begi

n on Tradi

tion Sout hand
re que st ing a st ay of co nst ru ct ion. On October 20, 2008, aft er co nduc t ing evid ent iar y hea ring s, t he t ria l co ur t gr ant ed pla int iffs
a preli mi nary i nj unction against Bo s. I t fou nd t hat all of t he wit nesse s t est ifi ed c re dibly at t he hea ring but t hat plai

ntif fs' wi tn es se s' testi mon y wa s m oredi re ctl y re l ate d to the is sue of wh ether a nui sance ort re sp as s w as likely t o st em fr o m t he o pe ra t io n o f t he T ra dit ion S ou t h dair y. In c ont ra st , B os 's witne sseswere interested p arties b ec au se t he y we r e e mplo yed by Bo s fo rt he pr o jec t , an d t he ir t est imony was dire ct ed mo re t ow ar d co mpliance wit h t he Livest oc k Ac t t han t he l i ke l i hood ofNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-8-

nu i sa nc e or tres

pa ss f rom t he facility's o per at ion. The trial court found that: plai

ntif fs had m ade a pr ima fac ie showi

ng of a f ai r question ab out the exi stence of th ei r c l ai med ri gh t n ot to b e s

ub j ec t to nui sance or t re spa ss by t he propo sed dai ry; groundwater con

tam i n ati on f rom th e p rop ose d f

ac i l i ty wo uld co nst itu t e a s ubst ant ial futu re har m; the facility pre sent ed a high pr oba bili t y of a p ublic and pri v ate n ui sa n ce b y cr ea ti n g a n en v i ron men t i n j uri ous to t he hea lth and welfar e o f sur ro unding citize ns and th e pub l i c a

t l arge ; pl ai n ti f f s th er ef oreh ad n o adeq ua te r eme dy a t law an d ir r ep ar ab le harm was like ly t o r esu lt w itho ut a pr elimi nar y injunct ion; t he circ umst ance s led t o a re aso nable be lief tha t plaint iff s wo uld be e nt itled t o t he reli ef s ought; and the b al ance of hardsh ips b etw een Bos ' s r i gh t to lawful use of his pr op er t y and t he hea lth and safet y of plaint iff s and t he pu blic favor ed t he is suance of a p r elim ina ry i n

j un ction. Bos was enj oine d from operating a "concen

trat ed propo sed l

iv estock manage ment fa cili t y" as def in ed by statut e, stablin

g more then 199co ws, and u sing any abo vegr ou nd or in -ground waste storage s

tructures or runof f hol di ng p onds f or li ve stock wa ste. On Decem ber 3, 2008, plai

ntif fs added count VI to their com pla in t. Co unt VI was di

rected at bot h defend ant s and so ught decl aratory j udg men ts th at the Tradi

ti on S outh

dai ry : was i n v i ol ati on of the Environm

ental Prot ection Act (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (We st 2008 )), the Ill in ois Groundwater Prote cti on Act (415 ILCS 55/1 et seq. (We st 2008 )), and the Li vestock Act and woul d constitute a pu blic nui sance. Pl

ai ntif fs further sought a dec la

rat ion t hat t he De par t ment's dec ision allow ing
con stru cti on of t he facility was "unlaw ful, illegal and vo id." Plaint iff s also re que st ed p re lim

inary and permanen t inj unctions enj oini

ng Bos from construct in

g and operat in

g the facil ities
. On De cem be r 17 , 20 08, the

De pa rtm en t f i l ed a c om bi ne d m oti on un de r s ec ti on 2 --6 19. 1 of t he Co de o f Civ il Pr o ce du r e ( Co de ) ( 73 5 I LC S 5 /2
- - 61 9. 1 ( We st 20 08 ) ) t o dis miss pla int iffs' cla ims aga inst it . T he De par t ment a t t ack ed t he fo rmat of t he compl ai nt under section 2--615 of the CodeNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-9-

(735 ILCS 5/2 --6 15 (W es t 200 8)) , ar gui ng tha t i t al l eg ed m ul ti ple c au se s of

ac ti on i n a s i n gl e c oun t. The Dep ar t ment a lter nat ively argu ed t hat t he co mplaint sho uld be di sm i ss ed un de r s ec ti on 2 --6 19 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2--619 (West 2008)) because plai ntif fs la cked st anding t o br ing

t he ir c laims agains t it
. The Departmen

t referred to i ts c onte m pora ne ous l y f i l ed res pon se to plai nti f f s' m oti on f or wr it o f certiorari . I n t he r esp ons e, t he De par t ment argue d tha t pl ai ntif f s'reque st f

or certiorari

sho uld be deni ed becaus e i

t was brought as a m oti on rather than as a peti tion. The Departme

nt further argued tha t plai nti f f s l ac ke d s tan

di ng to chal l en gethe De pa rtm en t's de ci si on be ca us e they were n ot part ies to t he admi

ni strat iv e pro ceeding. Bos later join ed in the Depart men

t's motion to dism

iss. On Jan uary 15, 200 9, the

trial court de

nied plaintiff

s' motion f or awrit of certiorari

and granted the Department's section 2--619 motion to dismiss the claims against it, contained in counts I and VI. As to Bos, the trial court also

grant ed t he sec tion 2 --619 motion to dismiss counts I and V I, exc ept it de nied the motionwith respect to plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgme

nt that the dairy would constitute a p ublic nuisan ce. The trial court fu rther gr anted the sec tion 2-- 615 mot ion to dismi ss the co mplaint bu t provided plaintiffs leave to file an amended comp laint. Plaint iffs file

d a thre e-co unt, f irst am ende d com plain t on Fe bruary 3, 20 0 9. The complaint did not
name the Department a

s a defe ndant or list

any cl ai ms against it. Co un t I co nt ain ed lar ge ly t he sa me allegat ions as t he o r igin al co unt, and i

t sought a declaratory j udgme nt that t he proposed li

vestock faci li tieswould con sti

tute a pub l i c n

ui san ce. C ount II sough t a de clara t or y judgment t hat t he propo sed l

iv estock f aci l i ty woul d con sti

tute a pri va te nu i san ce, a nd c ount III s ought a

decl aratory judg ment th at th

e f ac i l i ty wou l d c on sti tute a c on ti n ui n g tr es pa ss . Al l th re e c oun ts so ught prel

i m i na ry and perm anen t in j unc tions en j oin i ng B os f rom c onstruc

tin g an d operati ng th e f aci l i ty.Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-10-

Laterin February 2009, Bos sought removal of the case to federal

court on th e b asis tha

t there
was a diver sity in citize nship bec aus e t he De par t ment w as no l onger a party to t he acti on. The fe deral court de nie d r emo va l o n t he gr o un d t ha t t he co un t s a ga inst t he De pa r t men t we r e in vo lun t ar il y dis mi ssed. On May 13, 2009, Bos moved to dism is s the f irst am ended compl ai nt. On June

2, 2009, t he trial court orall

y gran ted the motion i

n part, and i

t gave pl ai

ntif fs le av e to fil

e a second am

ended compl ai n t. Plaint iff

s filed tha t co mplaint o n June 11, 200 9. Plaint iff s' sec ond amende d co mplaint
renam ed the Departmen

t as a defenda

n t an d add ed Tra di ti on s In v estmen ts, LL C, as

a def en da n t. Co unt I so ught a dec l arator y j udgm en t th at th e p rop ose d f

ac i l i ty (Trad i ti on Sou th) w oul d c on sti tute
a pub l i c n ui san ce; coun t II so ught a declarator y judgme nt that it would consti

tut e a priv ate nui sance; co unt III sou gh t a dec larat or y judgment that i t woul d con sti

tute a con tin ui ng tre spa ss;and coun

t IV
so ught pre lim

inary and p er manent injunct ions e njoining Bo s fro m cons t ru ct ing and o per at ing t he da ir y. Counts V and VI were li sted as form

er co unt s I a nd VI of p laintiffs' or iginal complaint . T he
cou n ts sta ted tha t the y ha d b een d i sm i ss ed on January 15, 2009, and count VI speci fi cally stated t hat i t was b ei ng r epl ed f or purpose s of

appe al
. On October 16, 2009, Bos fi le d a m ot ion to dis solv

e the preli mi nary in jun ction, argui

ng that plai ntif fs' experts' cl

aims wer e uns upp or t ed by fact and r os e o nly to t he level o f spec ulat ion and conj ecture. The trial c ourt deni ed the m ot ion on Nove

mb er 10, 2009. C. Trial A trial on the perman

ent in jun ction too k pla

ce from Novem ber 23, 2009, t o Decemb er

10, 2009. W e su m mari ze the v olu

m i nous tria l testi mony i n a n un pub l i shed portion of

thi s opi ni on.Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-11- D. Tr ial Cou rt 's Ru ling The trial court i ssued a w

ri tten j udgm

en t on Dec em

ber 15, 20 09, stati

ng as f oll ows. In order to ob tai n a p er man en t i n j un cti on , pl ai n ti f f s h ad to pr ove by

a p r ep o nd er an ce o f t he ev ide nc e t ha t it
was hig hly

probable that the operat ion of Bos's l iv estock facili

ty would c onstitute a public nui sance, a pr ivat e nu isan ce , o r a t re sp as s. In divid ua l plain t iffs who testi f i ed ex pres sed conc ern that the dai ry wo uld emit light , no ise, o do r, dus t , a ndot her airborne particles, an d w oul d g en erate tra f f i c, so as to con sti tute a nuisa nc e o r t re spa ss. Altho ugh t heir "a llegat ions a nd co ncer ns [may have been] understandab le , they

[we re] not c om

pe ten t ev i de nc e of pros pe cti ve nu i sa nc e or tres pa ss an d [d i d] n ot contr ib ute t o o vercomi

ng the burden of proo f." The tria l court's j udgm en t fur ther stated t hat the competent evi dence pl ai ntif fs presented showed that t he gi st o f t he ir c laims wa s t ha t t he wa st e c o nt ain men t po nd liner s w er e in ad eq ua t ely designed be ca us e t he y did not ta

kei nto c ons i de rati

on t ha t t he pr o po se d fa cilit y's s it e w as un de r lain by kars t. The

ref ore, the c ontam

i na nts woul d al

l eged l y l eak i nto the s urf ace water, gr oundwater, and
an unde rlying aqu ifer, and mo ve i n to pla int iffs' we lls a nd pu blic w at er wa ys. T his e vid en ce pr imar ily
ca me from

Samue l Panno an d Peter Huett l. Num

erous exhi

bi ts showed tha t Hue ttl rel i ed he av i l y on Panno 's opi

ni ons to f orm h i s own opi ni ons. H owev er, on

cross-exam

in ation, Pann

o admi tt ed that
a si te-s pe cif i c i nv es ti ga ti on wasne eded

f or athorough

geologi cal

ass essmen

t of a s i te. Pan no f urthe r: "adm itted that there were a num ber of tests whi

ch could have been

pe r fo r med wh ich wo uld provide a mor e de fini

t ive indicat or of t he pr es en ce of ka rs t, i nc l udi ng g round water chem

i stry evalua t ion, well m

onitorin g, and dy e tracing. The se tests were no t pe r fo r med be ca us e o f t he ir expense. Mr. Panno al so admi tt ed that he nev

er exam in ed rock corings fr om t he sit e and
never sought bacterial

well da ta for the ar ea. Head

m i tted th at thes e th

i ng s w ere notNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-12-

pr o hibit ive ly

expensi ve, he could have done them , and he should have done them as they would have been

in formativ e as to the quest ion of karst." Plai ntif fs' evi dence was

ot herwi se vague as to t he spec if ic t ype s o f alle ge d c o nt amina nt s, t he ir concentrat ions, and their release mech ani sms. The trial court stated t hat in

contrast, Bos's ex

perts' opin

ions were based on regi

onal and sitesp ec ific inve sti gati on s. Da vid T r ain o ran d B r et t Na ug le e xa mined r o ck co r ing s, an d N au gle considered

wel l data. Naugl e concl

uded that t here was n

o evi dence of

karstif ie d carbonate bedrock at t he sit e. Tr ainor co nclude d t hat t he sit e did no t have a ny kar st feat ur es, t he fac ilit y de sig n w o uld prot ect t he enviro nment, and a ny releas es fro m the wa ste ho ldin g p o nd s w o uld be minimal a nd wo uld not m i grate. The

tria l courtco nclude d t hat Bo s's evide nce s hou ld be given g re at er weight , mea ning that plai ntif fs did n ot prove by

a preponderance of

the evi dencet ha t it wa s hig hly p r o ba ble t hat t he li vestock faci li ty would l

ead to a publi

c o r priv ate n ui san

ce, or tres pas s. The tri al

court there f

ore en tered j udgm

en t for Bos . Pl ai

ntif f s ti mel y appe aled. II. AN AL YSIS We preli mi nari ly address plai

ntif fs ' m ot ion, ordered taken wi

th this case, to st rike Bos 's st at ement of f

acts. Plai ntif fs argue th at, con

tra ry to Su pr eme Co ur t Ru les 34 1( h) ( 6) an d ( i) ( 21 0 I ll. 2d Rs. 3 41(h

)(6), ( i) ) , Bo s' s s t at eme nt o f fa ct s is ar gu men t at ive an d c o nc lu so ry. Wh il e we agree that Bo s's rec i tation of fac t s co nt ains so me co ncluso ry st at ement s and hig hlig ht s o nly ev ide nc e fa vo r ab le to Bos, the facts i

ncl uded are supported by the record and se rve to supplem

ent pla in tif fs ' two page statem en t of f acts i n thei r appe al . Ac cordi

ngl y , we de ny pl ai ntif f s'motion
. A . Sta nd i ng to See k Rev i ew of De pa rtm en t's A dm i ni stra ti ve De ci si onNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-13-

Tu rning to the me

rits, pl ai ntif fs fi rst argue that t hey

ha ve sta nd i ng to se ek j udi ci al rev i ew of t he De pa rtm en t's ad m i ni stra ti ve ac t of f i nd i ng tha t i t wa s " more l

i ke l y tha n n ot" th at the Tradi

ti on Sou th faci li ty met the Liv

esto ck Act's provisio ns, wh ic h allowe d Bo s t o be gin co nst ru ct ion o f the da ir y. Plai

ntif fs argue that at st ak e is t he irhe alt h, we lfa r e, sa fe t y, pr o pe r t y, a nd wa y o f life, as we ll
as those of future generations. Plai ntif fs ma in tain tha t they adeq uatel y al l eged that al l owi ng th e dai ry wo uld resul

t in a s peci fi c, legal ly cognizabl

e i nj ury to thei

r p er so nal int er es t s a s w ell a s t o t he ir
con sti tuti on al ri gh t to a h ea l th f ul en v i ron men t. Plai ntif fs note that t he Li

vestock Act provides

that it is the state's publ

ic policy to "m ai ntain an econom

ic al ly viabl e livestock ind us t ry ** * w hile pr ot ect ing

t he enviro nment fo r t he bene fit o f bot h t he livesto ck p ro duc er and per so ns who live in the
v i ci n i ty of a l i ve stock producti on f

aci l i ty." 510 IL CS 77 /5(b ) (We st 2008 ). Plaint iff s ar gue t hat t he Dep ar t ment violated num

erous statutory

and r egu lato ry re quir ement s by app ro ving Tr adit ion S ou t h, in cl udin g, among ot hers: that liv

estock waste handl

in g faci li ties i n a karst area be des ign

ed t o p re vent seepageof stored material in to groundwater (510 ILCS 77/13(b)(2) ( West 2008)); m in im um s etback dis tances (5 10 I LCS 77/ 35( c) (4 ) ( West 200 8) ); t hat live s t o ck man ag eme nt fac ilit ies no t co nt ain st r ea ms withi

n thei r boundari es (35 Ill . Adm . Code §501.402(a) ( 1991)); and that suc h facilities have adequate odo r contro l m

ethods and technol

ogy so a s n ot to cause ai

r poll ution (35 Ill . Adm . Code §501.4 02(c)( 3) (199 1)). Defendants

argue that p

laintiff s have forfe

ited the ir claims against

the Department, because pla intiffs amende d their complaintafter the co

unts ag ainst the Depar

tment we re di smiss ed b ut did not re alleg e the dismissed counts or name the D epartme nt as a party. T he Depar tment st ates that p laintiff s never serve

d it with any amend

ed comp laints, nor d

id it rece ive notice of any subs

equent c ourt hearings on the m atter.Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-14-

Plaint iffs counter t hat th eir final a mended complaintincorpor ated the cl aims dismis sed by the trial court on January 15, 2 009, thereby preserving them for review. The recor d show s that p laint iff s did not in clud e the D epartment as a party in their fir st amended complaint, nor did that

complaintallege any claims ag ainst it. However,the record also shows that p

laintiff s' second amen ded comp laint , whic h ended up be ing their f inal compl aint, name

d the De partmen t and referenced the dismi ssed counts. The refore , the ques tion bef ore us is whe

ther plaint iffs f orfeite d their claims against the Department by not including t he Depar tment in their first amended c omplaint, or whether plaintiffs could preserve the claims by including the Department in their final amended complaint. Our supreme court has stated that once a party files an amen ded pleading, he forfe its any objection to the tria l court 's rul ings on former complaints. Boat men' s Natio nal Bank of

Belleville v. Direct Line

s, Inc. , 167 Ill. 2d 88, 99 (1995). Our sup reme co urt has also state

d that "[w ]here an am

endme nt iscomple

te in itse lf and does not refer t

o or ad opt t he prior pleading, the earlier pleading ceases to be a part of the record for most purposes, being in eff

ect abandoned and withdrawn." Bo wman v . County o f Lake , 29 Ill.2d 268, 2 72 (1963 ). While these

general propositions app

ear to supp

ort def endants' p osition,our supreme

court has also more directly stated that "al l egati ons i n f orme r com pl ai nts, not incorporated in the f in al am ended
co mplaint , are de em

ed wa i ve d." (Em

phasi s ad ded.) Foxcroft T

ownhome Owners Ass'n

v. Hoffman Rosn er Corp. , 96 Ill. 2d 150 , 155 (1983); see also Zurich Insuran ce Co . v. Baxter Int

ernational, Inc. , 173 Ill.

2d 235, 243 (1996) (app

ellate court

erred in addressi ng issues no

t raised in th e "final ve

rsion" of the plainti ff's comp laint); Boatme

n's National B ank of B

elleville, 167 Ill. 2d at 99 (w here the p

laintiff s' "fin al amende d complaint" did not i ncorporate certain alleg ation s, the plaintif fs waived objecti ons to the t

rial court's dismissal of prior com plaints) . In Foxcroft , our suprem e court exp

lained that t he pu rp os e o f this r ule is t he efficient and orderly

adm in is trat ion of jus tice, i n that the trial

court can expect that a c as e w i l l

go to tri al onNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-15-

t he claims in the final amende d co mplaint, t her eby allowing it t o be aware of the poin ts in is sue and pr o pe r ly rule on tri

al obj ections. Foxcroft , 96 Ill. 2d at 154

. Our supreme court stated t hat whi

le a defend ant wo uld be di sadvan taged if a pl ai ntif f were al lowed to pro ceed to t rial

on dif feren t issues in diff er ent co mplaints, t her e wa s "no un du e b ur den i n re qui ri n g a pa rty to i n cor porate i n to its fi nal plead ingall a lleg at io ns w hic h it des ires t o p re ser ve f or trial or revi ew ." (Emphases added.) Foxcroft , 96 Ill. 2d at 154. Accordingly, we conclude t

hat by rein corporatin

g the dism

issed coun

ts into the

ir final complaint, plaintiffs preserved them for review. Althou g h the Department argues that it never rece

ived service

on the ame

nded complaint

s o r subseque nt proceedings, the Departme nt has not cited any authorityfor t heproposition that such se rvice wasrequired forplaintiffs t o preserve t heir cl aims, ther eby forfeiting th e argument for review. 2 10 Il l. 2d R. 341(h )(7); Hirsch v. Optim

a, Inc. , 397 Ill. App. 3d 102, 108 (200 9) (failure to cite authority results in forfe iture of argument s). Bos cites Ryan v.

School District No.47 , 267 Ill. A pp. 3d 137 , 141-42 ( 1994),for t he propositionthat p

laint iff s wer e req uired to se rve the Departm ent with a n

ew summons, but that

case rela tes to an amended complaint filed af ter a voluntary dismissal, which is not what occurred here. The Department ar gues tha t even if pla intiffs preser ved the cl aims the y repled in the second amended complaint , they

did not replea d a count s eeking certiorari review of the Department's

decision and have therefore forfeited t

hat issue on appeal. Howev er, plainti ffs broughtthe certiorari request a s a motion, andthe trial court r

uled on it a

s a motion. When the tri al court ente

rs a final order, all prior nonfinal orders become appe alable ( Ham pton v. Cashm ore , 265 Ill. App . 3d 23, 25 (1994)) , and here plaintif fs spec ifically refere nced the d

enial of t he motion for certiorari

in their notic e of appe al. Fur ther,the motion requ ested that the trial court rule

that th e ir complaint was legally sufficient to warrant treatment as a complaint for certiorari

. Even otherw

ise,courts

ha ve al so held that a c

omplaint improp erly see king re view of anNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-16-

admi nistrative

deci sion un der t he Ad ministrat

ive Re view L aw (73 5 ILC S 5/3--10 1 et seq. (West 2008)) or throu gh a decla ratory j udgment sh ould be trea ted as a petiti on for a wri t of certiorari

. Chicago Tit le Land Trust Co. v. Boar d of Trustees , 376 Ill. App . 3d 494,

501 (2007)

. Accordin gly, we concl ude that pl aintiffs sufficiently preserv ed the certiorari issue for review. Turning to the me rits, def endants arg

ue that pla intiffs lac ked standing to seek administr ative rev iew of the Department's

decision because t

hey were not partie

s of recordin the adm in istrative proceeding before the Department . Lack of sta nding is an affirmativ e de f ense that the defendant has the burden to plead and prove ( Lebron v. G

ottlieb Memori al Hospita

l , 237 Ill. 2d 217, 252 (2010)), andit may be ass erted in a mot ion to dismiss und

er se ction 2--619( a)(9) of the Co de (735 I LCS 5 /2--6 19(a)(9) (W est 200 8); International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 148 v. Illinois Department of Employment Security , 215 Ill. 2d37, 45 (2005 )). We rev

ie w de no vo the grant of a m ot ion to dismi

ss unde r section 2--619
. Do e A. v. Diocese of Dal

la s , 234 Il l . 2d 393 , 396 (2 009). Plaint iffs chal lenge the

Departm ent's adm inistrative d

ecision that

the Tradit ion South facility "more likely than not" me

t the provisi

ons of the Livestock Act, which entitled Bos to beg in construction of the

facility. The Illinois Const

itution gi ves courts jurisdiction to re view admi nistrative d

ecisions "as provided by law." Ill. Const. 1970, art. V I, §§6, 9. Whet her a court may re

view an age

ncy's action i

s a questio n of statut

ory construction. Outcom, Inc.v. Illinois Department of Transportation , 233 Ill. 2d324, 332 ( 2009). Ofte

n, the agency's enabling statute expressly provides for review under the Administrative Review Law. Outcom, Inc. , 233 Ill. 2d at 333. If

the enabli ng

statute d oes no t adopt the Administrative Review Law or provide for another form of review, and the statute does not bar review or call for unrev iewable agenc y discreti on, review may be obtained by a c ommon-law wr it of certiorari

. Outcom, Inc. , 233 I ll. 2d at333. Her e, the Livestock Act does not provi de for review under the A dministrative Revie

w Law but also

does not limit revie w. The re levantNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-17-

admi nistrative

regulation states that the Departmen t's deci si on of whether

i t i s m ore l i ke l y tha n n ot that t he Live st o ck Ac t 's p r o visio ns h av e b ee n me t be co mes fina l o n t he da t e o f t he de cis io n. 8 I ll. Ad m. Code §900.407(f), ame

nded at 27 Ill . Reg. 18553, 18555, eff. Novem ber 25, 2003. It furtherstates that the "p roce dur

e f or s tay orreconsi deration of an

y f in al Dep ar t ment d ecisio n by the D epa rt ment sha ll be as provi

ded for i n the Departme

nt's adm in is trat iv e rules ." 8 Ill . Adm . Code §900 .407(f ),
am ended at 27 Ill . Reg., 18553, 185 55, eff . Novem ber 25, 2003 . The relevant rule gi ves a "res pon den t" 30 da y s f rom th e date of t he deci si on to request that t he Departm ent reconsider or st ay it s de cis io n. 8 I ll. Ad

m . Code §1 .114 (1 992). Thu s, ne ither t he Livest oc k Act nor t he De par t ment's
re gulat ions provide fo r r ev ie w under the Admi ni strative Rev

ie w Law or prohib it j udic ia l rev ie w, mea ning t hat jud icial r evie w is p o ss ible t hr o ug h a w rit o f certiorari
. The De pa rtm en t doe s n ot dispute th at certiorari

r ev iew is a pp lica ble to i

ts deci si on but rather argues that plai

ntif fs do not have standi

ng to seek revi ew. We agree. The ri ght to review administr at ivedeci

sions i s l i m i ted to those w

ho we re bot h par t ies o f rec or d t o t he age ncy pr oc eed ing and aggri ev ed b y the a gen cy 's deci sion. Will

iams v. De par t ment of

La bor , 76 Ill . 2d 72, 78-79 (19 79) ; Kem

p-Golden v . Department of Ch il dren & Fam il y Serv ic es , 281 Ill . App. 3d 869, 873-77 (1996) ( mo t he ro f ch ild w ho wa s a lleg ed ly abu se d b y his fat her did no t have standi ng to seek judi

ci al reviewof agenc

y' s deci si on to expun

ge the "i ndicated" report of abus e agai nst the f ather, even

though t he mot her t est ifi

ed a t t he ad mini

st ra t iveheari

ng). Here, nothin

g in the Li vestock Act give s p laint iffs status as parties of

record. Plain

tif fs argue that such a restriction is li mi ted to rev ie w und er t he Administr at iveRevi

ew Law. However, "[c]i

rcuit courts 'do not

possess greater authority to revie w act ions by

agen ci es wh os e final decisio ns ar e r eviewa ble thr ou gh co mmon-law metho ds t han t he
c ourts h ave w hen st at ut or y pro ced ur es a pply,' " and t he st anda rd s o f review ar e "e ssent ially t heNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-18-

sam e." Outcom, Inc. , 233 Ill . 2d at 336-37, quot in g Dub i n v . Pers onnel

Board , 128 Ill . 2d 490, 498 (1989 ). Thus, the stan ding requir ement would be th e same wheth er the agenc y decision w ere reviewed under th e Administra tive Revi ew Law or pu rsuan t to a writ o f certiorari

. Plaint iffs rely on Greer v. Illi noisHousing Development Authority, 122 Ill. 2d 462 (1988), t o support standing. There, the plaintiffs filed suit against the Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA) for approving mortgage financing for a housing rehabilitation project. Greer , 122 I ll. 2d at470- 71. They alleged that the appro val violated the

IHDA's statutory duty to promote economic heterogeneity. Greer , 122 Ill. 2d at 485. The IHDA argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge its funding of the project and its approval of the tenant-selectionplan. Greer , 122 Ill. 2d at 487. The s upreme court disag

reed,stating that "standing in Illinois requires only some injury in fact to a legally cogniza ble interest," which th e pla intiffs satisfied by allegin g a diminution in their property values. Greer , 122 I ll. 2d at492- 94. Pl aintiffs here argue that they similar

ly alleged a decreas e in prop erty values, a

s well as inj ury

to other le

gally cognizable

interest s. However, Greer is dis

ting uishable fr om thi s case beca use it involve d a "n onad judic atory admi nistrative decision[]" ( Greer , 122 Ill. 2d at 50 1) by a "body politic and corporate" (Greer , 122 Ill. 2d at 477) rat her than
an agency's quasi-j udicial decision a s to wheth er a party has sa tisfied spe cif ic statutory f

actors. That

is, nothing in Greer overru

led t hegeneral requirement that a party seekin g review o f an age

ncy's deci sion (which is typically q

uasi-judicial)

must have been a

party of record to the agenc y's proce edin g and aggrieved by the agency's decision. S ee Williams , 76 Ill. 2d at 78-7 9. Plaint iffs also cite article XI of the Illin ois Constit

ution (Ill. C onst. 1970, art.XI). Sect

ion 1 of arti

cle XI provides t

hat it is the st

ate's pub lic policy and each p

erson's dut

y "to provide an

d mai ntain a healt hful environme nt for the benef it of this an

d future generat ions. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the implem entation and enf orcement of this p

ublic policy

." Ill. Const

. 1970, art XI, §1. Section 2 stat

es, "EachNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-19-

personhas the right to

a healthful environment.Each person m ay enforc e this right ag

ainst any party, governme ntal or private,

through appropriate le

gal proce edings subject to

reasonable

limitatio n and regulation as the Gen

eral Assem bly may provide b y law." Ill.Const. 1970, art.

XI, §2. While

section 2 refers to individuals b

eing ableto enforce their rig ht to a healthful e

nvironment , that sect ion did not create a ny new cause s of action but instead e liminate d the nee d to show a sp

ecial injury as i

s traditio nally require

d in environme ntal nuisance

cases. City of Elgin v. County of Cook, 169 Ill. 2d 53 , 85 (1995); see also Gliss on v. City of Marion , 188 Ill.

2d 211, 2 28 (1999 ). Thus, a rticle XI does not provid e plainti ffs with an indep

endent basisto seek

review of the Department

's deci sion. See NBD Ban k v. Krueger Ri

ngier, Inc. , 29 2 I ll. App. 3d 691 , 6 98 ( 19 97 ) ( t he pla int iffs c o uld no t br ing an en vir o nme nt al c laim u nd er t he I llino is Cons tituti on al one b ut rathe r ne eded a cogn izab l e ca use of a cti on). Plaint iffs further argue

that they are e

ntitled to a declaration of t

heir rights wi

th resp ect to the Departm ent's administ rative dec isi on that T radition Sout

h "more lik ely than not"

met the Li

vestock A ct's provisions. A

de cl ara tory j udg men t ac ti on requires: (1) a plai

ntif f wi th a tangi ble, legal in terest; (2)
a defend ant wit h an o ppo sing i n terest; and ( 3) an ac t ual co nt ro ver sy bet wee n t he pa rt ies co ncer ning such i ntere sts. 73 5 ILC S 5/2--7 01 (W est 200 8); Countr

y Mutua l Insu rance Co. v. D&M Tile, Inc. , 394 Ill. App. 3d 729 , 733 (2 009). Ho wever, a wr it of certiorari , rathe r than a de

clarat ory jud gment act ion,is the proper means to

challenge an

administ rative dec ision to w hich the Ad

mini strat ive Review Law

does not apply. Chica go Title Land Trust Co. , 376 Ill. App. 3d at 501; Alicea v . Snyder , 321 Ill. App. 3d 248 , 252- 53 (20 01). Regard less, the court's authori

ty to revie w anagency's decision wou ld be the same whether the review we re throu gh a declara tory judgmen t or a writof certiorari ( Outcom, Inc. , 233 Ill. 2d at 336-37, and we have determined that plaintiffs do not have standing to seek such review. B. Implied Right of ActionNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-20-

Plaint iffs argue that if

parties li ke them cannot enf orce the le gisla tive l imit ation s on the Departm ent's ability to grant permits toconstruct lives tock fa cilities lik e the proposed m

egadairy , nobod y can. We e

xamine this argumen

t inconjunction with plaintiffs' argument that a privat e rig ht of a ction may b e imp lied under the Livestock Act against both Bos and the Department. This court has said that

the Liv estoc k Act do

es not con

tain any me

chanism to prevent or p

unish violations of its provisions, nor did it create any remedy, either public or private, for such violations. Nickels
v. Burnett , 343 Ill. App . 3d 654, 661 (2003). This sta

temen t is not accurat

e to the e xtent that t

he Livestock Act does pr ovide for various penalt

ies, including mone

tary penalties and orders to cease op eration,for: beginning const ructio n wit hout filing noti ce with th e Department (51 0 ILC S 77/ 11(d) (West 2008)); failing to construct a lives tock waste la goon in acc ordance w ith th e c onstruction p lan and De

partmen t
recomme ndations (510 ILCS 77/15(f) (W

est 2008));violating wa

ste lagoon inspect

ion require

ments ( 510 ILCS 77/16 (We st 2008)); no

t rep ortin g the release of 25 gallons or more of anim

al waste in to the wat er (510 ILCS 77/18 (West 2008)); failing to prepare and maint ain a waste

managem ent plan ( 510 ILCS 77/20(g) (We st 2008)); and violating odor control requirements (510 IL CS 77/25 (West 2008)). It is true that the

Livestock A

ct contai ns no explicit language providing a private remedy. Sti l l , a pri v ate righ t of ac ti on m ay be i m pl i ed f rom a statute if

: (1) the pl ai nti f f i s a mem be r of the cl as s f or whose b en

ef i t th e l eg i sl atu reen ac ted th e statu te; (2 ) the statu

te w as de si gn ed to pr event t he plaint iff

's inju ry; (3) a p ri

va te ri gh t of act ion is co nsist ent wit h t he st at ut e's u nder lyi ng pu rp os e; and (4 ) implyi ng a pr ivat e r ight o f ac t io n is ne ce ss ar y t o pr o vide an a de qu at e r eme dy fo r v i ol ati onsof the statut e. Fi sher v. Le xingt on H ealth Care, Inc. , 18 8 I ll. 2 d 4 55 , 46 0 ( 19 99 )
. A c o ur t sho uld us e c au t io n in imply inga priv ate right of action, because, i n doin g so, it is assum in g the po licy- mak

i n g a uth ori ty
m ore app ro pr iate ly exercise d by t he le gi slature. Mo o r e v . Lu mpk in , 258 Ill . App. 3d 980, 989Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-21-

(1994 ). In

de term i ni ng whether a pri va te ri gh t of ac ti on exi sts, we foc us p rimarily on t he legislat ur e's int en t in enacti ng th e statute, w

hi ch i s b est as certai

ne d f rom th e statute' s languag e. Moore , 25 8 I ll. App. 3d at 989. The i

nterpretat ion of

a statut e i s a questi on of law, which wereviewde no vo . In re J. L. , 236 Il

l . 2d 329 , 339-4 0 (201 0). Section 5 o f the Li

vestock Act is en

titled "Policy

" and states: "(a) The Gene

ral Assem bl y f in ds the f oll owing: (1) Enha ncement s t o t he cu rr ent re gulat ions dealin g with l iv estock prod

uc ti on f aci l i tie s are ne eded
. (2 ) T he livest oc k indu st ry is expe riencing ra pid cha nges as a re sult of many di f f ere nt oc cu

rrenc eswi

thi n th e i nd us try i nc l udi ng i nc rea se d s oph

i sti ca ti on of prod uc ti on t echno log y, incre ase d de mand fo r c apit al to maintain o r e xpand operations, a

nd c ha ngi ng c onsu mer dem ands f or a qual i ty product. (3) The l i v estock i n du str y repr es en ts a maj or e con

om i c acti v i ty in t he I llino is
ec o no my. (4) Th e tre

nd i s f orl arg er c onc en

trati on of animals at a livest oc k manag ement f aci l i ty d ue to va ri ous m arket f orces. (5) Cu rrent reg ul ati on of the o peration and m

anagem ent of l iv estock pro duction is adequate for t oday's i ndustry with a f

ew modif ications. (6) Due to t he incre asing nu mbers o f animals at a livesto ck mana gement f aci l i ty, th ere is a p otenti al

f or greater i

m pactson the

i m medi ate are a. (7) Li v estock wa ste lago ons m

us t b e c on str

uc ted ac cordi n g to stan da rd s to
mai ntai n structural

i nteg ri ty a nd to protect groun

dwater.Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-22- (8) Since a m

ajority of odor co mpl

ain ts resu l t fro m manure app licatio n, li vestock producers must be provi

ded wi th an educational

program that will enh

ance ne i gh bor awareness and their env

ironm ental m anagemen t skill s, with e m

phas i s on managem en t of l i ve stock wa stes. (b) Theref ore, it is t he po licy o f t he St at e o f I llino is t o maint ain an ec o no mica lly viab le li vestock indust ry in the St at e o f I llino is w hile p r o t ec t ing t he en vir o nme nt fo rt he be ne fit of b oth t he li vestock prod

uc er a nd pe rs ons wh o l i ve i n th e v i ci ni ty of a l i ve stoc k pr

oduc ti on fa cili t y. " (Em

phasi s ad ded.) 5 10 IL CS 77 /5 (West 200 8). We i ni tia l l y note tha t a cas e rel i ed on by pl ai ntif f s, Cit ize ns O pp o sing Po llut io n v. E xxo nMo bil Coal U. S. A. , N o. 5- -0 9- -0 207 (S ept ember 2 4, 201 0) , is no t helpful t o o ur analysis. T her e, t he appe l l ate co ur t he ld

t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in dismissinga count on the basis that the Water Use Act of 19 83 (Wate

r U se A ct) (525 I LCS 45/1 et seq. (Wes t 200 8)) prov i de d n o pri va te ri gh t of act ion, beca use sec t ion 8 .0 5 o f the Su rfac e Co al Mini ng Land Conservation and Recl am ation Act (225 ILCS 720/8.05 (West 2008)), also at iss ue i n the case , speci fi

cally al lowed for suc h enfo rc ement actions. Ci

tizens Op pos i ng Pol l ution , sli p op. at 18
. Bu t he r e, t he Live st o ck Ac t do es no t ex plic it ly pr ovid e fo r a pr ivate right of a ct ion. We n ow c on si

der the f our f ac torsto deter

m i n e w h eth er a p ri v ate ri gh t of ac ti o n ma y be im pli ed i n l i gh t of sec t ion 5 in conjunc t ion wit h t he ent ire Lives t oc k Act . R ega rd ingthe f i rst f actor, pla int iffs are m

em bers of a cl

ass f or whose benef

it the statute was enacted, in that the statut e's pol

ic y prov i si on spe cifically

re fere nces pr ot ect ing

t he enviro nment fo r t he bene fit o f peo ple living near t he li vestock fa cili t y. Still, thi s f

actor is tempered i

n that this is not t he onl

y c la ss the legi sl ature intende d t he st at ut e t o be ne fit ; t he leg isla t ur e a lso so ug ht t o pr o t ec t t he en vir o nme nt fo rt he li ve stoc kNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-23-

pr od uce r's benefit . R ega rd ingthe second f actor, the typesof i

nj uri es that plai

ntif f s al l ege w i l l occur, such asgrou nd wa ter c onta m i na ti on and ex cessi ve odors, are t he ty

pes of i nj uries that the Li

vestock Act was de si gn ed to pre ve nt. How ever, on th

e th i rd f ac tor, i m pl y i ng a p ri va te ri gh t of ac ti on i s n ot co nsist ent wit h t he statut e's un derly in g purpose. "Where b

road dis cr et io n is g ive n t o an ag en cy, it negates the i

mpl ic ation that

th er e w as

l eg i sl ati v e i n ten t to creat e a private right of action." Moore , 258 Ill . App. 3d at 996. The Liv estock Act giv

es ci tizen s some i

nput through in

form ational me etings butult imat ely g ive s t he De pa r t men t t he dis cr et io n t o de t er mine w he t he ris i t more l i ke l y tha n n ot that t he st at ut o ry p ro visio ns ha ve b ee n met , a s r eq uir ed fo r const ru cti on of th e l i v estock f ac i l i ty to comm ence. See 510 ILCS 7 7/12.1 (West 2008) . Inspect ions and v iolation det ermi

nations are also left t o t he De par t ment. Implying a p ri va te ri gh t of act ion wo uld st ro ngly under mine the D epa rt ment's
au t ho r it y, con

tra ry to the le gis la

ture's i ntent. See Moore , 25 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 9 98 (" an

i m pl i ed pri v ate
r i ght of ac ti on i s i n con siste n t wi th th e l eg i sl atu re ' s pur pos e to e sta

b l i sh a r eg ul ator y sch em e [ to protect aga

i nst contagi

ous disea ses ] under the di rection of the D epartm

en t of Publ i c Hea

l th"). We simila r ly co nc lud e t ha t t he fo ur t h fa ct o ris not s ati sf i ed . A pri va te ri gh t of act ion will be im pli ed o nly wh er e t he r e is a c lea rne ed t o up ho ld an d imp leme nt t he pu blic po licy of the st at ut e by pr ovid ingan

adeq uate remedy

f or avi ol ati on of the statute. A

bb as i v. Par as ke vou l akos , 187 Ill . 2d 386, 393 (19 99) ; s eealso Fi sher , 18 8 I l l . 2d at 4 64 (a pri v ate ri gh t o f act ion will be implie d o nly wher e t he stat ute wo uld, as a practical m att er, o therwise be

i ne f f ecti ve ). Here , l i

ve stock opera

tors
ar e s ub j ec t to t he fines discu ssed ear lier, a s we ll as or der s t o c eas e o per at ions, for violat ions o f the Li vestock Act's provi si ons. See Rek os h v. P arks , 316 Ill . App. 3d 58, 74 (2000) (t he Fun eral Di rectors and Em

bal me rs Licensi ng Code (225 ILCS 41/1--1 et seq. (West 19 98)) prov i de d f or disci pli nary actions an

d fi nes, so its remedies

were not so de f

i ci en t as to re qui rei m pl y i n g a pri v ateNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-24-

right of act ion); NBD Bank , 29 2 I ll. App. 3d a t 697 (t he Ill in ois Env ironm ental Prot ection A

ct (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1996)) provided fo rpr o se cu t io n by t he St at e a nd allo we d c o nt r ibu t io n c laims agai nst thi rd-par ty v i ola tors, so ther

e was no need to i

m pl y a pri va te ri ght of action). Furth er, the Lives

to ck Act specifi

call y states that nothing i

n i t "shall be construed as a l i m i tation or preemption of a

ny statut ory or regulatory authority under the I llin ois Env

ironm ental Prote cti on Act [(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 20 08 ))] ." 51 0 I LC S 7 7/ 10 0 ( W est 20 08) . We have recogniz ed

that t he Li

vest ock Act doe s n

ot pre em pt other s tatutor y an d c om mon- l aw ca us esof action, su ch as n ui san ce. Nic ke ls , 343 Ill . App. 3d a t 661 . Th us , wh i l e the L i ve stoc k Act d oesnot al l owan i nd i vi dua l to f i l e sui t i n a n a ttem pt to en f orce i ts p rovi si ons , i t al so do es no t pr ohi bit t he in div idua l from usi ng other sta tutor y or c om mon -law ca us es of ac ti on to ch al l en gethe con stru cti on of a l i v estock f ac i l i ty . O ur su pr em e c our t h as h el d th at where a co mmo n- law ac t io n e ffec t ive ly im ple me nted a st at ut e's und

erl y i ng p oli cy, a pri va te right of action wa s un

ne ces sary. See Abb asi , 187 I ll. 2d at 395 -9 6 ( a co mmon-law negligenc e ac t ion effec t ively i mplemente d t he po licy behi nd t he Lead Poisoni ng Preven tion Act (410 ILCS 45/1 et seq. ( We st 19 96 ) ) , so it wa s n o t ne ce ss ar y t o imp ly a pri va te ri ght of action). As t his c o ur t r ec o gn ize d, a p ar t y at t emp t ing t o co nst ruc t a live st o ck fac ilit y "c o uld ga in
com pl ete Departmen

tal approval

an d p er miss io n in h is e nd ea vo r s, an d ye t st ill ha ve those e nde av ors hal ted *** should his operat ions run af oul of ot her stat uto ry or common-law prohibitions." Nic ke ls , 343 Ill. App . 3 d at 661 -6 2. Tha t is pre cisely what oc cur re d he r e, as inspit e o f the Dep ar t ment's approval al l owi n g B os t o be gin co nst ruc t io n, pla int iffs w er e a ble t o pu r su e t he ir c o mmo n- law cla ims agains t Bo s, o bt ain a p r elimina ry in jun ct io n ef

fecti vel y prev entin g construction of the l

iv estock fa cili t y, an d h

av e a f ul l trial on th ei r ri gh t to a p er man en t i n j un cti on . B as ed

on th e p en al ti es th eNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-25-

Li vestock Act pr o vide s fo r no nc o mpli ance a nd th e av ail ab i l i ty of related com

mon-l aw ac tions, a pri v ate ri gh t of ac ti on i s n ot n ec es sa

ry as an en f orc em en t mech an i sm f or th e L i v estock A ct. Pla int iffs relatedl

y argue that the tria l court f ail ed to cons i der v

i ola tions of num erous statutory
and regu l atory provisions as ev

i den ce of statutory n ui sa n ce . Pl ai n ti f f s' argu men t i s wi th out m eri t, as the tri al cou rt al l owe d e vi de nc e re l ate d to s tatutor

y an d re gul atory req ui rem en ts a s evi de nc e of t he stan dard of care requi

red. We consi

der the trial

court 's f inal ruli ng i n conjun ction with plai

ntif fs' argumen t t hat its deci

si on was agai

nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. C. Evi dentia

ry Rul in gs Pla int iffs nex

t challe nge a n umb er of the trial

court 's ev ide ntiary ruli ngs. They

ar gue t hat t he trial cou rt e rre d i n : (1 ) re f us i n g to al low i

nto evide nce publ ic records and Ill

in ois State Geological Survey records; (2 ) r efusing t o a llow p laintiffs to re ad B os 's sworn answ er s to i

n ter rog ator i es i n to evi dence; (3) refusi

ng t o allo w pla

in tif fs ' rebuttal ev

ide nce; (4) excl

udin g pla in tif fs ' ex pert medical evi dence; (5 ) no t co nsider ing plaint iff s' lay op inion evidenc e as co mpet ent t o c ont ribut e toward
ove rc oming t he bur den o f pro of; a nd ( 6) re fusing t o a llow evide nce fr om t he hea ring o n t he prel i m i na ry in jun ction at the h eari

ng onthe p erm

anen t in j unc tion . We di scu ss th

ese evi den tia ry ru lings in an unpu blished po rt ion o f this o pinion.

D. Tri al Cou rt' s D en i al of Per man en t In j un cti on Plai ntif fs' fina l ar gu men t is t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t 's r ulin g d en ying t he m a pe rm an en t i njun cti on is aga inst t he ma

nifes t weigh t o f the ev ide nce. A party s eeki

ng a perm anen t inj unction, wh

ic h serv es to maint ain t he st at us qu o ind ef init ely ( Al pha Sch ool Bus Co. v. Wagn

er , 391 Ill . App. 3d 722, 743- 44 (2 009 )) , mus t sho w t hat he has a clear and a sce rt ainable right t hat need s pr ot ect ion, t her e is no adeq ua te rem edy at l aw, an d he wil l suf f er i rrepa rab l e harm

i f i njun cti ve rel i ef i s n ot granted ( KopcharNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-26-

v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago , 395 Ill . App. 3d

76 2, 77 2 ( 20 09 ) )
. A c o ur t co nsid er ing inju nc t ive r elie f sh o uld al so ba l ance the equ

i tie s. County of K

endal l v . Rosenwi

nkel , 353 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 52 9, 538 ( 2004) . It is the trier of f

ac t'srol e to re so lve co nfli ct s in the evidenc e, asse ss wit nesse s' cr edibility, and det er mine the w eight to be

gi ven to thei

r testi mony . P r air ie E ye Center, Ltd. v. Butler , 32 9 I ll. App. 3d 293 , 29 8-9 9 (2 002 ). A

tri al cou rt' s f ac tua l f i nd i ng s wi l l not be rev erse d un

l ess they areagains

t t he man i f est we i ght of

the e vi den ce. Prairi e Eye C enter, Ltd. , 329 I ll. A pp . 3d at 29 9. We t ypic ally ap ply the abuse-of

-disc retion standard to review a trial cour t 's de cisi

on of wh eth er to gran t a pe r man ent in

jun ction. See Rosenwi

nkel , 35 3 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 5 41 . B ut cf. O' Don

ne l l v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 36 3 I ll. App. 3d 98, 104 (2005) (iss uance of a perma nen t inj unction i

s general ly reviewed under a m an i f est-we i ght-of

-t he -e vidence st anda rd ). Ho weve r, wher e a t rial co ur t 's de cision r ega rd ing
a perm anen t in j unc tion i s b ase d on pu

re qu es t io n s of

f ac t, suc h as h er e, we wi l l n ot rev er se

i ts de ci si on unl ess i t is agai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Has co , I nc. v. Ro che , 299 Ill . App. 3d 118 , 126 (1 998). Pla int iffs all

eged clai ms of pub li

c nui sance, private nui sance, and trespass. Re ga r din g p ub lic nui sance, plaint iff

s cit e se ct ion 4 7- -5 (3 ) o f the Crim in al Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/47- -5(3) (West 2008) ), wh ich st at es t ha t it is a pu bl ic nuisanc e t o " co rr upt or re nder unwho leso me or impure t he water of a spri ng, r i ver, stream

, pond, or l

ake to the i nj ury or prej udice of

others ." Plai

ntif fs argue that they al le ge d and es tab l i sh

ed tha t the dai ry wou l d c ons

ti tute a publ i c n ui sa nc e i n v i ol ati on of
se cti on 47 --5 (3 ) by

l ea ki n g sub sta n ti al am oun ts o f an i mal wa ste into t he gr ou ndwa t er and co rr upt ing t he wa t er o f ast r ea m. Bo s r ig ht ly p o int s o ut t ha t o nly t he S t at e' s A t t o rne y may p r o se cu t e p ub li c nui sances as crim in al off en ses . Ja m i son v. Ci ty of Zi on , 359 Il l . Ap p. 3d 26 8, 272 ( 2005) . Howev er, pla int iffs would sti ll

have a comm

on-law cl ai m of publ ic nui sance. Do na lds o n v. Ce nt r al I llino isNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-27-

Pu blic Ser

vi ceCo. , 19 9 I ll. 2d 63, 1 01 (20 02), overruled on other grounds , In re C om m i tmen t of Simons , 213 Il

l . 2d 523 , 530 (2 004). A publ ic nui sance is so mething t hat nega t ively aff ect s t he pu blic's heal

th, safety, or mor als,
orcauses sub stantial

an noy ance, i nc onven i ence, or i nj ury to the pub l i c. Vil

lage of W il sonvill e v. SCA Services, Inc. , 86 Il l . 2d 1, 21-22 (1981). Th e elem ents of publ i c nui san ce are: (1) the

ex i stenc e of
a publ ic righ t; (2) the defen

dant's sub stantial

and un reasonabl e i nterferen ce wi th that right; (3) pr ox i mate caus e; and (4) i

nj ury . Ci ty of Ch ic ago v. Berett a U.S. A. Corp. , 213 Ill . 2d 351, 369 (2004 ). A pr ivate nuisanc e is t he su bst ant ial invasion o f a per so n's int er es t in t he us e and enjoyment of hi s l an d. In

re C hi cago F l ood L i

ti ga ti on , 17 6 I ll. 2 d 1 79 , 20 4 ( 19 97 )
. T he inva sio n mu st b e su bst an t ial, in

tentional or negli gent, and unreas onabl

e. In re C hi cago F l ood L i

ti ga ti on , 176 Ill . 2d at 204. Wh ether particular

co nduc t co nst itu t es a nuisanc e is de t er mined by the c ond uct 's effect on a r ea so na ble per so n. In

re C hi cago F l ood L i

ti ga ti on , 17 6 I ll. 2 d a t 20 4. A "n uis an ce mus t be ph ysic ally
o ffensiveto the senses to t he extent that it makes l if e uncomf ort able." Do bbs v. Wigg ins , 40 1 I ll
. Ap p. 3d 36 7, 375- 76 (20 10). Here, th e a

l l eg ed n ui sa n ce wa s prospe cti

v e b ec au se

th e dai ry h ad n ot y et bee n b uil t. A pla int iff ma y se ek i njun cti ve rel i ef f ora prosp ecti

ve nui san ce. Villa ge o f Wilso nville , 86 Ill . 2d at 25. A " ' de fen da nt may be r es t r ain ed fr o m en t er ing up o n a n a ct ivit y wh er e it is hig hly p r o ba ble t ha t it will l ead to a n ui sa n ce , a l th oug h i f th e p oss i b i l i ty i s m ere l y un certai n or co nt ing en t he may be left t o his remedy after the nuisance

has occurred .' " Villa ge o f Wilso nville , 8 6 I ll. 2d a t 26, quo t ing W. Prosse r, To rt s § 90 , a t 60 3 ( 4t h ed . 1 97 1) . T he p laint iff m us t sh ow b y a p rep ond

era nc e of the evi dence that the def endan t's ope rati on i s a prospectiv

e n ui san ce. Villa ge o f Wilso nville , 86 Il l . 2d at 14
.Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-28-

The t ype o f invas io n t hat co nst it ut es a nu isan ce diffe rs fro m t he t ype o f invasion t ha t constitutes a tre spass. " ' A nuisanc e is an int er fere nce w ith t he inte re st in the p rivat e us e and enjoyment of

the land, and does not r equire i nterference with the possession' " wh ereas a " 'trespass is an i nvasi on of the interest in the e xclusive possession of land, as by entry upon it.' " In re Chi cago Fl ood Li ti ga ti on , 176 Il

l . 2d at 2 04 , qu

oti n g R estate men t (S ec on d) of

Tort s § 82 1D , C om

men t d , at 101 (1 979 ). Tr esp ass c an o ccu r t hro ugh a ne gli gen t or an i nten tion al act. Ly ons v . State Fa

rm Fi re & C asual ty Co. , 349 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 40 4, 410 ( 2004)
. As t he t r ial c o ur t po int ed o ut , pla int iffs' cla ims w er e la r ge ly b as ed on al l eg ati on s th at, if the Tradi ti on South dai ry were a l l owe d to b e c ons

tructed an d ope rate d a cc ordi

ng to B os 's plans, con tam i n an ts fro m the livest oc k wa st e ho ldingpon dswou l d l ea k th rough th e c l ay l i n er s to karstif

ie d
ca rb on ate bedrock bel

ow, reachin

g the groun dwater and a quifer below t he po nds a nd po lluting plai ntif fs' wells and the pub li

c waterway s. Peter Hu et t l pro vided e xper t t est imony reg ar ding t he perm ea b i l i ty of the clay

li ner an d th e s oi l un dernea th the li ner. However, he adm

itted that he bel

ie ved that it was n

ever appropriate to use an un pr otected cl ay l i n er f or a n an i mal wa ste hold ing po nd, and he ac kn o wle dg ed t ha t he ha d b ee n inv o lve d in t he de sig n o f o nly t wo animal wast e co nt ainment li ners. He als o t es t ified t ha t he did not d o a site -sp ecific analysis or t ake into acc ou nt informat ion fro m the three t est pit s o n t he si

te. Mos t i m por tan tl y , Hue ttl testi f i ed th at h e r el i ed on Sa m ue l Pa n n o' s rep orts in f orm i n g h i s op i n i on th at t he waste mat er ial wou ld re ach t he gr ou ndwa t er , t hus mak ing Pa nno's t est imony that t here was karstif

ie d carbonate bedrock bel ow the Tradition South si te a crucial componen

t o f pl ai ntif fs ' case. Pa nno t es t ified t ha t his opi ni on was bas ed on Li

DAR (l aser) im agery, ex am in ation of aeri

al phot ogr aphs, an d fie ld in ve st iga t io ns. He us ed t he LiD AR ima ge ry t o find linea rfea t ur es t ha t co uldNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-29-

i n di ca te fractures i

n the carb onate rock, and h e testif ie d that one li

neam ent went through a wa st e hold ingpond. H owev er, Pan no a dm i tted th at l i ne am en ts w ere j us t an i nte rpreta ti ve tool to i n di ca te wh ereto lo ok for more in form ation. Pann

o t estif ie d that one aerial

photo graph sh

owed what appeared to be a sprin g on the si te, but he adm

itted that he did n

ot know for sure what i

t was and that LiDAR imager y and ae rial pho t og ra phs fr om t he 19 40s did no t sho w t hat su rfa ce fea t ur e. The i nf orm ati on Panno rel

ie d on from hi s field investiga t ions lar gely came fr om ar eas ou t side o f the proposed dai ry si te, and noth

i ng was tied di

rectl y to the f ootprin ts of th e was te hol di ng p onds
. Panno further testif

ie d that water t ests of the area wel l s howed el ev ate d le

vel s of sodi

um chl oride, wh ich co uld indicat e t he su sce pt ibil ity o f the ka r st aq uife r , bu t he ad mit t ed t ha t simila rlev els of sodium chl oride had b een f

ound in wells in non-karst areas. He al so agreed that in ka rst ar eas there was a c au sa l co nne ct io n be t we en se pt ic s yst ems an d w ells co nt aminate d wit h bact er ia, bu t he di d n ot test t he wel

ls near the proposed dairy

for bacteri a, even

thoughi t woul d have b een a

"g ood i dea." No t ab ly, la y wit ne ss t es t imo ny ind ica t ed t ha t t he we ll wa t er wa s c ur r en t ly pota b l e, wi th no known ba cteri al con tam i na ti ons . Pa nn o also adm

i ttedl y di d n ot pe rf orm man y tes ts f orkarst that he t hou ght Bo s sho uld have do ne, suc h as meas ur ingstream f low, perform

in g groundwater ch em

i stry eval uations, i nstal l i ng m oni torin g wel l s, an d conducti

ng d ye traci ng. He did not look at rock cor in gs f rom t he sit e e ve n t ho ug h he ad mit t ed t ha t it wo uld not have b een costly and that he pr o ba bly sh o uld have. Panno also acknowledge d t ha t a ka rst hydro log ist p er for med a c hemistr y tes t fro m fl ow ing water on t he site but fou nd no evidenc e o f kar st ifi ed c ar bona t e bed ro ck. Panno agr eed t hat t he most appr opri ate

way to determi

ne the sui tabil ity of a si te for a propo sed use requi red a s it e- sp ec ifi c anal ys is , which h

e di d not do here.Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

3 As we stated in an

unpubl is hed port ion of

this opini on, agricul

turaldrain

tile i s someti

me s used to al low rai

nwater to flow off

of land. See McGoey v . Brace , 395 Ill . App. 3d 847, 852 (2 009).

-30- Pla int iffs als o r elie d o n t he pr elimina ry-in jun ction- hear ing t ra nscr ipt of Le st er Jo hnso n's t es t imo ny, but that t estim ony a ls o lacked i n-depth si te-spe ci f i c con siderati

ons. Johnson opi

ned that dye traci ng was the b est m

ethod f or determ i ni ng th e pre sen ce of karst, and i t is un dis puted that pla int iffs did no t do suc h a t es t he r e. C. Piu s We ibe l t es t ified in r eb ut t al t ha t we at he r ed o rhig hly weathered

lim est one was pr ese nt in fi

ve o f the ro ck c or ings and one of t he bo rings, and t he presence of suc h lim est one at that de

pth m ean t that the b edrock was k

arsti c. However, Panno contradicted t his testim

ony w hen he stated that no t all hi

ghl y weathered lim

estone or fractured carbonate bedrock
waskars tif

i ed ca rbon ate b edrock. In add itio n t o t he types of

sources reli

ed o n by p laint iffs' ex pe r t s, Bo s's ex pe r t Br et t Na ug le observed t he ac t ual r oc k co ring pro cess and a nalyzed t he co rings. He fur t her lab-t est ed t hem and determi ned t hat t he rock material

s were not li

me stone. Bo s's exp er t David T ra inor also loo ked at t he cori ng s a nd con si de red i nf orm ati on f rom the exca va ti on of the ponds. Plai

ntif fs argue tha t Trai nor testifi ed, amo ng o t he rt hing s, t ha t : t he so il bor ings sho wed different t ypes o f soil und er t he hold ing po nd s; t he dr ain sys t ems werede si gn ed to drai n i n to a s tre am th at l eadsto t he Ap ple Rive r ; a nd it i s n ot pr ud en t en gi n ee ri n g p ra cti ce to l oca te a m an ure pon d on top of a s trea m . How ever, Trai

nor tes ti f i ed on r edi rect exam i na ti on that although the soils

from the borin gs were di ff

erent, they

were uni f orm because the ma t er ia l was cl

ay an d generall y the sam e across t he entire f

oo tpr in t. He also testifi ed t ha t t he pe r imet er dr ain sys t em w as de sig ne d t o ca rry liqu id f ro m wh er e t he wa t er t ab le broke o ut o f t he gr o un d, r at he rt ha n d ire ct ly from the ponds themsel

ves. Regardi

ng an al le ged stream on to p of the w ast e ho ldi

ng pond, Terry F el dma

n testif ie d that t here was a ti

le -fed di tch 3 in theNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-31-

f oot pr int of

on e of th e c on tai n men t pon ds . H e a l so t esti f i ed th at B os h

ad re ce i v ed perm i ss i on to move t he di

tch , an d w he n c ons tructi on wascom

pl ete d, n o porti on of t he dit ch wo uld r emain in the pon d' s f ootpr i n t. At oral argum

ent, plai ntif fs argued that, geo logically

, karst is a regi

onal concept and extends f rom the M i ssi ssi ppi Ri ver to Freep ort. Pla int iffs maintained t hat when t he legislat ur e ena ct ed t he Li vestock Act, it i ntended that addi

tional saf ety precauti ons be taken

i n ka rst areas. A cc ordi

n g to pla in tif fs , karst is not a si

te-specif ic concept, and dril

li ng a f ew three-in

ch tub es i n to so me po rt ions of the si te is n ot suf fi ci ent to verif

y the si te's saf ety. Pl ai ntif fs argued that Map 8 shows thatall of Jo Davi ess Cou

n ty i s i n a kar st reg i on

an d th at th er ef oreon e h as to build according to kar st st andards, i nc l udi ng u si ng s teel f or waste p ond l

i ne rs. The very regulations that plai

ntif fs rely on defea t their argum

ent here. The regul

ations ref er t o sin khole

areas on Map 8 as a

uto ma tical ly requiri ng addi tional in spections and tests, rather than height ening re quir ement s for ever ything in a "k ar st r eg io n" o n Ma p 8 , wh ich wo uld inc lud e a ll of Jo Davi ess County. 35 Ill. Adm. Co de § 506 .3 02( g) (Co nway Gr eene CD- ROM June 200 2) . T he propo sed dai ry i s n ot in a sink ho le ar ea o n Map 8. The re gulat ions a lso r equ ire ad dit ional inspe ct ions and t est s if the s oil sampling re sult s "indicat e t he pr op os ed livest oc k wa st e hand ling facili t y is to be located i n a kars t area." 35 Ill . Adm . Code §506.302(g) (Co nway Gr eene CD- ROM June 200 2) . T he reli ance on lim ited sinkho le are as a nd

site -sp ecific sampling sho ws t hat t he De par t ment w as no t using lar ge - sc ale re gio nal des ignat ions t o de fine ka r st ar ea s. E ve n if it wer e, ever y li vest oc k wa st e hand ling f ac i l i ty i n a ka rs t are a doesnot n

ec es sa ril y ha ve to bem ad e of

ste el or con cre te, a s th e ow ne r or ope rator ma y s eek to "modif

y" the standards if the m

odif ic ation protect s the ground and surf ace water and t he structura

l i nteg ri ty of the w aste f

aci l i ty. 35 Ill . Adm . Code §506.312(c), am ended atNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-32-

25 Ill . Reg. 14883, eff

. Novemb er 15, 2001. Not abl y, ev en Panno ag r ee d t ha t a s it e- sp ec ific a na lysis i s the be st way to determ

i ne a si te's sui tabi l i ty f or a propose d use
. In the e nd, th e tri al courtwas faced wit h t est imony f rom cr eden ti al ed , e x perien ce d e x perts who arriv ed at oppo si te conclusi

ons as to whether there was evi dence of karstif ie d carbonate bedrock
on th e p rop ose d dai

ry si te. A s state d, i

t i s th e tr i er of f ac t' s rol e to resolve confl

icts in the evi dence,
assess wi tn es se s' cr ed i b i l i ty , a n d d ete rm i n e th e w ei gh t to b e g i v en to th e i r testi mony . P r air ie E ye Ce n te r , Ltd. , 3 29 I ll. App. 3d a t 298 -9 9. The re co rd sup po rt s t he t rial co ur t 's finding t hat Bo s's
ex pert witne sses, unl

ike pla int iffs' ex pe r t wit ne ss es , co nd uc t ed mo r e s it e- sp ec ific analysis in arr iving at t heir co nclusio ns t hat t her e wa s no evidenc e o f kar st ifi ed c ar bona t e bed ro ck be low t he co nt ainment ponds. Accordin

gly , we cann ot say that t he trial

court 's deci

si on, that plai

ntif fs fai le d to show that there wa s a h i gh pr ob ab i l i ty of gr oun dw ate r c on tam i n ati on an d w er e n ot en ti tl ed t o a per manent i nj unc tion on tha t bas i s, i s ag ai

nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Pla int iffs argue that t he r e w as ev ide nc e t ha t t o xic sila ge lea ch at e h as inva de d a nd will continue to in vade Stev e Holesi nge r's property . Ho lesinger t est ifi ed t hat a st re am fro m the pr op os ed d airy's le achat e contai nm

ent pond entered the stream run ni ng through his propert y. Huettl testif ie d that sila ge l eacha te was overf l owi ng f ro m it s c o nt ain men t po nd ar ea an d c r ea t ing an er o sio n g ul ly. Howev er, pla in tif fs ' ev ide nce on thi s i ssuewas base d pu re ly on visual o bser vat ion, and t her e wa s no t est ingto sho w t hat t he alleged ove rflow co nt ained s ilage leac hat e o r if so , in wha t co ncent ra t ion. Accordi ng ly, t he trial

court 's f ai lure to fi

nd that pla

in tif fs had proven trespass

from to xic sila

ge le achate i s not against the man if est weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. Pla int iffs al so argue that Ho le si nger's resi dence is wi

thin 2,490 f eet of the pr o po se d d air y, contrar y t o t he Livest oc k Act 's mini mum set back dist ance for an o ccu pied r eside nce. To any ext entNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-33-

that t he setbac

k dis tances are arguabl

y rel evan t t o plai ntif fs ' nui sance c la im s, we address this

is sue. As sta ted , th e c ons

tructi on of a s tatute i s a que sti on of law, which we rev

ie w de no vo . In re J. L. , 236 Ill . 2dat 3 40. Th e p ri

mary rul e of sta tutor y con str uc ti on i s to gi v e e f f ec t to th e l

eg i sl atu re ' s i n ten t, whi ch is be st determ

i ne d by the statutory l

anguag e' s pl

ai n a nd ord i na ry m ean i ng. In re J. L. , 23 6 I ll. 2d at 339 . Under t he Li

vestock Act , a li

vestock facil

ity that has 50 or more but less t han 1,000 ani ma l un it s mu st maint ain a minimu m s etbac k distance of one-quart er of a mi le f rom the nearest occupied resi dence. 510 ILCS 77/35(c)(3) (West 2008). One m i l e i s 5,28 0 f

eet (Web ster' s Th

i rd New International

Dic tionary 1433 (1986)), so one-quarter o f a m il e i s 1,320 feet. For a li

vestock f ac i l i ty that has 1,000 or more but less than 7,000 ani

ma l un its, the m in im um s etback f

or an occupied resi dence "s ha ll be in creased 220 f

eet over the mi

ni mum setback of 1⁄4 m

il e for each addi tional 1,000 ani ma l uni ts over 1,000 a ni mal uni ts." 510 IL CS 77/

35( c)(4)( B) (W es t 200 8). In thi s c as e, Trad

i ti on Sou th planned t o ha ve 6,850 ani ma l un its. Thi s num

ber consists of 5 "addi

tional 1,0 00 an i mal un i ts over 1,000 ani ma l un its," so the setback would be one-quartero f a mi le (1,320 feet) plus

5 x 220 f eet (1,100 fee t )
. T hu s, t he t o t al r equired s etb ack f rom an occ up i ed re si den ce wou l d b e 2 ,42 0 f

eet, me ani ng that Holesi

nger does not li

ve wi thin the mi ni mum setback di stance. We fur t he rco nc lud e t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t 's f ind ing t ha t pla in

tif fs did not pr ove pr os pec t ive nui sance or t respass through in

div idua l pl ai ntif fs ' testim ony a bout li ght, noise, traff

ic , an d ai r pol l ution is al so not agai nst the mani fest weigh

t o f the evi

dence. Plai

ntif fs ex pressed co ncerns about t hese is sues bu t pr o vid ed fe w, if a ny, fa ct s t o o ve r co me t he irbu r de n o f p r o o f. T he y a ls o so ug h t to in tro duce expert testim

ony through

Doctors Gorel

i ck an d Netze l on harm f ul em i ssi ons th at the d ai ry wo uld emit, but t he t rial co ur t sus t ained B os 's o bject ion t o t heir q ualificat ions to off er su ch t es t imo ny, and we c onc lude t hat it d id no t abuse it s d isc r et io n in d o ing so . Pla int iffs d id t es t ify abo ut t he irNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

4 As s t at ed in a n u np ub lishe d p o r t io n o f t his o pin io n, an an ae r o bic dig es t er is an airless t ank in which bac t er ia brea k do wn o rg anic wa st e, suc h as manu re , a nd pro duce methane as a

b y pr oduct. See Joseph

Oat Holdi

ngs, Inc. v . RCM Digesters, Inc. , 665 F. Supp. 2d 448, 451 n.2 (D.N.J . 2009)
. -34- f am i l i ari ty wit h c o w o do r s fr o m l i vi ng onor near farm

s and/or owni

ng cows them

sel ves. In an agricul t ur ally zon ed ar ea , hom

eow n er s s h oul d r ea son ab l y ex pe ct s om e od orscon siste n t wi th agricul tural operations. See Woods v. Kh an , 95 Ill . App. 3d 1087, 1090 (1981). St il l, agri cul tural
sme lls can reach a point where they overwhelm in gly in terfere with homeowners' r igh t s t o en jo y t he ir pr o pe r t y. See Woods , 95 Ill . App. 3d at 1090. Here, plai ntif fs ' testim ony regardi

ng odors was based
on sm al l -s ca l e dai ries an d di d n ot tak e i n to ac cou n t th e m an n er i n wh i ch Bos pl an n ed to pr oc ess t he ani ma l waste, in cl udin g use of an

anaerobi c di gester 4 and holdi

ng ponds, orBo s's o do r c ont ro l plan, whi ch i ncl uded pl antin

g trees. Accordingl

y, the tria l c ourt 's den

ia l of an i nj unc tion ba sed on odors
wasal so not aga

i nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. E. Bos's Appeal W e n ow m ove on to Bos's appeal, which h

as be en con sol i da ted wi th p l ai nti f f s' appe al . Bos argues that the trial

co ur t er re d in denying his mot ion t o d isso lve the pr elimi nar y injunct ion halt ing
con stru cti on of Tradi tion South. Bos argues that he i s therefore en titled to damage s under

se cti on 11--110 of t he Code (7 35 IL CS 5/1 1--110 (We st 2008 )), wh

i ch al l ows the courtto assess

dam ages f or the wron

gf ul i ssu ance of a tem porary restrai ni ng order or a

prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion
. Bos argues that the tri al cou rt sh oul d have gran

ted hi s m oti on be ca us e p laint iffs g r o ss ly o ve r st at ed t he ir case at t he pr elimina ry st ag es , wit hhe ld e xc ulp at o ry evid en ce fr o m t he t r ial c o ur t , "a nd su cc es sfu lly
mai nta i ne d thei r ch ara deun ti l *** Bos coul d un do i t thr ough di sc ove ry, th e u se

of the Free dom of In f orm ati on A ct, a nd cros s- exam

i na ti on a t tri al ." B os a

rguestha t the true i ss ueon a ppe al i s n otNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-35-

whether t he t r ial c o ur t it se lf er r ed in mak i n g i ts un de r lying r ulin gs , bu t r at he rwh et he rpla int iffs s ho uld be ar the costs a ssoc i ated wi

th the i r cond uct. Bef ore addressing the m

erits of Bos's appeal, we consider plai ntif fs' motion to dism

is s, whi ch
we ord ered t aken with thi s case. Plai ntif fs argue that we sho uld di smi ss Bo s's ap pea l pur sua nt t o t he Ci tizen Pa rti ci pa ti on A ct (A ct) (735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. ( We st 20 08 ) )
. T he pu r po se o f t he Ac t is to counter " 'Strategic Laws

uits A gai nst Publ ic Partici pation' " (SLAPPs), whi

ch h ave b een used

"as a means of i ntim ida ting, harassi

ng, or punis

hi ng ci tizen s and organi

zations f or inv olvi ng them sel vesin pu blic af f ai rs ." 73 5 I LC S 1 10 /5 (West 20 08 ). Th e A ct' s pur pos e is to el

i m i n ate SLA PPs and protect ci tizen partici pation i n publ ic aff ai rs by : (1) i

m m un izi ng i nd i vi dua l s f rom l aw sui ts b as ed on acts taken i n f ur th eran ce of th ei r ri gh ts to free speech a nd to petition governm

ent; (2) creatin

g an accel erated le gal process to dis

pose of SLAPPs; and (3) providi ng attor ney

fees and costs to part ie s wh o pr ev ail
on m otion s un der the A ct. Wri

ght Devel opmen t Gro up, LLC v. Wal sh , No. 109463, slip op. at 9-10 (Octobe r 21, 20 10). Bos argu es , a mon g oth er th i n gs , that: (1) plain

tiff s forfei ted any reli

ance on the Act because they did not raise the

i ss uei n th e tri al cou rt, a nd (2) the A ct d oesnot

al low pl ai ntif fs to in itiate such
a motion i n the appel

la te court . We agree. Gene rall y, a party who does not raise an

is sue i n the trial courtf orf ei ts th e i ss uean d m ay not r ai se i t f orthe fi rst tim e on a ppea l
. I n r e M ar r iag e o f Cu lp , 399 I ll. App. 3d 542, 5 50 (2010 ); see also En terpri se Re cov ery Sy stem s, I nc . v . Sal meron, 401 Ill . App. 3d 65, 76 (2 010 ) ( mot ion u nder t he Act was an affirmat ive defens e, and t he defendan t co uld not raise t he de fen se in

the trial court after j udgme

nt was entered). Moreover, t he A ct doe s n ot co n tem pl ate a pa rt y bringing t he motion f or t he f irst tim e on appeal . The Act

re fers t o d isco ver y and a he ar ing
an d d ec i si on on th e m oti on wi th i n 90 da y s, as we l l as to a clea r a nd co nvincing st anda rd for ru lingNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

5 In a m em orandum i

n support of a request for bond, Bos asserted damage s of $1 5,0 00 to $16,000 per day i

n l ost sales; $1.2 mi

ll ion f rom prepurchase d ani

ma l feed; a nd demob i l iza

ti on costs of over $20 ,000. -36- on the motion . 735 IL CS 11 0/20 (W est 200 8). The se procedur al mech an i sm s an d the evi den tia ry st an da r d c lea r ly pe r t ain to the trial court rather than the appel la te court . See Koff

ski v. Vi l l ag e of Nor th Ba rri ng ton , 241 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 47 9, 483 ( 1 993) (a p arty "s hould n ot be perm

itted to util

iz e a proceduralmec ha

ni sm en ac ted by the l eg i sl atu re a nd de si gned f oruse i n the tri al courtas a means to obtai n the di sm

i ssa l of a n a ppea l "). Accordi

ngl y , we de ny pl ai ntif f s'motion to dis m i ss. Pla int iffs fur t he rar gu e t ha t we lac k ju r isd ict io n o ve rBo s's ap pe al b ec au se Bo s d id n o t t imely file a n ot ice of ap peal. B os filed the mot ion t o d issolve t he pr elim inary i njunctio n on Fe br ua r y 6 , 2009, and h

e fi le d a supp or t ing memor andu m on Oc t obe r 1 6, 200 9. The t rial co ur t denied Bo s's
m oti on t o d isso lve the pr elimi

nar y injunct ion on N ove m be r 10 , 20 09, an

d B os f i l ed a n oti ceof i nterl ocutory appeal on Decem

ber 10, 200 9, wi

thi n the 30-d ay peri od requi red un der Su prem e Court Ru le 307(a

) (Of f i cial Reports A

dva nc e Sheet No. 7 ( Ap r il

8, 2009 ), R. 307 (a), ef

f . Marc h 20 , 2009)
. Pla int iffs ba se t he ir

j urisd i cti ona l arg um en t on responses Bos f

il ed i n Novem ber and D ecem

ber 2008 to mo t io ns f

iled by t wo se pa r at e g r o up s o f fo r mer ind ividua l p la i nt iffs w ho so ug ht t o vo lun t ar ily dism iss thems el ves f rom the case. Bos obj ectedto the dism issal of those pla

in tif fs on the ground that he would otherwis e hav

e a statut ory ri ght to dam

ages agai nst them if the prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion were la ter dis solv

ed. 5 He al so arguedt ha t vo lun t ar y dis miss al w o uld con sti tute a n a utom ati c di ss ol ution of t he preli mi nary in jun ction. In h

is prayers for reli ef, Bos requested that if

the trial co ur t gr ant ed t he
m oti ons f or vol unta ry di sm i ssa l , i t al so di ssol

ve the prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion and awa rd hi m dam ages. Bec aus e t he t rial co ur t gr ant ed t he mot ions f or vol unta ry di sm i ssa l , pl ai ntif f s arg ue th at the tri

al courtNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-37-

implic it ly deni ed B os's requests to dissol ve the prel

im in ary i nj unction a

nd that the deni

al was appe alab l e at tha

t tim e. Plai ntif fs' argumen t is wi thout me rit. Bos's 200 8 reque sts to di ssol ve the prel i m i na ry i njun cti on were made i n response t o mo t ions fo r vo lunt ar y dismi ssal filed by indivi dua l plaintiffs, and t he t rial co ur t gr ant ed t he moti ons wi thou t com men t on w he the r Bos wa s enti tl ed to di ss ol ution of t he pre l i m i na ry i njun cti on. A cc ordi

ngl y , Bos coul d n ot have s ou ght review of the i ssue at that time
. Rather, he ap pr o pr iat ely a nd t imely a pp ea led fr o m t he t r ial c o ur t 's N o ve mbe r20 09 o r de rex plic it ly den y i ng h i s actual motion to dis sol ve the prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion
. Pla int iffs al so argue that Bos' s ap peal i s m oot becau se the rul

i ng on the prel i m i na ry i njun cti on me rged into t he r uling o n t he pe rmanent injunct ion, and t he pr elimi nar y injunct ion ca n no lo nger be dis solv ed. See Kee f

e-S he a Joi

nt V en ture v. Ci ty of Ev an ston , 36 4 I ll. Ap

p. 3d 48 , 60 (20 05) (" [a]n i nterl ocutory i njun cti on becomes fun ct us o fficio when the case is dispose d o f on t he merits" ); Puleo
v. McGladrey &

Pull en , 315 Ill . App. 3d 1041, 1044 (2000) (preli mi nary in jun ctions are l

im ited in dur ati on an d do n ot ex ten d b ey on d t he co nc lus io n of

the ac ti on) . "A

n a ppe al i s c ons i de red

moot wh erei t pre sents no a ctu al con trov ers y orwher e t he issue s involved in the t rial co ur t no longer exi st because inter vening event s have rendered i t im possib le for the revi

ewi ng court t o grant eff

ectual rel ie f to the complai

ni ng party." In re

J.T. , 221 Il

l . 2d 338 , 349-5 0 (200 6). Here, Bos f i l ed a m oti on to d i ss ol ve the pre l i m i na ry i njun cti on beca use , a mong ot her things, he sou gh t to obtain da

ma ges under se ction 11--110. Such dam ages m ay be obtai ned onl y i f the tri al courtdis solv

es t he pr elimi nary i

nj unction bef

ore t he case i s disposed of on the merits (735 ILCS 5/11--110 (West 2008)) and determi nes that i t was wrongful

ly is sued ( Roche ster Bu

ck ha rt A cti on Group v. Y ou ng , 394 Ill. App . 3 d 77 3, 776 -7 7 ( 200 9) ). The t rial co ur t denied Bo s's mo t ion t oNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-38-

disso lveon Novem

ber 10, 2009, bef

ore its Decem

ber 15, 2009, fi

nal judg ment denying t he pe rmanent i njun cti on on t he me

rits. Under

Rul e 307(a)(1), Bo s could appea l a s a m atter of ri ght from

the order
re fusing to dis sol

ve the prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion . Of f i cial Reports A

dva nc e Sheet No. 7 (A

pril 8, 2009 ), R. 307(a)(1), eff. March

20 , 20 09
. I f Bo s ha d n o t t imely ap pe ale d fr o m t ha t o r de r , t he o r de rwo uld
con sti tute a f i na l orde r th at the p rel

i m i na ry i njun cti on wasprop erl

y gra nte d a nd be com e the l aw of t he case. See Sto cker Hin ge Manuf acturing C o. v. Darnel In

dustries, Inc. , 94 Ill . 2d 535, 544 (1 983); Pa sq uin elli v. Villa ge o f Mu nd ele in , 257 Ill . App. 3d 1057, 1068 (1994). Ho wever, Bos appeal ed on Decem ber 10 , 20 09 , wit hin30 da ys of the trial court 's den

ia l of hi s m ot ion to dis solv

e. Th us , Bos preserved his right t o c ont est t he trial court 's rul

in g. See Rochester

Buckhart Acti on Group , 39 4 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 779. We n ow tu

rn to th e q ue sti on of wh eth er th e tr i al cou rt e rre d b y den y i n g B os' s m

oti on to dis solv e. A pr elimi

nar y injunct ion se rve s t o p re ser ve t he st at us q uo unt il the ca se's me rits ha ve b een deci ded. Zi l l er v . R ossi , 395 Il l . Ap p. 3d 13 0, 139 ( 2009) . A p l ai ntif f see ki ng a prel i m i na ry i njun cti on m ust show: (1 ) a clear right or interest needi ng protect ion;(2) no adequate remedy at law; (3) that irreparabl

e harm wil l occur wi thout the in

jun ction; a nd (4) a reasonable l

ikel ih oo d of success on the meri ts of th e un derl y i ng a cti on. Zill

er , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 139. The pl ai ntif f does not carr

y t he sam e burden of

proo f as is required to prevail on the ul tim ate iss ue, but rather must m

ake a pr ima fac ie cas e tha

t thereis a fai r question ab out the exi stence of the cl ai me d righ t and that circum

stances
r ea so na bly

indicat e t hat t he plaint iff

will be entit led t o r elief on t he meri ts. Zill er , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 139. Sec

ti on 11- -1 08 o f the Cod

e a l l ows a p ar ty to m ov e to dis solv

e a prelim in ary i nj unction. Tha

t se cti on pr ovid es: "A mot ion t o d isso lve an injunct ion may be ma de at any tim e bef ore o r after answe

rNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-39-

is filed
. Up o n a mo t io n t o dis so lve an inju nc t io n a ft er an sw er is file d t he co ur t sha ll dec ide t he moti on upon the weight of the evi dence." 735 ILCS 5/11--108 (We st 2008). Whether to dissol ve a prel i m i na ry injunct ion is wit hin the tria l court's di scre tion
. Stol l er v . Vi l l ag e of North br ook , 162 I ll. App. 3d 100 1, 1008 (1987 ); se e al so Fo rd Mo t or Cre dit Co . v. Co rnfie ld , 395 Ill . App. 3d 896, 903 (2009) ( "I n int er lo cu t o ry ap pe als , the trial co ur t 's d ec isio n t o gr an t o rde ny t he r elie f r eq ue st ed is ge ne r ally reviewed under an ab

use of d iscre t ion st anda rd "). To disso lve a pr elimi nar y injunct ion, t he defend ant must sho w t hat t he t rial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion in issuing t he injunct ion be ca use t he pla int iff di d n ot pres en t a f ai r q ue sti on as to t he l egal

ri ghts i nv olv ed. Zill er , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 140. The ul tim ate gra nt or den i al of the perm

anen t in j unc tion does n ot dictate whethe

r the prel i m i na ry i nj unc tion shoul d ha

ve be en di ssol ve d. Tha t is , a prel i m i na ry in jun ction m ay ha ve be en wr o ng fully is sued eve n if t he p laint iff

successful

ly obtains a perm anen t in j unc tion , and, con

versel y , a prel i m i na ry i njun cti on may ri ghtf ull y ha ve be en i ssued ev en i f the p erm anen t in j unc tion i s deni ed. Sc h i en

v . C i ty of Virden, 5 Ill . 2d 494 , 503 (1 955). A tria l courtpos se ss es

th e i n h er en t au th ori ty to r ev iew , mo di fy,
or vac ate an

i nterl ocutory order at any

tim e until it enters a f

in al j udgm en t. Doev. De

pa rtm en t of Prof es si ona l Re gul ati on , 341 Il l . Ap p. 3d 10 53, 105 9 (200 3). In ru ling on th e m oti on to dis solv e, the trial court stated as foll

ows in relev ant part. It entered t he pr elimi

nar y injunct ion aft er t he pa rt ies had pr ese nt ed a significant amou nt of evi dence, al bei t when lit t le di scovery

had be en cond ucted b y the p arti es. B os's

argum en ts that Pa nn o di d not con

duct ev ery test avai la ble to him, that his m

ethodology was f

la w ed, and that hi s ul

tim ate opini on was sh

eer sp ecul ati on wer e issue s t o be re so lved at t rial, a nd t he pr elimina ry injun ct io n w as iss ue d t o maint ain the status quo un

til that poi nt.Nos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-40-

On app eal, Bo s ar gue s t hat t he mot ion t o d isso lveshould have been granted ba se d o n e - mails that Bos obtained s

howin g that, during the prel

im in ary i nj unction s

tage, Panno withh

el d evi dence about precisescien

tifi c methods to test for karst and fal sely passed hi msel f off as an objecti

ve wi tness when he was a

ctive ly coll udin g with HO MES and i

ts mem bers to overstat e the i r c ase . More sp ec ific ally, Bos argues that e-mai ls show that Panno did not conduct any ground-pene trat in g-radar
orlow- freq uenc y-ra dar t est ing o n t he dai ry si te des pi te h i s d i sc us si on s of such tests with c olleagues in e- mai l s a n d " th e a v ai l ab i l i ty of di sc ov er y tool s a n d m on th s of opp or t unit y to do so ." Panno simila r ly did no t inst all t es t we lls or use tr acers. Bos al so notes t hat Pann o had an e-m ai l e xch ange wi th W ei be l ab out a tes t to d eterm

i ne whether th

ere wa s a "g ai ni ng " or " l osi

ng " strea m to sh ow evi dence o f ka r st , bu t Pa nno ne ve rpe r fo r med su ch a t es t . E
- mails also sho wed t hat Panno wasawar e of Er ic P et er so n's t es t s fi n di n g th at not hi

ng i n the water sam

ple s def in iti vel y i dentif ie d the area as ka rs t. Bos further argues that Pa n n o' s v i si ts to the area and the s ite proved that he was n ot obje ctive , in th at h i s prop er ty in spections were arranged

t hr o ug h H OM E S a nd t he o r ga niz at io n d ire ct ed him to v ari ous pl ac es wh er e th er e w as al l eg ed l y ev i den ce of ka rs t. Bos addi tional ly argues that even

i f the tri al court f oun d th e f ore goi n g i n f orm ati on i n suf f i ci en t, evi dence at trial

"shed a new light o n HOM ES and Panno." Bos ref erences Pan

no's adm is si on that he rec ei ve d pote nti al tri al que sti ons an d a ns wers f rom HO MES 's

l eade r M atthew

A l schu l er. A l so, Bos argues tha

t al thou gh Pan no, a seni or scien tist for the Il li

nois Stat e Geologi cal

Survey, stated t hat he had been asked to get in volved i n the case by

the Attor ney

General 's of fi ce, Panno agreed that

t he off ic e la ter det ermi

ned that it sh ould n o t be invo lve d in t he ca se , a fa ct he did no t men t io n in h is repo rts. Bos

r ec it es t he full range of testim ony b rought o ut o n Pann

o's cross-exam

in ation, i ncl udin g: that his research showed that there was a r ela t io nsh ip b et we en ba ct er ial c o nt amina t io n fr o m se pt icNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-41-

sys t ems and the

exi sten ce of kars t, but he di

d not test an

y of the wel

l s aroun d the proposed dai ry f or such con tam i na ti on;tha t he wa s a wa re of man y tes ts f or karst that he did n

ot conduct; that he h

ad experience

wi th a clay po nd liner t hat did no t achieve breakthrough af ter 14 years; that he had worked wi th Al schul er to gather phy

si cal evi dence; and that he d

i d not have di

rect evide nce of ka rstif ie d
ca rb ona te b ed rock un de r th e c onta

i nm en t pon ds . Bos ar gue s t hat Panno sho uld have dis clo se d a ll of thes e thi ngs to the tri al

court duri

ng th e prel i m i na ry i njun cti on proc ee di ng s a nd af ter th e entr y of t he preli mi nary in jun ction, but that he did not. Bo s argues thatth e tr ial cou rt 's ru ling denying t he per manent injunct ion sho ws t hat HOM ES and P anno had no re al basis t o s upp or t t heir claims, and Bos ar gues that he i s en

titl ed to dam ages . We concl ude that the tr ia

l c ourt did n

ot abuse i ts discretion in

deny in g Bo s's mo ti on

to disso lve the pr elimi

nar y injunct ion. While Panno admit t ed a t t rial t hat var iou s t est s co uld be do ne to in dic ate the presence of ka

rst, he als o t estif

ie d that t he Geological

Survey had very li tt le resources to sp en d, to th e e xte nt th at s taf f wou l d dr i ve 10 h ours roun d tri p a nd do 10 hou rs of field wo r k in one day beca use t her e wa s no money t o s t ay ove rnight in a ho t el. Whe n a sk ed wh y he d id not get funding f rom pla in tif fs for tests, Panno repli

ed that it was "n

ot somethi

ng we do." Thus , w hi

le there was
ce r t ain ly comm unication occurrin

g between Pan no a nd pl ai nti f f s, th e f ac t tha t Pan no d i d n ot ask them to pay fo r t est s sho ws a deg re e o f independ ence not ack now ledge d by Bo s. F ur t her , P anno testifi ed that al thoughhe r ece ived a list of p ot ent ial ques t ions and answers f rom Al schul er, he had n

ot "used" it for any thin g. Wh en asked w

hy he di d not t el l A

ls chul er to stop co ntactin

g hi m, Pan no repli ed that he was a pu blic serva nt and w as su ppo sed t o r esp ond t o e -mails and p hone ca lls. Whe n a sk ed if he t hou ght t he co mmu nic at io n mig ht cr ea t e t he ap pe ar an ce o f imp r o pr iet y, Panno testif ie d that he was not a l awy er and that this

was hi s f irst i nvol vem ent wi th li tigation regardi

ng hi s work. Panno alsoNos. 2 --09- -1283 & 2-- 10--01 62 cons.

-42-

t estif ie d t hat Bo s neve r invite d him to inspec t t he far m or offer ed a ny tes t ing equ ipment . Pa nn o' s expl anati ons are reasonab le

and are n ot contradicted by

the record. Panno further

testifi ed that the Board hadask ed him t o w rit e a r epo rt on t he sit e and t hat t he Atto rney General 's of fi ce then requested that he wri te a mo re ext ensive r epo rt . C ont ra ry t o B os 's
argu men t, Panno 's re po rt s and t es t imo ny d id not im ply that he was i

nvol ved on b ehal

f of the Attor ney Ge ne r al' s o ffice , bu t r at he rex pla ine d h o w h e b ec ame invo lve d in t he case. Pann o never cl ai me d at t he pr elimi

nar y injunct ion hea ring t hat he had util iz ed all possi

ble m ethods to determi

ne the presen

ce of ka rs t, bu t rath er h e of f ere d a n op i ni on b as ed on t he evide nce he had t hat he felt was re liable. As st at ed , pla int iffs w er e n o t r eq uir ed t o pr o ve t he ir ca se at the p rel

i m i na ry i njun cti on stage but rather needed o nly t o pr es en t a " fair qu esti on " a s to th e l eg al ri gh ts i nv olv ed. Zill er , 395 Ill . App. 3d at 140. At trial, Panno test i fi

ed that whi le

there was no di

rect evide nce of ka rstif ie d carbonate bedrock ben eath the si te, t here was a l

ot of i ndi rect evide nce leading t o t hat co nclusio n. Pa nno wa s c lea r ly
a kar st expe rt who had authored num erous article s on the subj ect, and weaknes ses i n hi s opin ion that t he da ir y sit e w as un de r lain by karst were b roug ht ou t i n c ros s- exam

i na ti on. Th e f

ac t tha t Bos ult imat ely prevai le d does not mean t hat Panno 's o pinion w as ba seless , a ndt he t r ial c o ur t ac t ed wit hin its d iscre t ion in denying Bo s's mo t ion t o d isso lve the pr elimi nar y injunct ion. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoin

g reasons, we affirm the jud gment o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Jo Da vie ss Co un t y. Af fi rmed. O' MA LL EY an d HUD SON, J

J., con cur.