Opinion ID: 2037872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: powers of the attorney general

Text: The second issue presented in this appeal is whether the Act limits the power of the Attorney General to file a suit for cost recovery. The appellate court, in rendering its decision, stated that it found no language in the Act which would permit the State's Attorney or the Attorney General to initiate civil actions in the circuit courts for any other type of relief outside of injunctive relief. 218 Ill.App.3d at 303. 161 Ill.Dec. 110, 578 N.E.2d 237. The Attorney General takes exception to this statement, arguing that the appellate court's decision effectively destroys the Attorney General's prosecutorial discretion under the Act. The Attorney General further argues that the decision of the appellate court limits the Attorney General's authority to seek injunctive relief in the circuit courts. The defendants assert that the appellate court did not limit the powers of the Attorney General. Instead, the defendants argue that the Attorney General is attempting to create new rights which are not found in the statute and that a contrary decision by the appellate court would have infringed upon the prerogatives of the legislature. We agree, however, with the Attorney General that the appellate court unduly limited the powers of the Attorney General. It is undisputed that sections 42 and 43 give to the State's Attorney or the Attorney General the authority to file suit seeking injunctive relief against an individual causing environmental damage by specifically naming the Attorney General. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 111 1/2, pars. 1042, 1043.) For example, one section of the statute states: (e) The State's Attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, or the Attorney General, may, at the request of the Agency or on his own motion, institute a civil action for an injunction to restrain violations of this Act. (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 111 ½ par. 1042(e). The Act, however, gives to the State's Attorney of the county in which the violation occurred or the Attorney General the authority to file actions seeking more than injunctive relief. For instance, the Attorney General has the authority to attempt to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs when prevailing against a person committing a willful, knowing or repeated violation of the Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1042(f). The Act also authorizes the State's Attorney or the Attorney General to file an action seeking criminal penalties to be assessed against environmental vandals. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 111½, par. 1044(1).) In light of these statutes, defendants' argument necessarily fails. However, other sections of the statute, which authorize institution of lawsuits to obtain other kinds of relief, are not as specific in directing who may initiate the action. For example, those sections authorizing suits for civil penalties or punitive damages merely state that a suit may be filed, without specifying which party is to file the suit. See, e.g., Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 111½, par. 1022.2(k); Ill. Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111½, par. 1042(d). Section 22.2(1) makes no reference to which State body of government must file an action to recover costs for cleanup in an action initiated by the Agency. (Ill.Rev. Stat.1987, ch. 111½, par. 1022.2(i).) No reference is made to which party should bring actions to recover punitive damages. (Ill. Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111½, par. 1022.2(k).) Likewise, section 42(d), which refers to recouping civil penalties, states that such penalties may be recovered in a civil action without specifying the party which may file such action. Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111½, par. 1042(d). Where the statute neglects to specify which party is to file a certain action, it must be recognized that the State's Attorney of the county in which the violation occurred or the Attorney General is allowed to do so. It is well established that the Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the State of Illinois. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. V, § 15.) As such, the duties of the Attorney General have been found to include representing the People of the State of Illinois and all State agencies. ( Environmental Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Board (1977), 69 Ill.2d 394, 399, 14 Ill.Dec. 245, 372 N.E.2d 50; People ex rel. Scott v. Briceland (1976), 65 Ill.2d 485, 501-02, 3 Ill.Dec. 739, 359 N.E.2d 149.) The legislature may not deprive the Attorney General of any of its common law rights and duties under the constitution. Environmental Protection Agency, 69 Ill.2d at 399. 14 Ill.Dec. 245, 372 N.E.2d 50. This court has held that the Attorney General has an obligation to represent the interests of the People so as to ensure a healthful environment for all the citizens of the State. ( Pioneer Processing, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (1984), 102 Ill.2d 119, 138-39, 79 Ill.Dec. 640, 464 N.E.2d 238.) Therefore, where the Act allows for the institution of a lawsuit without specifying which party can bring the suit, the Attorney General must be recognized as having authority to bring such an action. We today hold, therefore, that the judgment of the appellate court unduly limited the authority of the State's Attorney and the Attorney General to take action against environmental damage. The Attorney General should have the authority to file actions before both the Board and the circuit courts to redress violations of the Act, wherever a specific party is not authorized by the Act.