Copyright 1976 by Illinois Issues. Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without written permission.

SECOND IN A SERIES OF FOUR ARTICLES By BRITTA B. HARRIS

The drama of Oakley Dam, Act II : ... To take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them

LIKE A CECIL B. DeMILLE extravaganza, the Oakley-Allerton drama, has a cast of thousands, and its Byzantine history was filled with fierce oratory, innumerable subplots, warnings of dire consequences, promises of greatness and political machinations of every sort, The leading characters changed from time to time, and the main action was often sidetracked, much to the confusion of the public audience. Puzzled and fascinated, many people in Central Illinois wondered what the truth of the Oakley project really was- The principal actors in the multi-million dollar drama played their parts with great fervor: for them Oakley became a crusade which elicited intense loyalties and emotions— whether they were fighting for or against the proposed dam.

The Oakley Dam-Allerton Park controversy has been labeled a classic case in the annals of upstream-down-stream controversies. It has also revealed that there is no government at agency in Illinois which can provide the sophisticated planning to meet the complex needs of a resource area such as the Sangamon River Valley where geographical and political jurisdictions cross and collide and where local and federal planners pursue narrow agency goals. Never was the public interest examined from a broad perspective. Instead, the diversity of views involved with the river's resources were confused in partisan wrangling as politicians tried to carry water on both shoulders.

The Sangamon River, largest tributary of the Illinois River system, has been the object of debate for almost 40years. In the early 1930's, it was included in a comprehensive study by the. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the nation's flooding problems, which in turn led to the Federal Flood Control Act of 1936.Subsequently, the Corps used the study as a basis for site selection and the conduct of feasibility studies for many reservoir projects. In 1937, the Corps considered flood control for the Sangamon River Valley, and several designs, including one for the Oakley site north of Decatur, were prepared. Following a severe flood which hit the entire Illinois River Valley in 1943, the Corps up-graded flood protection plans, A new plan for the Illinois River Basin was proposed, and BO projects, including 15reservoirs on the Sangamon River, were presented for public hearings. Oakley, under the new plan, was designed to be a dry basin for flood storage. During the public hearings held throughout the Illinois River Valley in 1939 and 1941,strong objections to the project were voiced, the Corps was instructed by Congress to review its plans. Although the project, was denounced by Central Illinois farmers and conservationists, representative from Decatur appealed to the Corps to expand the Oakley reservoir design to include a municipal water supply function. By 1951 the Corps had a new plan ready, designed to accommodate Decatur's water needs. Mindful of history and not overly confident that Oakley would materialize. Decatur's consulting engineers advised the city to proceed with other measures for a supplementary water supply.. A city-built reservoir, estimated at $6,977,000 was recommended along with the installation of drilled wells. But were expensive and not suited to other city needs such as recreation, Industrial growth and residential expansion, Lake Decatur. a combination water supply and recreational reservoir was important to Decatur in each of these respects. Because of siltation, Decatur's capacity continued to diminish, and city leaders belied ". Decatur's economic future was in jeopardy. The city's two major grain

18 / October 1976 / Illinois Issues

processing firms, mainly the A. E. Staley Company, required a large, reliable water supply- To assure that all municipal needs would be filled as well as to gave Lake Decatur. a new upstream reservoir was clearly Decatur's preferred choice.

Decatur's decision to push for the federal project was reinforced when a drought hit Central Illinois in 1953 and1954. Lake Decatur dropped to alarmingly low' levels. The threat to water supplies plus the ugliness of the shrinking lake caused distress. Muddy beaches, rank weeds and warm shallows filled with muck ruined the lake for recreation; at some places it was possible to walk across the lake. The Corps predicted another drought for the 1970decade, and Decatur's worries increased. Searching for a permanent solution, former City Councilman Henry Bolz learned that, with a little effort, Decatur could obtain water from the Oakley dam project if it ever got built. In 1954 Bolz sought counsel from Rep. William Springer, then a Republican congressman representing the Decatur area. Bolz was told that the odds were against Oakley, but that a promotional campaign would be useful. The congressman was successful in obtaining study funds for Oakley, and in1956, a revised plan emerged, Costs for the new reservoir were estimated at $22.8 million, with Decatur paying $5.4million.

City, state and federal
But then progress on the project bogged down, and the city grew impatient. In 1975, the Decatur City Council created a water advisory committee which eventually recommended a bond issue for the construction of a $10million reservoir on Big Creek, a Sangamon tributary near Decatur. City voters rejected the issue in a 1959referendum. With advice from the Corps. Decatur leaders continued to lobby for Oakley. U.S. Sen. Everett Dirksen and Congressman Springer, both Republicans, were solidly behind the project. Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul Douglas made his approval contingents the addition of recreation to the Oakley project. With further revision, Oakley survived congressional reviews during which other reservoirs in the Illinois River Basin plan were dropped in 1962 an altered Oakley project costing $29 ..6 million was authorized by Congress.. Approval of the new multipurpose reservoir satisfied Oakley promoters, Decatur had everything it had asked for, water and recreation to spur economic growth; the congressional delegation could claim credit for a large public works project in Central Illinois, and the Chicago District of the Corps of Engineers could anticipate construction of its first major reservoir project. State planning officials under the administration of former Gov. Otto Kerner regarded Oakley as vital to their plans for economic growth in Central Illinois. There was great interest in multi-purpose reservoirs which combined water for industry with tourism benefits. Two Corps' projects, the Carlyle and Shelbyville reservoirs on the Kaskaskia River, were expected to revitalize parts of East Central Illinois Along with a few other federal agencies, the Corps administered over half of the state's public recreation acreage. Five Corps' projects in the state's central section, including Oakley, were predicted to increase that acreage by 50 percent. The Illinois Department of Business and Economic Development, designated by Gov. Kerner as the official liaison agency between the state and the federal government for Oakley planning, strongly favored the location of are reservoir near Decatur. The Department of Conservation, interested in potential park sites, added its support also.

There were some doubts at the state level about the wisdom of building a large reservoir on the Oakley site, but they were not effectively expressed. The State Division of Waterways (DOW) was left out of Oakley planning. Although the DOW was the only state agency with the technical expertise to analyze the Corps plans, it was ignored. Not until 1968, when the project was in trouble, were state waterways 'engineers consulted and then they were brought into bail out the project. Pro, con and in-between But basic opposition to developing Sangamon River Valley's water resources still existed. According to some area farmers, reservoir construction would be harmful in three ways: (1) loss of agricultural land to be covered by the reservoir; (2) damage from reservoir management; and (3) loss of more agricultural land to the inevitable urban sprawl stimulated by the man-made lake.

There were also arguments that continued industrial and municipal growth would eventually create insolvable water supply problems in Central Illinois. Dam supporters countered by arguing for the inevitability of growth and higher living standards, both of which required more water and justified public investment. Although powerful in the past, the questions raised by the farmers and conservationists in 1962were no longer strong enough to convince Congress that an Oakley reservoir should not be built. Dam opponents persevered in spite of overwhelming odds. They said that Central Illinois was not a logical place for the location of industries requiring large water supplies. The Hat land had too few natural holding basins for

October 1976 / Illinois Issues / 19

Piatt County leaders and the University of Illinois suggested applying land and water management concepts, but the Corps was not interested

water, and adequate reservoirs had to be pushed too far upstream, using excessive amounts of valuable land. Farmers in Piatt County were proud of their land which had been in cultivation for over 140 years. Much labor and expense had been applied to the conversion of the rich, heavy soil of prairie swamps into croplands.

Dam proponents argued that before cultivation, the swamplands served as sponges, soaking up heavy rainfall and releasing water slowly. Because of this slow release rate, the Sangamon River never developed a large channel. With the advent of intensive agriculture, along with efficient land drain age systems, the river was subjected to increasingly larger volumes of fast moving, silt-laden water which often exceeded the river's capacity. More floods spilled out on the Sangamon flood plains, and the increase in flood damages brought demands for flood control. There was agreement on the need to apply flood controls, but not on the means. Upstream farmers and conservationists preferred measures forthe retention of surface runoff. Reservoirs and channelization, the Corps' favored water management tools, they said, created more problems.

There was a segment of Oakley opposition whose feelings were mixed. As long as there was going to be a reservoir, they wanted to make the best of it. In Piatt County there were many who desired additional recreation opportunities. As in other areas in Central Illinois, there was a deficiency of outdoor recreation facilities. There were demands for water-based recreation, camping areas and hiking trails. In Piatt County, there already existed attractive areas which merited preservation as natural areas. Allerton Park was one of these. Considering the mix of interests in the area, Piatt leaders believed Oakley planning was too narrowly based. In 1962, A C. Kamm, Piatt County agricultural and conservation leader, suggested a meeting of Sangamon Valley interests to discuss regional planning. The University of Illinois with staff and facilities to provide planning expertise, was interested in the application of regional land and water management concepts to Sangamon resource problems. Walter Keith, director of Allerton Park, and a University of Illinois professor of landscape design, expressed a willingness to cooperate. Decatur officials were guarded in their responses to Kamm' side as and said they would cooperate as long as plans were not harmful to their city.

The Corps was not interested in proposals from Piatt County to make changes in the Oakley plan. A.C. Kamm and members of a Piatt area development committee contacted the Corps about extending Oakley's recreational benefits beyond Macon County. They wanted a deeper Lake Oakley which would not flood Piatt's agricultural lands or be subject to mudflats during reservoir draw downs. The group favored a project which would accommodate flood crests in smaller man-made lakes to be located on Sangamon tributaries above Oakley. The Corps refused to cooperate, citing the lack of congressional authority. Kamm and other committee members were determined to continue. They wanted to review many questions related to Corps' water management policies which had been denied a hearing before the public. The Corps held that its obligation to hold public hearings had been fulfilled in 1939 and 1941. There was sharp disagreement to this claim, and Oakley opponents insisted that the earlier hearings applied to a flood control plan which had no relation to the new multipurpose reservoir, Kamm's group, which later became the Upper Sangamon River Valley Association (USRVA), sought advice from the Wabash Valley Association, a group which had fought for Corps' projects, and was told that the only way for the USRVA to achieve project benefits was to launch a strong promotional effort to influence Congress, and in turn, the Corps.

USRVA goals for the orderly development of the Sangamon River were generally applauded, but with limited financial resources and no political backing, there was no chance that the group could weld the mass of conflicting interest?, into an effective force. The concept of regional planning surfaced when the Oakley bandwagon was well on its way and political commitments blocked any chances for altered policies. The idea of regional organization for planning was later picked up by Oakley promoters when project opposition became a real threat to their plans, Decature and Macon County leaders sponsored a council of governments with representatives from the six counties in the Sangamon Valley water shed area. Neither the USRVA nor the council of governments had the necessary clout to act as a successful regional organization.

Counties, University and USRVA
The need for coordination and comprehensive planning on a regional scale was vividly illustrated during the ensuing Oakley struggle. As the project developed and issues proliferated, federal and state officials from over 20 agencies became involved in policy decisions. Officials from three counties, Macon, Piatt and Champaign, representing boards of supervisors, planning commissions,. zoning boards, forest preserve districts, sanitary districts, park districts, drainage districts, road and bridge districts and school districts were all " caught up in the Oakley dilemma. Added to these were municipal officials from Decatur, Champaign, Urbana. Monticello, Springfield, Petersburg and Argenta, as well as other communities in the Sangamon watershed. The Oakley-Allerton case was debated by others in courts, legislatures, county seats and city councils as well as in countless informal meetings. The issues were carried to the public by newspapers, radio, television, petitions, pamphlets, books, official studies and reviews. The public was left bewildered by a mass of conflicting information as pro-Oakley and anti-Oakley forces assailed each other on every available plat form.

By 1962, the principals in the ensuing battle were lining up. The University of Illinois with obligations as the owner of Allerton Park, had special problemsrelated to development. Seeking more information about the reservoir, Allerton Director Keity consulted with Corps officials. In 1963, Louis D'Alba, a

20 / October 1976 / Illinois Issues

civilian planner with the Chicago Corps. District, assured Keith that the Corps would not raise the water level of the Oakley reservoir because any higher level would expose Monnceno to serious flooding. The Corps had been advised in 1950 by the Illinois Sanitary Board that Monticello's sewage treatment plant would be vulnerable to flooding by the Oakley project.

The university and the USRVA were in somewhat similar predicaments. Both needed time to review and make plans, but with a construction date set for 1968 or 1969. There was little time for any regional consultation. Both the university and the USRVA were also hampered by the lack of funds for study, and neither organization had much accurate information from the Corps, The situation was different in Decatur and Macon County where planning proceeded briskly. The Corps, the Illinois Department of Business and Economic Development and the Schellie Associates, a consulting firm hired by the state, worked with Decatur on a comprehensive plan for land use adjacent to Oakley.

In December 1963, the Chicago Corps' District Engineer. Col. John Mattina, told a group of Sangamon Valley officials that Oakley was a cooperative venture. He said the Corps would listen to local requests and that us work would no longer be secret. Good public reporting was promised. Rumors had been circulating that significant changes were being made in the Oakley project, but the colonel made no mention of them. What the colonel did not say was that significant. Oakley changes had already been approved. Meetings between the Corps. Decatur leaders and congressional representatives in Washington during April 1963 had resulted in an altered project. Henry Bolz.?. Decatur's dedicated Oakley booster, later described the meeting as one of long discussions about a " quality reservoir "or a " messy reservoir. " An agreement was made to amend the benefits to be derived from the project, and Decatur was given the go-ahead for land planning based on a larger reservoir.

Early in 1964. Col. Mattina returned to Decatur to announce the Oakley revisions including the addition of a new benefit for low flow augmentation that is for the dilution of pollution in the Sangamon River downstream from the Decatur sanitary plant of low river flow. The Corps official had Sew details to offer, but he did assure representatives from Monticello that their city's sewage system would be protected.. State officials predicted that a larger Oakley reservoir would attract thousands of weekend visitors from a100-mile radius, and the Corps estimated that here would be an additional $1 million income for the area. Piatt County residents jet it be known that they would not endure flooding in the winter and spring and mudflats in the summer and fat! for the sake of Decatur's growth. They intensified their claims for Piatt. benefits with a request for study funds for an upstream lake at Goose Creek for recreation and water storage and 1.0 provide fluctuation control for Lake Oakley.

"Through out 1964 and 1965, there was tittle information from Corps' planners. Their publicized promises for open planning failed to materialize. Since the Corps was working in almost total secrecy on its new Oakley design, the university administration looked to other sources for project data. Allerton Park officials learned that the Corps was considering diking around Monticello and Allerton Park to protect sewage systems. Information developed by (acuity scientists, the Illinois Natural History Survey and the Illinois State Water Survey increased university concern for Allerton Park. A fluctuating reservoir with higher water levels would severely damage the Allerton bottom lands. Scientists regarded these lands as a valuable and nonrenewable natural resource which should not be disturbed. From bits and pieces of information, the university learned that Lake Oaktey could be as high as 636feel above sea level, 55 feet above the 1962 design.

In February 1966, at a Decatur meeting arranged by Congressman Springer. The Corps unveiled a new Oakley. almost double in size. Increased silt storage needs, additional flood control to accommodate more water shed runoff and a water supply for a growing Decatur were cited as reasons for the change. The chief reason for the larger, deeper lake. however, was the low flow augmentation benefit designed to bring the Sangamon River up to state water quality standards by 1975.

The university was careful in its reaction to she announcement, simply commenting that regional interests were important considerations. The sharpest reaction came from the faculty, particularly from natural scientists who were certain that Allerton would be lost as a biological research facility. The new conservation pool would place nine feet of water at the lower end of the park, and additional lands would be periodically flooded. There were strong feelings that further project studies should be made, and the university asked theCorps not to make a final decision until there had been an opportunity for further study. The Corps replied that there was little time for additional input before the project was actually begun.

The university was caught in a bind. With many of its operations subject to public and political approval, the administration did not want to risk the displeasure of powerful Oakley backers. The cause to protect Allerton Park was taken up by concerned faculty members and others who asked, " Why trade off one recreation area for another and pay for it with public money when the one being traded costs the taxpayers nothing? " Surrounding farmlands donated by Allerton with the park provide income for the upkeep of the park. Park Director Keith viewed the growing predicament as proof of the need for coordination between the many governmental units involved.

Politics, planning and the public
Since 1962, Oakley had enjoyed solid political support, but in 1966, the new opposition from a group of well-trained scientists and active citizens promised trouble. What had seemed like a sure thing developed into a protracted political drama played out before thousands of Central Illinois citizens. Eventually, the weight of technical evidence produced a shift in public opinion and political support. The Corps was forced to abandon its multi-million dollar project, but not before years of human effort and millions of dollars were spent. The incredibly complicated sequence of events set in motion by the opposing coalition eventually forced the Corps to consider alternatives to their Oakley plan. Long a master of public relations, the Corps had never before met with a group quite like the citizens who banded together to defend Allerton Park. ˛

(Next month: Oakley and its middle years)

October 1976 / Illinois Issues / 12