ARMY ENGINEERS HEAR PRO-CONS 



ON 



ILLINOIS 



FLOOD CONTROL 



By JIM THOMSON 



Ass't Editor lAA Record 



PROTESTS from a score of upstream 

 county Farm Bureaus and numerous 

 civic, industrial, conservation and 

 sportsmen's organizations on the pro- 

 posed Illinois River basin flood control 

 plan were heard by a board of army 

 engineers in Springfield, May 31. 



Before a jampacked audience in the 

 auditorium of the Centennial building, a 

 parade of spokesmen denounced the 

 army's flood control scheme as "ill- 

 conceived," "unsound," "morally, eco- 

 nomically and socially wrong," "unjust 

 and unjustifiable," "inadequate," "un- 

 warranted," and "an extravagant waste 

 of the taxpayers' money." 



The project contemplates the expendi- 

 ture of $90,924,250 (1940 estimate) for 

 the construction or improvement of 

 315.7 miles of levees and flood walls and 

 improvement of 406 miles of Illinois 

 River tributary channels, and the pur- 

 chase of 142,700 acres of upstream land 

 for 15 flood reservoirs. 



The Illinois Agricultural Association 

 board of directors has expressed opposi- 



Representatives of numerous organizations and lust plain citizens pacic tlie Auditorium 



of the Centennial building in Springfield to voice their approval or opposition to the 



proposed Illinois River basin flood control program. 



The U. S. army board of engineers hears 



Evan Taylor (right), Sangamon County 



Farm Bureau president, protest agoinst the 



flood control plan. 



tion to the provisions of the plan calling 

 for the acquisition of farm lands for the 

 reservoirs pending the adoption of an 

 official position by the membership at the 

 annual meeting in November. 



Objections and recommendations and 

 a request that further study be given the 

 plan for flood control were filed at a 

 previous hearing before the army board 

 of engineers in Washington, April 30. 



Not quite so vociferous or numerous 

 but just as firm as the opposition were 

 delegations from downriver communities 

 and civic organizations favoring the flood 

 control plan. 



Back Flood Plan 



A plea for protection from future 

 floods was voiced by representatives from 

 Beardstown which barely averted disaster 

 during the 1943 flood. 



"People upstream think they have a 

 God-given right to get rid of the water 

 on their land as fast as they can, regard- 

 less of the consequences to the people 

 downstream," I. E. Wilson, white-haired 

 Farm Bureau member from Tazewell 

 county, declared. Wilson said he repre- 

 sented farmers in the Mackinaw Valley. 



Speaking for the farmers of Ford 

 county's Vermilion Valley, R. W. Cham- 

 bers of Piper City said they had experi- 

 mented with private efforts at flood con- 

 trol and were "disappointed" at the re- 

 sults. Chambers said farmers he repre- 

 sented were ready to approve any steps 

 the government might take to lessen flood 

 conditions and backed the plan as it 

 applied to the Vermilion Valley. 



Confidence in the ability of U. S. army 

 engineers and their recommendations was 

 expressed by Charles Arnold, Farm Bu- 



reau member and former president of the 

 Greene County Farm Bureau. 



He pointed out that much water for- 

 merly was held in swamps and low wet 

 lands up river. These swamps and nat- 

 urally wet lands have been drained, he 

 said, and a greatly increased run-off has 

 been thrown on the lower river areas. 

 Flood control, Arnold said, is the prob- 

 lem of all, not merely the burden of those 

 in drainage districts downstream. 



An endorsement of the flood control 

 plan was heard from Lee Martin repre- 

 senting the Greene county soil conserva- 

 tion district. The board of directors of 

 the Livingston County Farm Bureau filed 

 its approval of the plan as it applied to 

 the Livingston county area and on con- 

 dition that the army "finish the job." 



Others speaking in favor of the flood 

 control plan included the mayor of De- 

 catur, representatives of Paxton, Mur- 

 physboro, Chambersburg, Canton, the 

 Spoon River Valley, Jackson county, and 

 the Mississippi River Valley Authority. 



The Sangamon County Farm Bureau 

 and Springfield were particularly mili- 

 tant in their arguments against the flood 

 control reservoirs in Sangamon county 

 and the Springfield area. 



Recommend Conservation 



A proposal that the project be aban- 

 doned until the effectiveness of soil con- 

 servation measures to slow up run-off is 

 tried was offered by Evan Taylor, presi- 

 dent of the Sangamon County Farm Bu- 

 reau. 



Taylor said the plan was a "gross in- 

 justice" to Sangamon county farmers. 



{Continued on page 13) 



I. A. A. RECORD 



