26 LHE AUDUBON BU Ee 
would require bulldozing about 
650 acres of Allerton for the con- 
servation pool and the _ periodic 
flooding of another 300 acres, the 
Committee on Allerton Park was 
formed. A_ technically diverse 
group of conservationists—econo- 
mists, lawyers, engineers, biolo- 
gists—botanists, zoologists, and art- 
ists—they decided to try a new 
approach in dealing with the 
Corps. Instead of harping at the 
Corps for its well known insensi- 
tivity to ecological and aesthetic 
values, the Committee on Allerton 
met the Corps head-on at a pro- 
fessional level. They out-thought 
and out-engineered the Corps, prov- 
ing that an alternate, cheaper, and 
more aesthetic means existed to 
solve the same problems that the 
revised Oakley dam was proposed 
to solve. 
The Committee on Allerton Park 
criticized the Corps on the follow- 
ing grounds: 
(1) The Corps was incredibly 
narrow in its exploration of alter- 
natives. The Committee presented 
a petition with 20,000 signatures 
(followed by one bearing 80,000) 
to Illinois Senators Dirksen and 
Percy and 22nd District Congress- 
man Springer in December of 1967. 
The Illinois legislators responded 
by asking the Corps to restudy the 
project. In March 1969 the Corps 
released 12 alternatives to Oakley, 
including proposals for an altern- 
ate water supply and advanced 
waste treatment for Decatur. 
While the Corps was doing its 
restudy, the Committee continued 
its investigations. The Committee 
found that the law states that 
storage and water releases are not 
to serve as a substitute for advance 
treatment or other means of con- 
troling wastes at their sources. 
the Corps had designated ove; 
billion gallons (69 per cent of 
initial lake volume) in the Oal 
reservoir for low-flow augme 
tion. In fact, prior to its Test 
the Corps had not considere 
much cheaper advanced sew 
treatment plant as an alterna 
to dilution storage at Oakley. 
Another alternative the C 
neglected until it made its rest 
was using the underground Te 
Aquifier as an alternate water s 
ply for Decatur. In 1954 Dee; 
installed two wells in this un 
ground river. The wells hay 
capacity of five million gallons 
day, one-fourth of the city’s t 
current need, but they have ne 
been used. This underground wi; 
is free of nitrate pollution 
increasingly dangerous pollu 
common to surface water supp 
The conservationists also fo 
the Corps’ plan for downstr 
channelization illogical. The C 
had calculated the costs of ct 
nelizing the 100 mile section 
river at $18 million. The Comi 
tee for Allerton found that 
entire 67,000 acres of bottom | 
along the same river section—m 
of which never floods—could 
purchased at about the same ( 
(2) The Corps overstated prc 
benefits and frequently understi 
project costs. The Committee 
Allerton set its economists, 
gineers, and lawyers to work 
each of the benefits claimed by 
Corps for the Oakley project. 
Committee’s engineers repo 
that the Corps’ claim of flood d 
age on the lower Sangamon — 
exaggerated by about 5 to 1, 
crop losses occur about one } 
in 20, and that much of the floc 
