6 DHE <A;U Ds BeO ang 4B U Le erie 
MACKINAW RIVER: Two dam sites on the Mackinaw River were 
recently found economically infeasible by the COE. These sites have been 
studied since the Thirties. 
KICKAPOO CREEK: Two dams are planned along Kickapoo Creek 
in Peoria County by the COE. A $176,000 study is underway to justify them. 
The Corps is attempting to placate conservationists by promising to buy 
woodland around the reservoirs. 
LA MOINE: The La Moine River has been studied by the COE for 
years and proposed reservoirs have been declared economically unsound. 
A 1970 DOW report recommends no dams in the river. However, the Corps 
has a $354,000 study of the river underway. The La Moine Valley Association 
reputedly wants a dam, and the Corps seems determined to study every 
possibility. 
The above information ignores the innumerable small reservoirs, 
channelizations, straightenings, and other alterations planned for small 
streams. It also passes over some major reservoir sites which are scheduled 
for study. Illinois’ water resources are about to undergo rapid development. 
Serious questions about the need for these costly developments, their en- 
vironmental effects, and their long-term desirability had best be asked 
soon—otherwise there will be no major rivers left in anything approaching 
a natural state for future generations to enjoy—or even “develop.” 
JOHN FRANSON, AUDUBON’S CENTRAL-MIDWEST REP, WRITES: 
“In spite of Congressional hearings, the Soil Conservation Service remains 
as determined as ever to continue their channelization programs. The 
hearings already held by Congressman Henry Reuss in the House and 
Senators B. Everett Jordan and James Buckley in the Senate have ac- 
cumulated a vast array of evidence testifying to the damage that has al- 
ready taken place in the country and which still threatens scores of our 
natural streams and watersheds. At first we felt that the S.C.S. might 
relent and reconsider this serious practice, but the funds and personnel 
that it attracts are apparently too tempting. 
“In a special memorandum, the S.C.S. said that it was re-evaluating 
its “stream improvement” practices, but as it turns out the re-evaluation 
has really made little difference as most of the channelization projects have 
been classified to proceed. 
“In the meantime conservationists have found that they are having 
great difficulty obtaining work plans (which are public information) from 
the S.C.S. on watersheds in their community. The most recent action by 
S.C.S. has been to refuse to send Environmental Impact statements to 
individuals who inquire about watershed projects. The S.C.S. has now 
taken the same tack as the Bureau of Transportation and the Atomic 
Energy Commission in referring them to mail-order firms for impact state- 
ments. (It is strange indeed that the S.C.S. can spend $90 million on water- 
shed programs, but somehow cannot make extra Environmental Impact 
Statements so people can find out what the impact of their programs will 
be. Basically, it looks as though this is another attempt to hinder the 
public in analyzing small watershed programs.) 
“Many channelization programs have been referred to chapters in the 
central midwest. If there are such projects in your area, they have been 
referred to your officers by us. Chapters should be in the process of analyz- 
ing watershed projects in their area so that your own streams will not 
be destroyed.” 
