Local Farmer Effort in Fighting Against the Oakley Dam

The Oakley dam initiated and approved by congress in 1962 was sure to have some resistance from environmental organizations and local stake holders. However, the collection of effort against the dam including the Committee on Allerton Park, local advocates and students, Illinois EPA, and even rural farmers became a force to reckon with. Building a dam on the Sangamon River would have had detrimental effects on the water health and ecology of the river and nearby ecosystems. Forests would have been flooded permanently and so would farmland. It was clear to the IEPA and academic researchers that the building of the dam would have done exponentially more damage than good. While many community members were passionate about stopping the dam, no one else had as much at stake as the local farming community. In an unlikely circumstance, local farmers joined the fight alongside environmentalists.

The Dam’s Impact on Local Farmland

The proposed dam would have caused Lake Decatur to overflow, flooding acres of forest in Allerton Park, as well as acres of farmland in Piatt County. The proposed damage to the farmland angered many farmers, including Piatt County farmer John Dighton. Dighton took his argument to congress to demonstrate his disapproval of the dam. In Dighton’s testimony to congress, he shared the damage that the Oakley dam would do on 12,000 acres of farmland. Damaged farmland due to poor drainage and floods would have reduced the yield of many farmers. As an effect of lower crop yield, farmers would have had less income. Dighton continued to explain that damage to the farmland wouldn’t have just devastated the farmers, but it also would have devastated the entire county. As Dighton shared, Piatt County’s economy was extremely dependent on the money that farming brought. Without the usual yield of crops, Piatt County would have economically struggled. Dighton was just one farmer who effectively demonstrated to congress the negative impact building the dam would have had on the farmers and surrounding county. Many others took to congress to share their story and opinion.  

“Damage to the farmer reduces the economic level of the entire area.”

The Issues with the Water Ecology

On March 15 ^th , 1973, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) sent a letter to the Illinois Governor outlining the environmental concerns with the creation of the Oakley dam. In addition to the Oakley dam, the IEPA referenced the Friends Creek reservoir in their letter, making comparisons to the potentially poor water quality. The IEPA noted that while the official standards both the Oakley and Friends Creek reservoirs would have met the Illinois Water Quality Standards, the IEPA predicted that there would eventually be unsafe levels of phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria in the water. The IEPA projected that unsafe levels of nitrites and nitrates from agricultural subsurface drainage would have posed risk for drinking water as well as water used for processing food.  The issue associated with phosphates and nitrates in the water was eutrophication, or the creation of algae blooms. This posed a great risk to the aquatic life of the river and lake systems.

Algae blooms are damaging as they cover the surface of the water in a thick layer, blocking out sunlight. The lack of sunlight kills the other plant life in the water. The dead plant matter leads to decreased dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the water, killing aquatic animals and creatures, since the aquatic plants are no longer able to photosynthesize. A lifeless water system is not a healthy water system. Algae blooms caused by eutrophication was just one of the proposed issues associated with building the Oakley dam.

In addition to the issues associated with agricultural drainage, surface runoff from agricultural systems posed a threat to the water ecology of Lake Springer. Water runoff from agriculture fields carried soil particles into the water posing a couple issues. Similar to how nitrates from agricultural artificial fertilizers can cause eutrophication, phosphorus from soil particles carried by water runoff can also cause eutrophication. Separate from eutrophication, soil particles in the water can cause increased levels of turbidity due to heightened sedimentation. Turbidity is a measurement of the cloudiness/murkiness of water. Increased sedimentation generally increases turbidity. High levels of sedimentation can clog fish gills and high turbidity can make it difficult for predators to seek out prey. Additionally, murky water can reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches plants, killing aquatic plant life.

The proposed dam was supposed to improve the water quality. While the dam would have reduced the turbidity of the water, the decreased turbidity would have increased algae blooms. With the Dam, there would have been less brush within the water, reducing the reoxygenation potential of the water.

All in all, the water quality of lake Decatur and the Sangamon River was barely adequate. The building of the dam would not have improved the water quality. Based upon the IEPA report, it was likely the water quality would have continued to decrease.

As far as water quality goes, a big reason for farmer opposition had to do with its effect on farm practices. The proposed dam highlighted the need to reduce artificial fertilizers and input more vigorous soil conservation practices.

Industrial agriculture, specifically monoculture agriculture, brought many environmental concerns. To this day, industrial agriculture is a major cause of deforestation, eutrophication, habitat loss, freshwater depletion, soil and microorganism depletion, and more.

Possible Reasons Farmers were Against Reducing Artificial Pesticides

Non-organic agriculture produces more yield than organic farming. This is incredibly important to farmers, as the amount of crops a farmer grows is equivalent to their income.  

Another reason is pure tradition. Many farmers have been part of a family of farmers for generations. Over time, these farmers have developed their own methods of farming. Even if it is not the most environmental or efficient, farmers tend to stick with their traditional methods.

Quite frankly, some of these farmers were just stubborn. While there were many other factors, these reasons most likely contributed to why farmers were resistant to reducing artificial fertilizers and increasing soil conservation practices.

Plan for Nitrate Removal

A News Gazette article show above, published on May 14, 1973, explored the issue of nitrate removal. Mary Lee Leahy, former head of the EPA, claimed that the removal of nitrates from the water to maintain a safe quality of water would not be the farmer's responsibility. However, the Decatur water treatment plant confirmed that there were no attempts made at nitrate removal. This lack of action would have forced farmers to reduce the use of artificial fertilizers, as the promise to have the EPA removal the nitrates was not kept. It can be concluded that if the dam was built, the farmers would have had to reduce their application of artificial fertilizers.

The fight against the Oakley dam spread over multiple decades, involving a plethora of stakeholders including the Army Corps of Engineers, Committee on Allerton Park, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, University of Illinois students, congress, Illinois politicians, Farm Bureau leaders, local farmers, and many others. Each stake holder had something unique to offer to the fight. In the case of the local farmers, the preservation of their farmland for the sake of their own economic stability as well as their county was the forefront of their battle. The issue over soil conservation and added fertilizers added another layer of complexity to the farmers’ fight. The environmentalists fought alongside the farmers despite the poor water quality being a result of the damaging farming practices. Regardless of the personal interest of each stakeholder fighting against the dam, the team effort of everyone involved shut the Oakley dam project for good.