Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1976 [PAGE 177]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

166

BOARD OF T R U S T E E S

[January 15

Livingston, Mr. Neal, Mrs. Rader, Mr. Steger, Mr. Swain; no, Mr. Hahn; absent, Mr. Howard,1 Governor Walker.

Report: The Impact of the Springer Lake Project Upon Robert Allerton Park a n d Other University Properties: by Walter M. Keith, Director, Robert Allerton Park January 9, 1975 Questions: Will the Springer Lake Project significantly increase flooding in Allerton Park? Will the Springer Lake Project adversely affect the ecology of Allerton Park? Will the land above the joint-use pool (at 621-623' msl [mean sea level]) u p to and above the flood control pool be covered with foliage, satisfactory for general recreational use when not covered with water?

* Mr. Livingston asked that the record show that he had received a letter from Mr. Howard, who was unable to attend the meeting, in which Mr. Howard expressed his views on the matter. Mr. Howard's letter follows: December 31, 1974 Mr. Timothy W. Swain 1900 Savings Center Tower 411 Hamilton Boulevard Peoria, Illinois 61602 RE: Allerton Park—Lake Springer Dear Tim: As you know, I will not be able to attend the January meeting of the Board of Trustees, nor the meeting of the General Policy Committee to be held on the afternoon prior to the Board meeting. Because the Allerton Park hearing is ol serious importance to the University, I wanted to record mv impressions on the subject of the Springer Lake (Oakley Dam) Project and its effect on Allerton Park. We are all mindful of the rich heritage of Allerton Park, historically and from a research standpoint. I was not a member of the Board when the initial discussions were held, nor when the last revised memorandum ol agreement v*as entered into. However, it is clear that the Memorandum was designed to protect Allerton to the highest degree possible. The only interest this University has had in this matter is the welfare of the park, held by us in trust for the people of this state. I would first comment that the memorandum provides only that the University, on its part, will "support" the project. I find no evidence that the University has violated that agreement. City officials from Decatur have stated that we agreed to "enthusiastically support" the project but those words do not appear in the agreement, and those words would not be consistent with what I understand the agreement to be. I find from the evidence we have received that it is unlikely that the project will meet the criteria stated in the revised memorandum. The estimated needs of the City of Decatur have been substantially revised downward, as I understand it. The Board has subsequently also become aware that the Corps of Engineers will not be bound by any of the arrangements made between the parties to the revised agreement, and would not be bound to maintain an operational plan even if the initial operational plan met all of the present requirements of the memorandum. It is my best judgment that the statement of the Board on February 20, 1974 and the recommendations of the latest Harza report have not been met and will not be met in any binding fashion. Unless and until the University can receive from the Corps of Engineers clear and binding assurances that: (1) the project will not result in significantly increased flooding; (2) the project will not adversely affect ecology in the park; (3) the land above the joint use pool for accommodation of flood control will be covered with foliage and will be generally satisfactory for recreational use when not covered with water; (4) that a binding operational plan will provide for lower levels than 623 msl during all of the lengthy time when the water needs of the City of Decatur do not require the higher pool; (5) that the release rate will be maintained as specified and recommended in the Harza report; and (6) that the project will be implemented, including the greenbelt, all at one time; it is my recommendation that the Board go on record as being unwilling to continue its present stand in support of the project. Such a position does not amount to a breach of the agreement, but rather would be a statement that the Board of Trustees believes that the provisions of that memorandum have not been carried out and that the Board will not continue to support the project until those conditions can be met in a way that binds all parties, including the Corps of Engineers. Very truly yours, G. W. Howard III