Toward the end -- Part 8

Causeway bridge work

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers held a meeting on Feb. 11, 1965 at the Brookville High School gymnasium.

More than 1,000 people showed up, according to a report from the Richmond Palladium-Item, written by Max Knight.

The throng was gathered because they wanted to know exactly how the federal government intended to proceed with purchasing land in the doomed valley of the East Fork.

Clearly, if only those who lived in the valley of the East Fork had been in attendance, the census would have been well short of 1,000. So lots of people with no dog in the fight were there to catch a bit of the news.

Wrote Knight:

"A crowd of 1,000 people listened in attentive silence as corps officers Maurice Gardner, Fred Morgan and Thomas Roper explained the time schedule for construction and plans for land acquisition."

Roper was succinct in telling the crowd what would not be discussed. "We have been so ordered by Congress, and that is exactly what we intend to do. Therefore, we do not intend to get into any question of whether the project should be undertaken or not."

So don't ask. Just. Don't. Ask.

The Corps had a pretty good handle on its schedule, Gardner said, estimating it would take just over four working seasons to complete the project, "meaning it would fill in late 1969 and early 1970."

The Corps was off on that estimate by about 4 years.

A total of 11,000 acres were to be purchased by the state and federal governments, including the approximately 7,700 acres for the lake itself. "The order of purchase will be the dam construction site first, reservoir area second, shoreline area third and finally the recreation area."

Roper and Gardner were less specific about the locations of the recreation areas, though they did reveal that seven such locations would be included.

"Purchase of the land is to start this spring (1965)," Gardner told the crowd, "and will not be completed until 1968." The method of buying land was to be dictated by "just compensation."

Fair market value, as appraised by the Corps of Engineers, was to be considered when negotiating with homeowners.

"This appraised value will not be made known to the landowners but will be used in arriving at a figure to offer for the land being purchased."

In other words, the deck was stacked. Hell, we had to move anyway.

Landowners were to be permitted to remain in their homes until the project reached that geographic area. Most moved before that time, however.

The two were unclear at the time about the need to move a cemetery in Dunlapsville, which inevitably did not have to be moved. As well, the covered bridges at Fairfield and Dunlapsville weren't being protected.

Roper said: "We cannot move a covered bridge for its historic value. However, in many cases, local historical groups band together to move a covered bridge to a new location."

That plan didn't work out too well. ABOUT THE BRIDGE

What didn't come out clearly was whether the first sellers had an impact on those who sold later in the process. The Corps seemed to dance around the question by saying "We offer fair market value." Presumably what a property was worth at the time it was bought was what it was worth to the government.

In any event, eminent domain had won out.

Along the way, the state made plans to buy land east of the valley where the new State Route 101 would be located.

And a strategic plan was put into place to construct a bridge across the lake at Fairfield that connected SR 101 with SR 1 in Blooming Grove. That became Causeway Road and linked New Fairfield to the outside world.

Causeway in the distance

Part of the land that the state bought during the land acquisition phase included a 300-foot buffer zone around the lake that prohibited any construction. The buffer zone was designed to accommodate extremely high water in the lake.

And the state mandated that all boats on the lake were to be docked at marinas rather than in front of private homes. Cutting down on tacky was a big deal. The Indiana Flood Control Commission, in justifying the mandate, said: "Water in a reservoir fluctuates with each rain and the danger of swamping an unattended boat is prevalent."

Tom O'Connor, chief cook and bottle washer in running the local flood control committee, estimated that a million unique visitors would come to the lake in any given year.

"We must have sufficient roads to carry such a demand and zoning restrictions to keep the land around the lake respectable."

Well, that was the goal. The part about the roads is still being discussed.

MORE DAM CONSTRUCTION PHOTOS

Toward the end -- Part 7

Carl and Ruth Huber

It's not clear when and how the competing relocation associations emerged but by September 1965, the association planning to build a town on Luke-Naylor-Butcher land had begun to lose traction.

According to a Richmond newspaper report at that time, the Fairfield Redevelopment Corp. had been founded with Ambrose Banning, Kathryn Bosse and Alice Snider as its chief officers. The names would be recognizable to any Fairfielder.

According to the Palladium-Item report:

"The organization, which recently filed articles of incorporation, will take options on real estate to provide homes for Fairfield residents and 'other facilities necessary for community living.'"

The project was much more complicated than that and it's apparent from history that the best-laid plans are mostly chewed up by the mice.

The New Fairfield that Banning envisioned was atop a hill just southeast of the town, on 200 acres owned by Carl Huber and Herschel Klein. Access was up a long winding gravel road off of old State Highway 101. It was a farm, not a town. Options on that land were signed in early October 1965.

That same week, work began on the outlet works for the dam just north of Brookville.

Moving from Fairfield was no longer an option.

The Redevelopment Association did, however, have local support. Such names as Wendel Luker, Edgar Schwegmann, Bob Bowers, Al Hansford, Raymond Day, Carl Bockover, Herbert Jinks, Lucille Shepler were included.

Meanwhile:

"The Fairfield Relocation Association, an organization with similar aims, was set up some time ago. Its present status was not immediately clear Wednesday night." (Its main members were Leroy Stevens and Bob Chapman.)

Relocation talk had begun as early as 1963, though direction was difficult since virtually none of the actual funding for the reservoir had been approved by Congress. At the time, only a minority of residents actually believed the dam would be constructed.

The concept of a New Fairfield was more in the minds of the blueprint companies than in the reality on the ground.

What you see is not what they wanted.

A disclaimer in one Brookville newspaper article outlining the Redevelopment Corp.'s objectives:

"It is pointed out that this is a non-profit organization, and that membreshuip does not constitute a commitment or any kind, neither to buy a lot nor to move to the new town. But members will be given first choice of lots, and the cost of membership will be deductible from the price of the lot."

It's worth noting that NONE of the members of the Redevelopment Corp., except for Banning, ever lived in New Fairfield ... and never intended to live there. The Sheplers already lived on the Klein farm. Schwegmann eventually moved his house to New Fairfield.

Toward the end -- Part 6

Moving the town did not save its history.

Opposition to the Brookville reservoir was essentially confined to a group who believed that there were alternatives to the reservoir, not that there should be no commitment to flood control.

Flood control debates were not necessary. The river south of Fairfield was a major contributor to high water on the main fork south of Brookville, on toward the Miami at Hamilton, Ohio, and eventually ... as far south as Evansville on the Ohio.

Taming the East Fork was a priority primarily because it could be done with the least hassle, so to speak. A more practical dam could be created to displace the fewest number of residents. In a sense, Fairfield's location, considered a prime spot in 1815, was exactly its problem 150 years later.

Once the control tower was built in 1964, and in months immediately preceding that, talk about relocating the town began. With no consensus on exact strategy, not much came of it in those first years.

The major roadblock to town relocation was a lack of information. The exact footprint of the lake wasn't clear and state officials were reluctant to share details on how much land Indiana intended to manage after the lake was completed.

That was partly intentional. Indiana didn't want to encourage land purchase speculation along the hills of the valley of the East Fork.

So nobody knew where to go and the places that seemed logical were without access. Existing roads all went somewhere else and the government's policy was to allow displaced residents to simply go ... where those roads took them.

Many did exactly that, but the idea that the town could be relocated came after Fairfield residents spent time discussing their options in the Indiana town of Somerset, which was also inundated in the 1960s. Somerset simply purchased land near the original town, picked up and moved.

The issues in the East Fork were more complicated.

Two eventual plans emerged, though it's a stretch to say there was major disagreement. It was simply a matter of choice.

All that in the face of ongoing opposition, which was mainly directed at the question of whether the lake itself was economically feasible. In 1963, state conservation official C.E. Swain, responding to an appeal from dam opponents, was quoted in a Cincinnati Times-Star newspaper article:

"At this stage, we do not have sufficient information on the area watershed to determine the kinds and extent of practices that would provide a feasible project."

Swain's comments amplified the ongoing confusion at the time about whether the lake would actually be completed and, if so ... when. The ensuing turmoil made plans muddy for relocating a town.

That might not have to be moved anyway.

Once the project cleared the academic hurdles, discussions about relocation took center stage.

On Jan. 24, 1965, Joan Chapman, writing for the Richmond Palladium-Item:

"The Fairfield Relocation Association, composed of residents Wendell Luker, Carl Bonar, Gerald Larson, Ambrose Banning, and chairman Leroy Stevens, has taken options on approximately 200 acres a half-mile east of the present site of Fairfield.

The original New Fairfield site

"Fifty acres belonging to Frank Luke and 114 acres owned by Alden Naylor are in Union County. The remaining 8 acres owned by Naylor and 37 acres owned by Dimmit Butcher are in Franklin County.

Agreements had been verbally approved with the Rural Electric Cooperative as well as the Army Corps of Engineers to construct access to the town and help install new roads and utilities. Paul Alberts, an engineer from Oxford, Ohio, was enlisted to draw up a design.

The Fairfield group endeavored to follow the Somerset blueprint in preparing for the move. (See blog item on the right.)

BUT ...

This would not, however, be the site of New Fairfield.

Toward the end -- Part 5

Creeks near the lake

As the rock moved downhill toward the change in the valley of the East Fork, it's important to know that not everyone was on board with construction of a multimillion-dollar reservoir north of Brookville.

A group known as the Whitewater Valley Citizens Committee was quite active in opposing the reservoir, despite a general acknowledgement that flood control on the Whitewater River was vital.

Instead, this committee proposed and supported with research an alternative known as the Small Watershed Project. 

Beginning in early 1963, the committee met regularly in Fairfield and in adjoining homes, primarily to push for support of the watershed agenda. A key voice in that fight was a guy named Floyd Howard, who lived in the Dunlapsville area. Howard was quite active in lobbying the region's state and federal lawmakers.

To no avail, obviously.

Howard's approach was to promote development of existing recreational opportunities in the valley as opposed to sweeping them all away in one gigantic move. 

He wrote in a letter to the Brookville newspapers in 1963: "Make no mistake about it, not building the Brookville reservoir will not mean that there cannot be lakes available for fishing, boating, etc. They can be built under the watershed program. Smaller, yes, but not too small to be of great recreational benefit to this part of Indiana."

Howard's dream was to dam up smaller creeks and tributaries along the East Fork to provide a series of smaller lakes that could also help prevent excessive runoff into the river. The larger picture, Howard envisioned, spread that project out over a much larger area.

The government wasn't buying it, however. 

The committee included several prominent residents in the valley, notably Carl Huber, Orval Sintz, Edgar Schwegmann, Donald Davis. It's not clear who favored which approach, but all agreed that discussion was useful.

The committee eventually ruled that "the benefits to the local economy would not be so great as some would claim."

The standing strategy: "There are many who may be affected who do not know it. It seems to be impossible to obtain this information from the agencies which may be able to enlighten the people. The Citizens group feels that the affected individuals should be informed of the proposed plans."

Perhaps a bit of undue concern, but at the time the reservoir project lacked detail. It would be a couple of years before the "enlightenment" actually came.

Howard's ongoing crusade was relentless. He wrote regularly in the local newspapers about the subversion of common sense, citing soil and water conservation programs around Indiana that his watershed plan held ... well, water.

Meanwhile, the dam moved forward.

"So now the issue is up again," Howard wrote in March 1963. "It is the same monster that has plagued America for the last 20 years. We believe this river was not intended to be included by Congress when they gave the Corps (of Engineers) the area of the 'major navigable river or tributary.' The East Fork ... is surely of such size that it would be practical for P.L. 566."

Public Law 5566 was a federal program from 1954 that Howard believed applied more to the East Fork than the Army Corps of Engineers did as it continued forward patiently toward the inevitable. P.L. 566 was designed to let local groups solve watershed problems without the aid of the massive federal government. It was aimed at local flood control and soil erosion.

And in November 1965, the government awarded the first contract to the Detroit firm of R.E. Dailey, which had bid just over $1.8 million to construct the outlet works at the south end of the valley. It was there that the control tower was built.

From that point forward, Howard and his Citizens Committee became less and less relevant.

Though not completely irrelevant.

In January 1964, another watershed project on the East Fork, in addition to the reservoir, began to show life.

That project was to include another 18 smaller lakes, mostly in Wayne County, all ranging in size from 40 to 130 acres. In total, more than 250,000 acres were to be affected by the program, that including the Brookville lake. 

Its purpose? Flood control? 

Hardly. The small lakes were to be permanent, clearly for recreation, though the principle was vaguely disguised as integral to flood control in the upper part of the valley that contained the East Fork of the river.

Some locations where retention ponds were to be located: Southeast of Yankeetown; Nut Run, east of Liberty; north of Middleboro; Bethel; Vernon (all in Wayne County); several others between Richmond and Abington in southern Wayne County; others in Randolph County and in Darke County, Ohio.

That watershed program eventually changed and underwent modifications along the way and it's of marginal interest to Fairfield, though presumably the nature of Brookville Lake has been affected by it.

WAYNE COUNTY SWCD

Toward the end -- Part 4

Our evaluation of the politics of the 1960s was more genteel on a lot of levels than it would be today, but the nature of our federal government following the Eisenhower years was decidedly Democratic.

A strong executive branch that grew out of the Franklin D. Roosevelt years was still in evidence when John F. Kennedy defeated Richard M. Nixon in 1960. Generally, it seems Nixon was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, though it's likely he'd have continued the Eisenhower policies had he been elected.

Too much detail probably. Books are abundant on the years Ike was president, and it's fair to assume that he'd have approved the Brookville reservoir project had it been offered by Congress.

Following the thread toward the actual approval of the funds to build the dam, much of it connects to Lyndon B. Johnson, who was installed as president after Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963. Johnson had established himself as a molder of policy during his years in the Senate, and that was reportedly still much in evidence after he became president.

In effect, what LBJ wanted, LBJ got ... and he launched a strong federal approach to the nation's ills, including his "war on poverty" and "Great Society" themes, some of which is being debated today for their effectiveness, or lack thereof.

But public works projects met with less resistance, and the funding of such behemoth tasks as damming up entire river valleys was precisely what Kennedy had envisioned for America when he was elected:

Our country is too strong to fail. We can even go to the moon if we work together. Democrats in Congress agreed with that and moved forward on ideas that had been advanced by Eisenhower, re-defined by Kennedy and driven home by LBJ.

A dam on the East Fork was more than just a lake. It was America being great, America taming its resources, America proving that a river is just a river.

Indiana's elected representatives in those days were mostly sturdy Democrats. Sen. Vance Hartke had been elected in 1958 and Birch Bayh after that. Both were Kennedy Democrats. Bayh actually served as the principal speaker when groundbreaking ceremonies were held in December 1965.

The state's 9th Congressional District, which included Fairfield, had been governed by Republican Earl Wilson for approximately 390 years -- give or take a semester -- before Wilson was replaced in 1964 by Democrat Lee Hamilton, who will be explored in another blog piece. (Wilson was a supporter of the reservoir project.)

Weaving in and out of congressional politics was an exercise in futility, particularly prior to the final appropriation of construction funds. But futility was just a word for those who principally opposed the reservoir and openly valued a watershed program. Another story, another blog item.

The money for building the dam, as well as other flood control projects in Indiana, came through the Senate, all part of a $4.4 billion public works bill. In all, $27 million was earmarked for Brookville, some of which was provided by the state of Indiana to "insure that the state maintain control of the water rights and storage."

Brookville provided its own muscle to the project as it moved through the political process. A flood control association was formed in 1959 following a devastating flood that hit the town when its levee broke. At least $30,000 in federal dollars went to the association to study flooding, with the help of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

That study data was used to promote a positive vision for building the dam. Once LBJ's public works notions began to take root, it was simply a matter of adding a million here, a million there ... and America would indeed turn a river into a lake.

By the middle of 1963, the answers began to apply to the questions. The lake was inevitable.

Along the way, changes in plans accompanied ongoing studies.

In summary, almost anybody who mattered was in favor of the reservoir project, for diverse reasons.

All those opposed may go somewhere else to live.

In Brookville, they held a parade.

Drawing of the plan in 1965.

Toward the end -- Part 3

Brier Cemetery (bridge in background) 1965 P-I photo

By the start of 1965, it had become clear that the federal reservoir was no longer a possibility but a reality. The construction of a Corps of Engineers control tower just north of Brookville on the East Fork had settled the discussion.

It was the town's tombstone.

Various newspapers dabbled with the fate of the community over a couple of years, most of them achieving the same objective with virtually no twist on the concept.

How did people feel about leaving Fairfield for "somewhere else"?

Joan Chapman, a Fairfielder who worked as a correspondent for the Richmond Palladium-Item, was more thorough than some others when reporting on the slow, painstaking process of pulling up stakes and finding a home "somewhere else" other than Fairfield.

Her three-part series in January 1965 was insightful.

"I wish they'd do what they're going to do," Ora Linegar was quoted as saying, "so I'd know what I can do."

Linegar, whose farm was on the north edge of town, was like many who were waiting for the federal government to complete the process for buying the land and giving residents some direction about what to do next.

Not much direction came. Slowly, the houses were purchased, the school closed, and the residents began to scatter. Most stayed within driving distance of Fairfield because their jobs were still in the area.

Some found homes in Liberty, Brookville, Connersville, other similar towns. Farmers mostly just "moved to town" and gave up the business. It was hard to find another farm.

Joan Chapman wrote: "To date about $756,000 has been appropriated for construction of the dam. Only an act of God or a national emergency will stay these plans."

Said Willie T. Davis, who had owned a grocery: "It would mean the end of us and I am not sure what we would do. But if the dam is for the good of Franklin County, then I am all for it going in."

An odd conflux of emotions.

A peculiar event had taken place a couple of years earlier when Clarence O'Hara, in the face of the impending reservoir project, built a house in Fairfield.

"Undaunted by the coming deluge, this man's courage has enabled his family to experience the unique joy of a brand new home for the past three years."

The house was eventually moved north of Liberty.

Joan wrote: "But it will only be in retrospect, many years hence, that we may evaluate the courage, stamina and resourcefulness of the people of this small Hoosier community."

Joan and Bob Chapman eventually moved their house north onto old S.R. 101 and lived there until both died.

Meanwhile ...................................

Toward the end -- Part 2 (Somerset)

Somerset downtown area, winter 1963

The 1960s marked a major shift for Indiana in terms of its infrastructure.

On several levels, the state crawled out of the past into a strange new era.

Mainly, the state's highway system began to improve with changes in federal funding and the introduction of a state sales tax (2% if you are counting). The interstate highway system was slowly gaining traction as well.

Meanwhile, the state dismantled its awkward and confused public school system, shutting down the rural township schools, shuffling the students into consolidated playpens that promised better education, better teachers, more efficiency and ... almost everything else that looked good on paper.

As the highways bypassed the towns, the towns became less a destination than an inconvenience. It would be a few years before the principle of the shopping mall would take root, but the menu was on the table.

And Indiana began to take stock of its natural resources. Included was soil and water management practices that would inevitably draw the blueprint for the Brookville Reservoir.

Brookville was one of several such projects in Indiana at the time, and the people of Fairfield gained considerable knowledge about the process by studying a similar scenario in the Wabash County town of Somerset.

The town was on the Mississinewa River and was, like Fairfield, moved to accommodate a federal dam in 1965.

An Indianapolis Times article in February 1963 explored life in Somerset as the shadow 0f the dam grew larger.

"The river won't stay away from Somerset's door, so the whole town is set to move."

Somerset, as a town, eventually moved to a high spot not far from its original location, and the Times said that it was the only move of an entire unincorporated town to a new site, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Fairfield would not be moved for several more years, so it's not clear if it qualifies since the town itself was not moved, simply inundated. Semantics, I suppose.

Somerset was approximately the same size as Fairfield, population around 300, and was one of several communities in north-central Indiana along the Wabash Basin to be affected frequently by high water.

"People here are resigned to moving, but not giving up on Somerset," the article said. "An association of citizens was formed ... by local businessman Fred Snyder."

What separated Somerset from Fairfield is perhaps the coordinated effort by its residents.

According to the article, "The Army told us that if at least 50 percent of the 72 families having to move would agree to build another town, they'd build streets for us. We formed a corporation and bought a site," Snyder was quoted as saying.

Despite all that, the usual turmoil and angst over moving the community was real, according to the article.

"A majority will be hurt by it. One woman, born and raised near here who lived here in the same house for 60 years, suddenly lost her mind," Snyder told the newspaper. "We can't say all this business caused it, but she was all right until we got the word to clear out."

Most Somerset buildings were demolished during the construction phase, though some structures were moved to the new town. The complete buyout occurred sometime near the end of 1963 and the dam was effectively finished four years later.

And as could be expected, some residents felt they'd been deceived.

"What does get us," one man told the newspaper, "is that after they convinced us it was necessary (for flood control) and everything was settled, they told us the land around the reservoir would be used for recreational purposes too. This we do mind because we'll be living a mile away from all those picnickers and city people traipsing by our house going to the reservoir."

Boat sales anyone?

The relocated town is west of the original, just south of the city of Wabash.

SOMERSET LINK