Indiana Dunes Administrative History

Campaign for Lakeshore Boundary Expansion

Having presented its own blueprint for lakeshore expansion in 1971, the Save the Dunes Council entered a new stage in its history. From its inception in 1952, the Council was exclusively a voluntary organization. In 1973, however, the Council hired its first full—time employee, Edward Osann, Jr., to lobby for a favorable expansion bill in Washington, D.C. The Council used proceeds from its sale of Cowles Bog as well as income from a sales item shop it opened in the Beverly Shores post office to pay Osann's salary. In the fall of 1974, a second employee, Executive Secretary Charlotte Read, came on board. The wife of the Council's Engineering Committee Chairman Herbert Read, Charlotte Read exhibited an equal zeal in fighting for dunes preservation. Along with Executive Director Sylvia Troy, Charlotte Read soon established herself as a dominant figure in the Council and its effort to expand the national lakeshore. [60]

In 1973, a National Park Service study team evaluated the more than 5,000 acres for proposed Lakeshore expansion included in Congressman J. Edward Roush's and a host of other bills. While the team recommended a little more than 1,900 acres be considered, Assistant Secretary Nathaniel Reed, based on his own inspection of the area, only approved 944 additional acres. Seizing this opportunity, Congressman Earl Landgrebe introduced a bill and, using the Department of the Interior's low acreage recommendation, called it the "Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Completion Act." [61]

Assistant Secretary Reed advocated using the Land and Water Conservation Fund and agreements with lakeshore neighbors to ensure proper land use. Reed wanted State and local planning commissions to assume a greater degree of responsibility for Indiana Dunes area land use. He argued the burden for establishing buffers around National Park Service units rested with local communities, not the Federal Government. [62] Concurrent with his decision to oppose Bailly I, Nat Reed resolved to back a responsible expansion of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. He later recalled:

The problem was the administration forecasted, and accurately forecasted, if you were for half—a—loaf, you were going to get a whole loaf. So, the battles with OMB as to what could be added, should be added, and could be managed once added bordered on internecine warfare. We had lengthy meetings. The Sierra Club was very important. There were some marvelous citizens groups who came to lobby me in my office.... I agonized.

I think the toughest ones... were those God—awful maps of the places that the citizens groups wanted. And of course, their cross figures never quite were accurate; you could add this, this, and this for only a million—and—a—half dollars, and you'd say, "Only a million—and—a—half dollars?" It would turn out to be five million dollars! And you would turn to the Superintendent and you'd say, "How are you going to manage that thing? It's way out in the boondocks!"

I remember there was agitation among the citizens that they wanted me to support more. You couldn't help but like these people! These were marvelous people. I went back you know. I kept going back. I kept getting lured back by them. I'd bet you no Assistant Secretary has ever been to Indiana Dunes four times before. [63]

The Roush bill was the first of eighteen lakeshore expansion bills which were introduced over a three—year period. As late as March 1974, no official Departmental report had been submitted to Congress. This impeded the progress of hearings. When the report did become available after May 1, [64] the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation held its first hearing on June 17, 1974, to consider H.R. 3571 (5,328 acres). The Department's report recommended against enactment of the bill because it proposed acreage of less than national significance and superfluous to the lakeshore's primary purpose. The report decried the consideration of environmentally-impacted areas around Ogden Dunes, Beverly Shores, and the Gary airport. Areas like the Little Calumet River and Salt Creek were units which should more properly be managed by State or local governments. Richard Curry, who left the Department to become Associate Director for Legislation with the National Park Service, reported that H.R. 3571 was too costly and difficult to administer. The revised acreage total the Department and Service recommended stood at 1,152 acres. Superintendent Whitehouse later commented on the peculiar political machinations:

Park Service and Interior's position on Indiana Dunes had no effect on what Congress did. Really it didn't. Never did. It would pass Congress if the votes were there. Political, entirely. The fact that the bill didn't pass in the early 1970s didn't mean anything other than the fact that they didn't have enough political support to pass it. They really were asking for too much. In the early 1970s, Save the Dunes Council had sold Senator Bayh and Congressman Roush on this big, elaborate thing where they were going to take in all of the Salt River area, south of Indiana Dunes, south of the existing park, [and] all of the Bethlehem Steel lands for expansion. They were going to take in Mud Lake, all these fringe areas and include Beverly Shores Island. There was no way that bill would have ever passed. Too expensive and too much land. With opposition of the park still right there in front of us, it couldn't have happened at all. [65]

One of sixty witnesses in the jammed hearing room, Representative Roush blasted the Department for promising developments at West Beach and failing to obligate the appropriated funds: of $3,405,000 made available by Congress over three years, only $527,000 in planning money had been used. Reed's promise to get people on the beaches had apparently gotten sidetracked by other national priorities. Representative John F. Seiberling (Democrat—Ohio) compared the critical need for open space near large urban centers to his own bill for the proposed Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area between Cleveland and Akron, as well as the Chattahoochee River near Atlanta and the Santa Monica Mountains outside of Los Angeles. Seiberling added:

I am disappointed that the Department of the Interior has not given this bill its wholehearted support, particularly as it would increase and enhance an existing federal park. Unfortunately, the Department has long treated the dunes as a stepchild, giving it low priority in the heirarchy of the National Park System. The Department has consistently rejected urban park proposals [because of the expense of acquisitions]. I think this represents a defeatist attitude, which clings to the park policies of the past and ignores the urgent needs of a rapidly changing, increasingly urban society. [66]

On the contrary, Representative Earl Landgrebe described the lakeshore as a "$27 million jungle in the heart of one of the fastest growing areas in America"—without significant development and ill—defined boundaries. Stating that the Roush bill will "do even more violence to our community," Landgrebe urged the subcommittee to consider his bill, H.R. 11699, which advocated a smaller area to even out the lakeshore's boundaries. [67]

Advisory Commission member John Hillenbrand and Indiana Department of Natural Resources Director Joseph D. Cloud unveiled a compromise plan to the subcommittee. Endorsed by Indiana Governor Otis R. Bowen, the plan proposed adding 2,447 acres, including halting the NIPSCO fly ash seepage by incorporating the property into the lakeshore. The move represented the first endorsement by the State of Indiana to enlarge the national lakeshore. [68]

While the subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 3571, the full committee did not act on it in time before the last session of the 93rd Congress expired in late 1974. [69] In early 1975, Roush reintroduced his bill which became known as H.R. 4926. One significant change came with the defeat of Earl Landgrebe and his replacement by Floyd Fithian, the first Democrat elected by Indiana's Second Congressional District since 1932. Pledging to find a compromise for lakeshore expansion, Fithian held well—attended public hearings even before he took office.* Recommending an addition of 4,686 acres, Fithian tried to gain approval of his bill, H.R. 5241, from the State of Indiana, Save the Dunes Council, and Bethlehem Steel Company. [70]

---

*One account erroneously states that Fithian ignored the National Park Service in the public hearings he conducted as well as the composition of his expansion legislation. J. R. Whitehouse asserted that he attended every public meeting and was intimately involved in the process. According to Whitehouse: "Floyd Fithian involved me totally. We would sit down and discuss item by item various segments that he wanted to include and then I would give him my input as to what I thought should or shouldn't be included on an informal basis. We would meet constantly on that." See Whitehouse interview, 11 March 1987.

---

On May 9, 1975, the House subcommittee considered the two bills, [71] and later in the month, journeyed to Indiana Dunes for three days to see the proposed expansion areas by helicopter and bus. Accompanied by Superintendent Whitehouse, Advisory Commission Chairman Lieber, and a representative from the Governor's office, the committee members for the first time fully understood the ramifications of each proposed parcel. In August, the Secretary's Advisory Board also came for a three—day visit. While the increased activity resulted in the House subcommittee's recommendation of the Fithian bill, there was no action by either the full House or Senate in 1975. [72]

In January 1976, the House committee voted to switch the identical text of H.R. 11455—sponsored by Fithian, Roush, and twenty—three others—for H.R. 5241. The new compromise bill's 4,340 acres had a price tag of $53,488,400. It included an initial limitation of $8,500,000 for development with an understanding that a new Master Plan spelling out additional costs would be submitted to Congress later. Dissenting views, which included many House Republicans, pointed out the cost was fifty times more than the Ford Administration requested and $32 million more than authorized in the 1966 act. [73]

When the House passed H.R. 11455 on February 18, 1976, attention focused on the Senate and S. 3329, submitted by Senator Birch Bayh on behalf of Senator Vance Hartke. S. 3329 provided for 4,686 acres at a cost of $57,855,900. Like its House counterpart, the bill would expand the Advisory Commission from seven to eleven members; permit rights of way for roads, utilities, pipelines and water mains; allow both use and occupancy for twenty—five years or a life estate for an owner and spouse; and non—payment of property taxes by use and occupancy residents provided grounds for automatic termination of rights by the Secretary. While the House bill allowed unrestricted condemnation, the Senate version prohibited it for improved property as long as there was approved zoning and if the owner granted the government first rights of purchase.

Testifying before the May 26, 1976, hearing of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Assistant Secretary Nathaniel P. Reed recommended against both bills and for the immediate addition of 203 acres, including two tracts west and east of West Beach and Pinhook Bog, determined eligible as a National Natural Landmark. Reed requested the subsequent addition of 784 acres, including the Furnessville Marsh, glacial lake dunes and marshes, and the West Beach High Dune owned by Midwest Steel. Reed told the committee that the House and Senate bills contained unnecessary acreage:

In many areas highly concentrated industrial and/or residential development has despoiled any natural, scientific, or recreational potential that the land might have once offered. For example, those areas east and southeast of the town of Ogden Dunes, Beverly Shores, and the areas near the Gary Airport. Other areas that would be added to the Lakeshore by these bills would either be unmanageable or contrary to the purposes of the Lakeshore.

This is one of the most difficult bills I've ever seen. It is one of the most difficult areas I've ever seen bar none. There are no simple solutions here. We are 50 years, 70 years late. We are in a numbers game with tremendous supporters, dedicated men and women and children, who have worked to preserve this area and who have seen their chances erode over the years. They are in a numbers game with us. They want us to buy acres, regardless as to the quality of the acres because in some way, it makes up for the lost opportunities.

But I cannot bring back the lost opportunities for the Committee.... As somebody who has to be responsible for the fiscal side of the acquisition program, I am deeply concerned about putting $57 million in here when I see areas that are in pristine condition, that are of National Park System significance, that are available to the American people.

...I cannot believe that a slag dump is a worthwhile addition to a National Park area. [74]

Herbert Read of the Save the Dunes Council and the Izaak Walton League discarded Assistant Secretary Reed's testimony and those who concurred with Reed as afflicted by the "if—you've—seen—one—dune—you've—seen— them—all syndrome." Read commented:

The statement made by the Department of the Interior represents the political views of the present administration and is not an impartial analysis of the potential park value of the various areas. The National Park Service and Department of the Interior recommendations have changed back and forth according to the political winds. Statements made at this last hearing are, in many cases, directly opposite from previous statements sometimes made by the same persons. This flip—flop has occurred even when there has been no change in the field conditions. [75]

Representative Floyd Fithian explained to the Senate committee that he wished to secure a final solution, fair and equitable for industrialists as well as conservationists which accommodated both jobs and recreation. Fithian pointed out that it was imperative the expansion question be settled by the 94th Congress; with retirements and political position changes in the House, the whole process would have to begin again from scratch. Congressman J. Edward Roush, the instigator of lakeshore expansion, also testified to lend his full support to S. 3329. [76]

The following month, two members of the Senate committee visited the national lakeshore accompanied by National Park Service Director Gary Everhardt. In July 1976, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Russell Train and Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) Director John Crutcher visited and toured the lakeshore by helicopter. [77] The additional information garnered from these visits, however, did not prevent S. 3329 from stalling in the Senate. Democrats encountered stiff opposition from Republicans united behind the White House's complaint that the bill was far too costly. Many feared that President Gerald R. Ford would veto an Indiana Dunes expansion bill just as Congressman Ford had voted against the 1966 bill.

In a last—ditch effort to break the stalemate, Senators Bayh, Hartke, Percy, and Stevenson introduced an amended bill calling for 3,663 acres which rapidly found its way to the Senate floor for consideration on September 24, 1976. Senator Charles Percy took the floor to announce the sad news of Paul Douglas' death. Like a whirlwind, expansion of Douglas' beloved Indiana Dunes transformed into a memorial to the deceased senator. With his death, Douglas gave life to an expanded national lakeshore. Receiving a unanimous Senate vote, the measure sailed through the conference committee and on to Gerald Ford's desk where it faced a certain pocket veto. During the final weekend in which the bill could be approved, Superintendent Whitehouse* maintained a tense, hourly telephone contact with Donna McGrath, the administrative assistant of Senator Charles Percy. Percy flew back to the capital after the session to solicit President Ford's approval. Confronted with the bill's association with Paul Douglas and its strong bipartisan support, the President signed it into law on October 18, 1976. [78]

---

*J. R. Whitehouse credits Republican Charles Percy (who defeated Paul Douglas in 1966) to the list of supporters who unfortunately never received due credit. Whitehouse believes Percy subsequently became embittered and turned a deaf ear to the Lakeshore because conservationists were too accustomed to the traditional political animosity to acknowledge support from a Republican. See Whitehouse interview, 11 March 1987.

---