Plow or Play: A LandUse Decision

Andrew C. Seibert* and James J. Vorst

ABSTRACT for land acquisition in his district. The land wouldbe pur- In 1991 in Indianapolis, IN, an appropriationsbill was chased from private citizens for the construction of a new broughtto the floor of the GeneralAssembly for state park. Completionof the park wouldrequire muchmore debate. Thebill includeda $900000 appropriationfor the pur- than $900 000, but this appropriation wouldbe a vital first chase of land to build a newstate parkin northwestIndiana. step. Thepark would be located in the district of SenatorMike Gery At first, Senator Gery believed the majority of his con- of WestLafayette, a legislator whohad followed this issue very stituents supportedthe park. He could envision little objec- closely over several years. It wasan issue that wasvolatile in tion to a beautiful newstate park within easy access. How- his homedistrict. WhenSenator Gery had his chanceto pub- ever, after numeroustown meetings and personal contacts licly debateand vote on this issue on the senatefloor, he knew with constituents, he found the issue was more contentious his constituentswould be watchingclosely. This case presents than he orginally thought. SenatorGery’s decision-makingdilemma on an issue that was extremelyimportant to his constituents. SenatorGery knew The Decision to Establish a Park there was a large core of park supporters amonghis con- stituents. However,there was also a significant groupwho The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) actively opposedthe park,including one familywho would lose oversees the state park systemin Indiana. The mission of the a substantialportion of their farmingoperation if the parkwas IDNRis "to protect, enhance, preserve, and wisely use nat- established. SenatorGery was concerned for his constituents ural, cultural, and recreational resources for the benefit of and wantedto do whatwas best for them. Hewanted to take Indiana’s citizens through professional leadership, manage- an action that wouldminimize hostile reactions, but he also ment, and education" (Indiana Department of Natural wantedto makethe best land use decisionfor the future of his Resources, 1995). Oneway the IDNRfulfills its mission is district. Each side put forth convincing argumentsthat by constructing new state parks. The IDNRrealized that SenatorGery had to consider.Through this case, studentswill someresidents of Indiana had to drive considerable dis- gain an understandingof the technical factors andethical tances to reach public outdoor recreation sites. Asa result, issues involvedin land use decisions. in 1983 the Indiana State Senate passed Concurrent Resolution no. 77, which authorized the IDNRto analyze the recreational needs of an area in northwest Indiana. This S POPULATIONINCREASES and residents focus on envi- agricultural region seemedto be particularly short on out- Aronmental concerns, land use has becomean important door recreation opportunities (Exhibit 1). The methodsused issue in the USA. Land available for agriculture has in the assessment were: 1. Comparisonswith national stan- decreased every year since 1954, and decreased 4.5%during dards, 2. Drive time from regional facilities, and 3. Distri- the 1980s (USDA,1991). Each interest group has their own bution of recreational opportunities based on population idea on the best use for a tract of land. Whenthe land in question is privately owned,the rights of the landowneralso becomean important consideration. Land use decisions usu- go ally affect several people directly, especially landowners.As a result, land issues can lead to emotional confrontations, and sorting out information in an unbiased waycan be diffi- cult. This case provides insight into the myriad of complex ~ o issues typical of land use decisions at the rural/urban inter- face.

THE CASE The Indiana General Assemblyconvened in Indianapolis in 1991 for a Second Special Session. Scheduled to be debated was PL240, an extensive appropriations bill that would determine howthe state would spend its tax revenues AREADEFINED BY for the next year (Acts of Indiana, 1991). Section 34 was CONCURRENT particular interest to MikeGery, state senator from the 17th RESOLUTION#77 congressional district. That section appropriated $900 000 PUBLICOUTDOOR RECREATIONAREAS Dep.of Agronomy,1150 Lilly Hall, PurdueUniv., WestLafayette, IN 47907-1150.Indiana Agric. Exp. Stn., EducationalJournal Paper no. 28. Exhibit1. Distributionof publicoutdoor recreation areas in Indiana Received18 Mar.1996. *Corresponding author ([email protected] andthe areadefined by Concurrent Resolution #77. due.edu). Publishedin J. Nat.Resour. Life Sci. Educ.26:54-59 (1997). Abbreviations:IDNR, Indiana Department of NaturalResources.

54 ¯ d. Nat. Resour.Life Sci. Educ.,Vol. 26, no. 1, 1997 (National Park and Recreation Association, 1983). Each cial interest groups. Theredid not seemto be even one site methodverified a shortage of outdoorrecreation facilities in that wasfree of these problems.Finally, the IDNRsettled on the region (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, another TippecanoeCounty site located near Battle Ground, 1983). Indiana. Thepotential for a large lake did not exist, but the The IDNRconcluded the study area was deficient in IDNRbelieved there were other considerations that made lands available to the public for recreation use. Theyalso this site ideal. In 1989, even though local opposition was concluded, based on surveys conducted during the study, anticipated, the IDNR recommended to the General that the people of the area wanted moreoutdoor recreation Assemblythat 1121 ha (2770 acres) just southeast of Battle areas. This promptedthe General Assemblyto authorize a Ground becomeProphetstown State Park. state park site selection study. Physical Characteristics of the Site The Site Selection Process To decide the best use for a tract of land, Senator Gary The legislature, in granting the IDNRthe authority to knewit was important to assess the physical characteristics conducta site selection study, listed three conditionsfor the of that land. Although he was already somewhatfamiliar site. Theywere: with the area, he studied the proposed Prophetstown site carefully. The site waslocated just southeast of the townof 1. The site should contain between 809 and 1618 ha Battle Groundin TippecanoeCounty. Interstate Highway65 (2000 and 4000 acres) of land. would serve as the west boundary, while the Wabashand 2. The site should contain a 40 to 120 ha (100-300acre) Tippecanoe Rivers would form the south and east bound- lake. aries. Battle Ground,which contained about 700 residents, 3. The site should be located in an area bounded by wouldform part of the north boundary.Most of the county’s Interstate Highwayno. 65, U.S. HighwayNo. 24, and 130 598 residents lived about 5 miles southwest of the park US Highwayno. 31 (Exhibit 2). site in the twin cities of Lafayette and WestLafayette (U.S. Twenty-six sites were located within the study area. Census Bureau, 1995). Fifteen of these were eliminated due to obvious suitability Mostof the site (89%) was devoted to corn (Zea maysL.) problemsrelating to lake potential, feasibility of physical and soybean [Glycine max (L.)] production (Exhibit development, or present land use. The remaining 11 sites However,this land was not considered to be prime farmland wereinspected in the field and ranked. The site selected as because of droughtiness, slope, or flooding problems. Much the best was located in Tippecanoe County (Indiana of this land waslocated in a floodplain that was highly pro- Departmentof Natural Resources, 1991). However,this site ductive but frequently flooded. Most of the upland farm- was abandonedin 1987 due to local opposition and potential ground was sloping, but soil erosion was generally not a construction problems. problem because of the soil conservation practices being By1989, 7 yr had passed since the authorization to select followed. Accordingto GeorgeParker, Professor of Forestry a park site. With the loss of the TippecanoeCounty site, the at nearby PurdueUniversity, the most serious erosion prob- IDNRstill had no place to build a park, despite spending a lem at the site was the streambankerosion that occurred on considerable amount of taxpayers’ moneyduring the site the Wabashand Tippecanoe Rivers. Senator Gary knewDr. selection process. Theydecided to reevaluate sites previous- Parker well, and often relied upon him for informationabout ly overlookedbecause they failed to meet the lake criteria the Prophetstownsite. outlined by the General Assembly. However,it seemed as Nonagricultural land at the proposed park site was pri- thoughevery potential site had either serious physical limi- marily timber, wetlands, and residential tracts (Exhibit 3). tations, local opposition, or was opposedby influential spa- There were two large housing developmentswithin the pro- posed park boundaries. The IDNRproposed to exclude these from the park and allow the residents to stay there to

~ RE81DENTIAL AREAS

AGRICULTURAL J HOUSINGEXCLUSIONS ~ LAND SITE SELECTION STUDY AREA WETLANDS ~LANDFORESTED Exhibit 2. Thelocation of the site selection study area for a newstate park in Indiana. Exhibit 3. Land uses at the proposedsite of ProphetstownState Park.

J. Nat. Resour.Life Sci. Educ.,Vol. 26, no. 1, 1997¯ 55 reduce the number of buyouts, thereby saving moneyand Becauseof the long Indian presence in the area, it was avoiding adverse reactions from unwilling sellers. When thought the proposed park area contained rich archaeologi- these housing developments were excluded, only 17 homes cal sites. A local anthropologist informed Senator Gery comprising 17 ha (42 acres) remained to be bought out. there were no active digs in the area because the land was There were approximately 30 ha (74 acres) of wetlands being used for agricultural and residential purposesand was within the site. If the park was built, the underground not available for archaeologicalexploration. If the park was drainage systems would be dismantled to expand the wet- built, the area within the park wouldbe preserved for future lands to their original areas. Theywould cover 140 ha (345 archaeologicalactivities. acres), becomingone of the largest wetland areas in the region (Weber, 1992). Acquiring the Land for ProphetstownState Park Before the area was inhabited by non-native settlers, the Senator Geryrealized that one of the drawbacksto build- proposed park site was primarily forested. Seventy-six ing a park was that somepeople would be forced to leave hectare (189 acres) of timber remainedat the site. The soils their homesor sell their property. Eminent domain laws in the area werewell suited to growingtrees. If the park was allow the state to acquire private property if they purchaseit established, extensive tree plantings wouldbe undertaken to at a fair market value and if the acquisition is required for restore the native woodlandhabitat, which should encour- the benefit of the general population. Senator Gery knew age an extensive array of wildlife. that the use of eminent domainfor public park acquisitions The Wabashand Tippecanoe Rivers were the two major had been recognized in the USAsince the middle of the 19th rivers at the site. Throughcorrespondence with researchers century. John Davis, Director of Land Acquisition for the from Purdue University, Senator Gery was informed the IDNRand Prophetstown State Park, said the process works Wabashwas a relatively unpolluted river at the site and it like this: The state wouldhave the properties appraised by sustained diverse populations of fish and mussels. The an independent, reputable appraiser. The state would make stretch of the TippecanoeRiver just upstream from its con- an offer to buy the property based on its fair marketvalue. fluence with the Wabashwas one of the most biologically If the property owner was willing, the sale would then be diverse fiver sections in Indiana, sustaining several species completed. If the property ownerdid not want to sell, the of endangered mussels and many rare fish species. state could start condemnationproceedings. Davis said he However,it was an ecosystem that appeared to be deterio- wasn’t sure how many of the property owners at the rating. The macrophytes(large plants) in the Tippecanoe Prophetstownsite might refuse to sell. A group of business- were decreasing every year for some unknownreason. This menwho owned a large portion of the site did not object to was alarming to researchers because the macrophyteswere the park proposal. However,there was at least one unwilling an important componentof the ecosystem. seller--the Okosfamily. The Okoses’ views were often expressed on the editorial History of the ProphetstownSite page of the local newspaper (Exhibit 4). Linda Okos explained in one such column, "It was 1 yr ago, on Senator Gery was well aware of the history of the November19, when an engineer from the IDNRcame out, Prophetstownsite. The proposedpark site had great histori- and he said to us, ’I want you to know,we have the right all cal significance from the standpoint of Indian culture and the way up to the SupremeCourt to take your land’. And religion. Indians had congregated in the proposedpark site that’s the wayit’s been ever since. This has been govern- for at least 10 000 yr. In 1808it becamethe site of the Indian ment coming at us" (Norberg, 1992). The Okoses--Martin, village of Prophetstown. Prophetstown was built by the Linda, and their four children--reside and farm near Battle Shawneereligious leader ,also knownas The Ground. Although their home is not within the proposed Prophet. He was the brother of the Shawnee leader park boundaries, they wouldlose 32.4 ha (80 acres) of their , who strived to unite various Indian tribes of ownfarmland and 48.6 ha (120 acres) of farmland they rent. Americato retain their homelandagainst expansion by the "That’s a third of our fanning operation," says Linda. "This USA.Tecumseh was oRentraveling and visiting with other is definitely going to cut us back. We’re really not happy tribal leaders to convincethem to form a confederation. He about this. But we’re also not sold on the fact that this is the was on one of these trips whenU.S. troops, led by William best thing for Battle Ground.If you’re talking 500 000 visi- Henry Harrison, destroyed Prophetstownin the fall of 1811 tors per year, that will put a tremendoustraffic crunch on in a conflict which became known as the Battle of Battle Ground.There’s not too muchthat can be done with Tippecanoe. Harrison’s military victory at Prophetstown Main Street, and we have two schools on that street." catapulted him into the Presidency of the USA.The Indians Indeed, Senator Gery had been to Battle Groundon numer- ous occasions. Hewas awareof its friendly, safe, quiet small regrouped and rebuilt Prophetstown the following spring, town atmosphere. He often wondered how a town of 700 but were forced to flee advancing Kentuckymilitia in the wouldadapt to half a million visitors a year. fall. Themilitia burnedthe village to the ground,never to be rebuilt by the Indians. The battle is commemoratedby the Effects on Area Residents WhoWould Tippecanoe Battlefield Memorial at the edge of Battle Live Near the Park Ground, which includes a small park and museum. Prophetstown State Park would greatly expand on this with Senator Gery knewthere was significant local opposition the construction of an Indian Cultural Center and Indian to the park. Whenhe drove near the park site, he saw home- Village within the park (Weber,1992). madesigns landownershad put up (Exhibit 5). Senator Gery

56 ¯ d. NaLResour. Life Sci. Educ.,VoL 26, no. 1, 1997 had spoken to many of the local residents at monthly meet- Guest Column ings he convened to talk about the park. The people who lived in the excluded housing developments had been par- New, improved park plan - isn’t ticularly vocal in their opposition to the park. They were By LINDA OKOS glad their homes would be spared, but objected to being sur- Guest Columnist rounded by a park. The newly proposed state park plan has been hailed as a grand improve- Others who lived next to the proposed park site had other ment. concerns. Some residents were worried that the state park Before we get caught up in the greatness of this new plan, we need to look with eyes wide open at what has actually been proposed: would cause property values to go down. Many were con- The 70 acre lake will be long and narrow. Its shoreline will be barely cerned that the quality of life would decrease because of the over 3 miles - half of which will not be accessible to the public. If you like estimated 500 000 visitors the park would receive each year. to fish, you’ll have the opportunity. But if you are a powerboat lover or But the most stressful thing of all, according to Martin water skier, forget it. A major length of the lake will never be deep enough Okos, was the uncertainty in their future as a result of this for boating. The boundaries of this park wind around some 60 homes on Houston long, drawn-out process. They did not know how to plan for Road and Indiana 225, offering little in the way of beauty to the park-goer the fkture until they knew if and when the park would actu- or the homeowner. ally be built. - I urge you to take a look at this total park plan before deciding that it is the best thing that could happen to the Battle Ground area. We are literal- ly being asked to give up our privacy and invite the entire state to our back- The Referendum yards for their picnicking and fishing pleasure. Traffic will increase. Lakes A nonbinding State Park Referendum was placed on the are not always clean, beautiful, or safe - especially after the public takes over. 1990 November ballot (Acts of Indiana, 1990). Senator And now a word to the many park supporters - we are all friends of the Gery hoped the referendum would help him understand how . The beauty of this area with its historical significance is local citizens felt about Prophetstown. Only Tippecanoe something which we are all very proud. We need to guard and protect it. County ballots had the referendum. The referendum had We can do that much better in a quiet manner without a large public park. The character of this area will be better preserved if we hold on to what we four choices, of which the voters were instructed to select have. Once we open our doors to the public, we will sacrifice the very fea- one. Sixty percent of Tippecanoe County’s eligible voters tures which make Battle Ground so unique. Why not use the grounds of the turned out, which amounted to 33 709 voters. The choices amphitheater for an Indian Cultural Center and village? Money is already and the official results were: invested in that site. Lastly, a word for our state legislators. Census Bureau data indicate that 1. Favor the Prophetstown site near Battle Ground-43% state spending has risen an average of 7.5 percent annually or 1.5 times the 2. Favor a state park, search for another site-30% rate of inflation. And you plan to keep spending for pleasure? How can 3. Favor a state park and have no preference for loca- you guarantee the landowner a fair price for his property when state funds are so tight? There isn’t even money for education. University salaries tion-7% were frozen this year for the first time in 18 years. Schools are in need of 4. Oppose any state park in Tippecanoe County-20% additional funding. It is your elected responsibility to spend wisely - yet you continue to get us deeper in debt. This type of activity does not make This four-option referendum resulted in both sides claim- for good re-election support. The legislator who holds the line on spend- ing victory (Gerrety, 1990). The anti-Prophetstown camp ing is the one who stays in ofice. said it was significant that the majority of voters in the coun- The bottom line is: We don’t need and can’t afford a state park. What ty did not want Prophetstown, because if choices 2,3, and 4 presently looks like a future gain to Battle Ground will really be future loss to the uniqueness of this community. The DNR is nothing short of a large are combined, it could be said that 57% of the voters passed industry knocking at our door. Will we let them in? I urge you to think up a chance to vote for Prophetstown. “If the people had again about this issue and make your feelings known. wanted Prophetstown, they would have voted for it”, said The writer: her husband Martin, and their four children operate a farm on Dave Linder, who lived at the proposed park site. However, ihe newly proposed park site. Guest columns, published when timely and the pro-Prophetstown people claimed the referendum num- in the public interesi, do noi necessarily reflect the views of the Journal and bers were in their favor. “Our goal was to see that no. 1 was Courier: the choice of preference, whether it’s 2% or whatever,” said Exhibit 4. Excerpts from Linda Okos’s editorial in the Lufayette Scott Frankenberger, president of the local environmental Journal and Courier.

Exhibit 5. Signs placed by citizens who owned land at the proposed park site.

J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 26, no. 1, 1997 57 group called Friends of the Wabash."The opponents will After learners read the case outside of class, they maybe say anything to put the park in a bad light." required to prepare a written response to someor all of the Manypredicted the fight would remain bitter in the questions listed belowin advanceof a general class discus- General Assembly.Senator Gery was the voice for the peo- sion. Anotheroption would be to break the class into small ple of Tippecanoeand surrounding counties. His immediate groupsto deliberate the issues prior to a general class dis- choices were clear. He must either support the $900 000 cussion or debate. start-up appropriation as it was stated, or showeven stronger Students at Oregon State University and Purdue support by trying to get even more moneyapproved, or University have discussed the case. In a Contemporary showa lack of support by trying to kill the appropriation. Issues in Natural Resourcescourse at OregonState, approx- Theoretically, he could also try to kill the park fundingwith imately one-half of the class felt Prophetstownshould be the hopeof changingthe park plan or the site, but with all built after reading the case. However,after in-class discus- the time and expense that went into the selection of the sion, approximatelythree-fourths felt it shouldbe built, with Prophetstownsite, he knewthis alternative would receive two students changing their minds to not having it built. little support from anyone. Whatever path Senator Gery Manysaid they changed their minds because the discussion chose, one of his priorities was to please as manyof his con- brought out social and environmental points they had not stituents as possible. He also had a sincere desire to do what previously considered. wouldmost benefit them in the future. He realized that land At Purdue University, the case was used in a Con- use decisions affect manypeople far into the future. What temporary Issues in Agriculture course for two semesters. action should Senator Gery have taken? Approximatelythree-fourths of both classes initially felt the park should not be built, and class discussion failed to CASE EXHIBITS change the overall viewpoint in either class. The predomi- nance of agriculture majors whowere from the farm may 1. Distribution of public outdoor recreation areas in Indiana explain this response. and the area defined by Concurrent Resolution no. 77. Students at both universities positively evaluated the 2. The location of the site selection study area for a new case. All felt the case helped themrealize the importanceof state park in Indiana. determining best use of land resources, and gave them dif- 3. Land uses at the proposed site of Prophetstown State ferent perspectives on the issues surrounding how land Park. should best be used. 4. Excerpts from Linda Okos’s editorial in the Lafayette Journal and Courier. Discussion Questions and Issues in the Case 5. Signs placed by citizens whoowned land at the proposed park site. 1. Do the benefits of ProphetstownState Park out- weigh the drawbacks?This is a question which should be TEACHING NOTE answered from the learner’s personal viewpoint and also from Senator Gery’s viewpoint. It is a seemingly important Case Objectives questionif the Senatoris to evaluatewhat is best for his con- Uponcompletion of this case, learners will be able to: stituency, but one that is also dependenton subjective judg- ments of individuals, and therefore difficult for which to 1. Describe how the physical characteristics of land can find a "right" answer. affect its suitability for different uses. Theway this question is analyzed is to someextent based 2. Recognizethat, in addition to land physical characters- on an individual’s personal value system. For example, tics, a wide array of special interests and personal someonewho enjoys the outdoors and places importance on philosophies affect land use decisions. preserving nature would probably favor the park. To this 3. Recognizethat land use can have a significant impact on individual, these benefits mayoverride any potential draw- local environments,economies, and social factors. backs. However, there may be manylocal residents who 4. Defend a recommendation for building, stopping, or enjoy the rural, quiet setting of the Battle Groundarea. To modifying Prophetstown State Park. these people, the hustle and bustle of having a busy state 5. Argue a viewpoint on the ethical question of using emi- park in their backyards maybe a serious drawback.It will nent domainto acquire land for a public park. becomeclear that everyone has a unique point of view, and 6. Describe whyan elected official mayformulate a deci- that personal viewpoints must be set aside somewhatwhen sion differently than a private citizen. makinga decision for many,as the senator must do. 2. If you could choose a land use for the Prophetstown Use of the Case site, whatwould it be, and why?This question will cause Thecase is well suited for use by college students in agri- learners to assess the physical characteristics of the site culture, natural resources, recreation, or related disciplines. while also bringing out learners’ different values. The wide The case mayalso work well in political science courses array of reasoning maytake into account physical, social, covering political ethics or ideology. This case does not and economicfactors. This question lends itself well to require the learner to have a specialized backgroundin any classroom debate. Someforeseeable responses could be: area, thus increasing its utility for use with groups whose a. Leavethe area as is, to be used for agricultural pro- membershave varied backgroundsand expertise. duction. The amountof farmland is decreasing in the

58 ¯ d. Nat. Resour.Life ScLEduc., Vol. 26, no. 1, 1997 USA, and we should preserve it. Parks are not as important 6. If you were Senator Gery, what would you have as agriculture. done, and how would you have responded to the criti- b. Try to find a better place for the park, or build the park cism of your decision? This question forces the learner to in a way that would be less objectionable to the local be placed in the shoes of perhaps the ultimate decision citizens. Parks are needed, but this location is too con- maker, a legislator who is accountable to many and makes troversial. Too many people will be uprooted from decisions that affect many. The learner will realize there are their homes, and there is too much local opposition. It many concerns a legislator needs to consider in addition to is not fair to the Okoses. his or her personal feelings on an issue. The learner will c. Build Prophetstown at the proposed site, as planned. understand how complex and difficult it can be to try to take We must take care of our environment. If we ruin that, into account the views of many and to accurately reflect a we will have nothing. The park will preserve impor- constituency while doing what you think is best. tant habitats. The history that occurred at this site is a 7. What did Senator Gery do? Senator Gery decided to part of our national heritage. Although agricultural support the park. He was a key figure in moving ahead with land is decreasing nationwide, we do not have food its establishment, and worked to "sell" the park to his con- shortages in the USA. Besides, this is a small area and stituents. He remained popular and was reelected in 1994. it is not prime farmland. At time of publication, approximately 200 ha (500 acres) 3. Is it right to use eminent domain to acquire the at the park site had been purchased by the state. In 1996 Okos's land? This is a complicated question that will prob- there was a federal effort to pinpoint the exact location of ably elicit mixed reactions and lively debate from the class. the historic Indian settlement, highlighting the national Some may believe using eminent domain is proper in some importance of the Prophetstown park site. instances, but not for a park. Learners should be encouraged The authors would prefer learners not have access to this to justify their response. The pathways the discussion could information until after discussing the case. If learners knew follow are numerous. the results of the case beforehand, it would taint their approach to the case. This case is designed to address issues 4. What was Senator Gery's dilemma? Senator Gery of wider context and applicability; thus, knowing what had to decide how to act on a land use issue that was Senator Gery decided is not of the utmost importance. extremely important to his constituents. It will become clear However, the case is real, and we would encourage instruc- to the learners he was required to take a different approach tors to provide this information near the end of discussion. in forming his decision in comparison with the approach of his constituents because his purpose was to represent the wishes of many. Legislators generally want to please their constituents. However, they also often have more informa- tion at their disposal and thus should be able to develop a more informed view on what would be best. What should he have done if his constituency did not agree with his idea of what was best? A prerequisite to making the decision is to understand the wishes of his constituents, but in this case it appeared that figuring out what the majority wanted was dif- ficult. The referendum was so poorly designed the results were inconclusive, with all sides claiming victory. There was a lot of mixed signals from local citizens and special interest groups, with sizable numbers both for and against the park. 5. What were Senator Gery's options? Regardless of personal preferences, the reality is that Senator Gery needed to make a decision. The choices were clear. The senator could vote for the appropriation, thereby showing his sup- port for Prophetstown. Likewise, he could make a motion to amend the bill to cut the Prophetstown funds, thereby show- ing his disapproval of the park. If the lack of support is widespread and the Prophetstown appropriation is taken out of the bill, the park may essentially die.

J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 26, no. 1, 1997 • 59