This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not sure how to use aerial photos as a citation. Not even sure if they are useable as a cite, or even a source since they are copyrighted material. But there are clear aerial photos on the site "Historic Aerials" that show the Saganashkee slough area was a farm in 1938 (and in exploring the area in person one can find foundations of the farm buildings even today). Subsequent photos show the area slowly changing from farm to flooded areas of water. But not until the 1973 photo does the current shape of Saganashkee show up as a solid body of water. Before that, the area is only partially flooded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudhvx (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- I believe you are correct in your description of what happened to this land. But are there any press stories about it? Stuff such as "Cook County appropriates XX dollars to the Forest Preserve System, forest preserve says they will build a beautiful new fishing pond." Bigturtle (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't find any news articles online but I wouldn't expect much from that time (1940's and early 1950's) since that area (or the area near it) was appropriated for nuclear testing for the manhattan project (also visible in aerial photos). I also think the permanent flooding of Saganashkee happened very gradually over decades (once again evidenced in the photos only), so there probably wasn't any single event necessarily worthy of a news story, but I have not searched any microfilms. That IEPA report was all I could find in a short google search regarding the draining of the area for the Cal-Sag channel and subsequent damming to create a more-defined lake. So really, the photos and remnants of the farm infrastructure are all I can point to as evidence, but I realize it is not necessarily enough since the photos are copyrighted and can't be used as a citation. I have changed the wording to reflect only what was in the report. Loudhvx (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a good response. Bigturtle (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)