Ellington

Read the JFP's full Pearl River archive here.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers today made clear its favor for a levees-only plan for the control of flooding along the Pearl River between Hinds and Rankin counties. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chief of Project Management Doug Kamien said the Corps would seriously consider only the levees plan because any further investment in a lake plan would run into the brick wall of environmental mitigation.

The Rankin-Hinds Pearl River Flood and Drainage Control District Levee Board sent out a resolution this year requesting further study on three flood-control plans. The levee board is considering two alternatives to a Corps-endorsed levees-only plan; both involve flooding the Pearl between Hinds and Rankin counties. One plan creates a 1,500-acre lake costing about $605 million, according to estimates, while a more ambitious lake plan, proposed by Jackson oilman John McGowan, consists of 4,133-acre lake containing 36 islands ranging in size from 1.6 acres to 40 acres, that he promises he could build for $336 million to $400 million.

Kamien emphasized that if the levee board decides to move forward with the Corps recommendation of expanding existing levees along the Pearl, they will begin an 18-month process that will cost the board $500,000. (The federal government will match that cost, for a $1 million total, although the board will have to present its $500,000 in cash.) The Corps predicts that total costs for the comprehensive levees plan would be $206 million, with about $133 million coming from the federal government.

However, the levee board could insist on pushing the Corps to analyze the ins and outs of a lake plan, although Kamien recommended against that option. The Corps, he said, will always endorse a levees-only plan over a lake plan, no matter how varied the size of the lake. He urged the levee board to pursue a levees-only plan to avoid needless investment in a lake plan that the Corps would only renounce at the end of a long, expensive investigation.

"We figure a study for a lake plan would take another four years, and (cost) $4 million total. At the end of those four years, we'd be back in the same place we are now, with the Corps recommending a levee plan, and the $1 million cost would still be in place to move forward with the levee plan," Kamien said.

Levee board member Socrates Garrett, who endorses some version of a lake plan to promote development and raise property values inside the city of Jackson, said he was disappointed by the Corps' assessment. Garrett said he had expected the Corps to consider some combination of a lake and levee-plan.

"Economic development and flood control are really our desire," Garrett said. "One of those alternative (lake) plans shows significant cost reductions and flood protection and economic development. It's a really attractive proposition. At the very minimum, it seems we could get that plan looked at."

Kamien said the Corps is basing its decision almost exclusively on the environmental impacts of both lake plans.

"We're not disputing the flood reduction or the economic development," Kamien said. "We are saying that any impoundment you propose, plus or minus $300 million or $400 million in costs, has an alternative. In this case, the levee plan has less environmental impact. The federal government has very strict guidelines in how we're going to proceed, and we're going to base our decisions on what's in the federal government's interest."

"That's why we've got the bottom-line point of view," Kamien continued. "If you've got a plan that avoids those impacts, that's what we'll recommend. Plus or minus $300 or 400 million really doesn't matter in terms of environmental impacts."

Levee Board attorney Trudy Allen disputed the Corp's interpretation of the federal government's reliance upon environmental impact, arguing that new federal legislation passed in 2007 softened the government's stance on the plan's environmental impact.

Allen argued that the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (initially vetoed by President Bush as lacking fiscal discipline, but overridden in both the House and Senate) exempted a local lake plan from some financing restraints by allowing local government and investors to help foot the development bill, so long as the plan was recognized as a "locally preferred" option. She said that law also exempted the project from some environmental restraints.

"(WRDA) doesn't say it needs to have the lowest environmental impact. It says it has to be environmentally acceptable. That's the will of Congress: environmentally acceptable, technically feasible, and provides at least the same level of flood reduction as the (levee plan). I'm not entirely certain how you come to the conclusion without actually laying everything out. ... We're missing an important element in this calculus if you don't go forward and consider the environmental acceptability of each of these plans the board is asking you to take," Allen said.

Kamien said, however, that all attempts to dam the river is still an act of damming of the river--what the Corps calls "impoundment"--and would require more environmental mitigation and expense than the levees-only plan.

"We've studied the impoundment from the reservoir down to I-20. An impoundment is an impoundment is an impoundment, and I think we're pretty accurate on the environmental impact. As I interpret the board resolution, they want the impoundment studied to the various degrees of variation, but it's still an impoundment, and that's how we come to that conclusion," Kamien said, adding that the Water Resources Development Act was never meant to undermine federal environmental laws.

In a conversation that rapidly deteriorated into a circle, Garrett asked the Corps if developers could mitigate the environmental impact of a lakes plan, to which Kamien replied: "It will all have to be mitigated, but the levee plan offered the least amount of necessary mitigation."

CORRECTION: The reporter originally mistyped the last word in the final quote in this story; the word has been changed in the text from "litigation" to "mitigation." We apologize for the error.

Previous Comments

ID

152341

Comment

Could Garrett there be in McGowan's pocket any further? Such a great quote to support his boss.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-09-29T07:33:13-06:00

ID

152344

Comment

Who is Garrett supposed to be representing on this board? Based on his comment"economic develepment and floood control are really OUR desire", it is apparent he is not representing the people of Jackson or Hinds county. Who appointed him to this board. If it was not the Chamber of Commerce tha he should be removed It is obvious he is bought and paid for by McGowan and his cohorts and has no intersst in representing the people. But then what more could we expect from Socrates Garrett.

Author

wellington

Date

2009-09-29T11:27:12-06:00

ID

152345

Comment

Why is it that every Major City in sates surrounding us has a Riverwalk and Jackon is getting a Levee. Must have something to do with steamboats, mosquitos and desire for the 1800's

Author

chayes69

Date

2009-09-29T13:59:33-06:00

ID

152346

Comment

chayes, I don't believe a levees plan and riverwalks are mutually exclusive. The bigger point is that very few areas have ever tried to do a project on the scale of what Mr. McGowan wants to do. The plan is rife with potential problems. What's remarkable to me is how many of its supporters don't want to know the worst possible scenarios they could be courting. It's weird when you consider what is at stake.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-29T14:25:02-06:00

ID

152348

Comment

CHayes: It's more of a Rich, Gated community that the taxpayers are being obliged to pay for. It's a boondoggle that we as taxpayers will be paying for for decades while very few will be able to afford. It's not a Riverwalk.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-09-29T15:27:40-06:00

ID

152356

Comment

Exactly. So, why not a levee combined with a riverwalk? The commercial aspect of developing a riverwalk brings in revenue and would not hit the taxpayer on the scale of the lakes plan. And I should think with much less wetland impact. There is no question that a levee is needed. So why are only the Island plan and a basic levee plan being considered? Without any consideration of inclusion of a riverwalk? Which not only would be a benefit to the community but the tax rolls as well?

Author

chayes69

Date

2009-09-29T20:54:09-06:00

ID

152358

Comment

Absolutely, Chayes. Mayor Johnson brought up the riverwalk idea at the Levee Board meeting Monday, so he wants it, too, apparently. What's tragic is how much time that's been wasted putting pressure on to have Two Lakes when a plan like this could have been on the table the whole time. A riverwalk is good for eco-devo, and would be more democratic than the Two Lakes plan. I'm all for it. Have been all along.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-09-30T09:04:34-06:00

ID

152359

Comment

A riverwalk is good for eco-devo, and would be more democratic than the Two Lakes plan. I'm all for it. Have been all along. -Ladd Me, too! It's a better way to capitalize on modern urban ideas & eco-tourism. It will also benefit the downtown businesses and museums, etc. by bringing foot traffic into the area.

Author

Izzy

Date

2009-09-30T09:23:34-06:00

ID

152361

Comment

I totally agree that a riverwalk would be great for downtown. I would also love a bike path that would connect the Trace to NE Jackson, NE Jackson to the Pearl River through to Le Fleur Bluffs and into downtown. I also want to see bike lanes from Jackson State to downtown and between Fondren, Belhaven and downtown. Let's go bike riding, Mississippi! Shopping Centers and Malls are tomorrow's ghost towns. Community centers and mixed use development with multi-modal transportation options are the future.

Author

gwilly

Date

2009-09-30T12:53:16-06:00

ID

152362

Comment

except that a river walk, in most applications, is also a flood control mechanism. In order for the riverwalk to work as in San Antonio it has to remain flooded. That means gates and pumps. Ever seen the Pearl at low water......it ain't pretty.

Author

atlntaexile

Date

2009-09-30T12:55:14-06:00

ID

152365

Comment

True, but the riverwalk in San Antoino winds through a heavily commercially populated area concisting of hotels and restuarants with tourist sightseeing boats gliding through. And no levee. It's contained and controlled. What we are speaking of here is adapting both a riverwalk and a levee. It appears that the levee is coming. So why not bring the benefits of a riverwalk with it as the posts by izzy and gwilly have mentioned. The point remains that there are riverwalks in major cities in our surroundingstates. They found a way to do it.

Author

chayes69

Date

2009-09-30T13:32:46-06:00

ID

152366

Comment

couldn't we do something smaller in scale - paths - places to even kayak or canoe - or simply stroll by, have art work, etc? I think the concept of the San Antonio riverwalk can give us ideas, but the scale should be more realistic for Jackson. Besides which, I'm not sure we need or even want the downtown area to become solely a money-making tourist trap. what we want is something appealing both to travelers and to those who work and live in Jackson. We really need levees - we need them soon - let's get behind a realistic plan for flood control before it is too late.

Author

Izzy

Date

2009-09-30T14:40:39-06:00

ID

152374

Comment

Izzy, you are right. We need to get behind the levees plan. Maybe the JFP can promote a citizens rally in support of the levees plan. Average tax paying citizens need to be heard. We are the one's whose taxes will fund this projest. We can not let the McGowan and his flunky Garret be the only voices heard.

Author

wellington

Date

2009-09-30T21:08:33-06:00