Jackson Free Press

The Clarion-Ledger is reporting:

A recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study of a plan to build a lake development along the Pearl River in metro Jackson shows the project could cost $1.4 billion - hundreds of millions more than anticipated by the plan's proponents.

In a draft of an economic feasibility study reviewed by The Clarion-Ledger, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers calls the LeFleur Lakes project "economically infeasible" as a federal project. The study, sent with a letter dated Feb. 14 to the local board involved with the project, further suggests if the project is to go forward it must be paid for with local money.

Proponents say the corps' figure is inflated and that private developers can build the project cheaper. Others doubt whether the project is worth the cost. [...]

Richland Mayor Mark Scarborough said the city would need additional pumps - a finding also cited in the corps' study - to prevent flooding caused by Squirrel Branch and Neely Creek.

"My concern is that we're spending this kind of money and it's only going to address flooding problems north of Richland," Scarborough said. "It won't address problems north and south of the lakes."

Meanwhile, no compromise has been reached between the LeFleur Lakes proponents and supporters of a $424 million Airport Parkway from downtown Jackson to the Jackson Evers International Airport. The two projects, as proposed, collide on a stretch less than a mile wide at the Pearl River.

No surprise here.

Previous Commentsshow

There's also the point that we sort of hit on during the radio show on Friday...if there's a problem with the Waterworks ability to process the sewage water that it dumps into the Pearl currently, what happens when you damn that river below the Waterworks? Maybe that's a managable problem, but it's a factor in the sense that the city (and maybe Metro counties) are going to need to pay to upgrade our sewage treatment on top of locally funding Lefleur's Lakes, and if the sewage problem isn't addressed, it seems logical that Lefleur's Lakes could exacerable that, er, issue.

Todd Stauffer

Feb 24 2007

Todd I believe that the JH Fewell Plant is being upgraded and expanded to meet MDEQ mandates for sewer treatment, so that should not factor into the decision about the Lakes project.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 24 2007

"...what happens when you damn that river below the Waterworks? " I don't believe in that stuff. ;-)

millhouse

Feb 25 2007

As someone who has written (albeit badly) about this subject, let me venture the opinion that, in the event of a truly historic and catastrophic flood such as the one that occurred in 1979, nothing any man can do would abate widespread and significant damage to any man-made structure on the flood plain along the middle reaches of the Pearl River. Levees break, dams collapse and islands are easily inundated. Call me a Cassandra, but turther development along this particular stretch of waterway might well be an invitation for disaster. Perhaps we should concentrate on restoring the city behind its natural protections (i.e. LeFleur's Bluff, etc.) rather than using the excuse of past disasters as a hue and cry for further development.

JLY

Feb 25 2007

Okay, Cassandra. :) So lets not rebuild the coast. Those folks are clearly just asking for it with those beach front properties. Also, The JH Fewell Plant is a water intake facility. Sewer output is further south at Savanna street. Even if two lakes has problems which need to be fixed, any use development which also does flood control is preferable to another bunch of levees. My understanding is that the corp has had a plan in place for levee extension for some time, after the Shoccoe dam project failed. We are getting flood control, I prefer the lakes to the levees.

Niles Hooper

Feb 25 2007

yea . . . especially since the corp's levees seemed to work so well in New Orleans . . . I think that after Katrina, the Corps of engineers has very little credibility when it comes to flood controll. . .

djames

Feb 25 2007

The option is not so stark as "lakes or levees". There are a variety of options which start with a basin-wide survey. The river is not just in Jackson and neither are issues surrounding property relationships with the river. The from start to finish there are porjects such as smaller dams or gulleys along the way. Upstream management can play a large factor. Many of these types of land management techniques include recreation area such as soccer fields which can be used when dry or collect water when inundated. The flood in 1979 happened on a sunny day well after the rain had stopped. Jackson filled with water because there was drainage continuing from fields and streets upstream as time wore on. Upstream management is key. We also cannot ignore those of our neighbors downstream. The mayor of Monticello is already voicing opposition because it will increase bank erosion. The twin lakes essentially seeks to funnel water through Jackson like a ditch. (Completely opposite of natural water absorption banks found in nature.) The Twin Lakes projects would actually come through and destroy that which has naturally developed to mitigate flooding...that which can be restored and made accessible recreationally for all classes of Jackson and not just those in the mood to shop on an island. (There, i've given away my hostility to the project.) There are better ideas being implemented today which conserve our natural resources and bring economic stability and physical and mental well-being to citizens. Greenways are a great way to manage a flood plain while realizing the maximum potential of the area. You have an area larger than central park right in Downtown Jackson which is a rare habitat. Bike and walking trails crisscross from Byram to Ridgeland to Pearl and Flowood allowing people access to their favorite destinations without being subject to rising gas prices. Imagine a serence congregation spot for our greater community where families can picnic, play hacky sack, kayak, and possiby enjoy public art, festivals and markets. Everything is built so that it can withstand being underwater for a period if it is located in that threatened area. We don't have to worry about catastrophic rises because we have worked with our neighbors to the North to ensure less drainage from those communities. John McGowan has suggested that he could accomplish this project for under 300 million dollars. A project the Army Corp of Engineers has stated will cost in excess of 1 billion. Through the presentations of the Highyway Project vs. Twin Lakes it was made apparent that all costs have not been accounted for. Construction costs have not accounted for inflation. There is no allowance for the impending legal battles between local and national ecological organizations. We have a valuable resource and there are those who will fight to preserve it. Aside from all i've said is the glaring fools choice provided in "lakes or levees". The citizens have not been involved in the cultural discussion surrounding the issue. This is public land. Public land which can be a destination spot for travelers. An opportunitiy for businesses and their employees to have the best of both worlds. An area that excites activity between our cities by acting as a hub. Mississippi is known for her unique sophistication, our wilderness, and connection with the land. A greenway could protect us while creating an anchor right next to our capitol city Downtown...our cultural epicenter. Our soul.

daniel johnson

Feb 25 2007

Mr. Johnson makes several important points, among them that we are being blinded by limited options, that upstream managemnt is key, that the City of Jackson is not the only player in this scenario and that these are public lands at risk. He also seems to agree with me that in the event of an historic meterological event flooding of some degree is inevitable in threatened areas, and that any structure in such an area should be built or designed to endure this eventuality. I think it's safe to assume that a Neiman Marcus might not.

JLY

Feb 25 2007

I agree. It is very disturbing that the only "flood control" option we're hearing anything about is being pushed and sold in a PR way by private developers who do not seem interested in the what the "worst-case scenario" could be if their plan succeeds. This is no. way. to make public policy, or to push an extremely expensive reworking of a dangerous natural resource. The council president needs to jump off the PR wagon for this project and really start exploring publicly every possible option for "flood control"; then the public will decide what the best option is without regard to who is going to profit the most. It is the only way, folks. We won't be able to turn back the clock on a potentially devastating mistake. Stop the sales pitch, folks. The public—including upstream and downstream—deserve better than a sales pitch.

DonnaLadd

Feb 25 2007

Keep in mind this mayor of Monticello also opposes Jackson getting any kind of tax relief for all the land taken up by the state. He will pretty much oppose anything progressive for Jackson.

Kingfish

Feb 25 2007

Daniel, That was a good post. I obviously don't think its a fools choice. The fools choice in my mind is forcing the public to decide between the environment and development. A corp levee flood control project will be hard to convert into anything even remotely as valuable as the development proposed by twin lakes. The development density from what you propose,and therefore the profit to private and public interest, would not drive the local economy as much as the twin lakes projects. I know you prefer a Greenway, but would most of Jackson? I doubt it. So the question becomes, in my view, can the land be responsibly developed? Your point of public land is well taken though as is Ms. Ladd's point about the dearth of public information on this. Isn't there a meeting on this coming up shortly with the developers etc? The flood control part certainly needs some explaining. There needs to be some coverage on both the "flood control" and "disaster waiting to happen" screeds. They both strike me as sales pitches.

Niles Hooper

Feb 26 2007

That may be true, Kingfish. However, we CANNOT assume that the only reason someone up or downstream would oppose Two Lakes is because they don't want something "progressive" for Jackson. And it's a little hard to see what would be "progressive" about this project, now that you mention it, and I've looked for the ups in it. It certainly won't be "progressive" if it becomes a public-private debacle that makes the beef plant investment look like a fabulous idea. The ones I can see here, by the way, pitting development against the environment are the cheerleaders for Two Lakes. This needs to be taken out of the cheerleading arena, and put in the court of reality to be judged, and against all the other "flood control" options. Folks, we have a chance not to simply drink the Koolaid and make a potentially huge mistake here. Demand public accountability and demand that our elected officials stop being lapdogs for their friends on this project.

DonnaLadd

Feb 26 2007

As I understand it, the "meeting" is with the developers for them to sell us the project. They can try to do that if they want, but it's not good enough. Folks, the taxpayers are going to pay to make this development happen. Whether or not you care about the environment or the myriad other issues on the table here, repeat that line over and over again to yourself. This is not a time to rubberstamp this project or allow developers to push something through without a thorough vetting and comparison to the other options.

DonnaLadd

Feb 26 2007

I do think it is interesting that the Corp's figures are close to what it would probably cost the Federal gov't Flood program in payouts should a '79ish type flood hit Jackson. I think that as long as the gov't is in the insurance business they have an interest in keeping as many "clients" as they can to keep their insurance pool levels. I would like to have something like the Lakes here in Jackson. But, it appears that the plan by McGowan is not as well thought out as it should be; and, the Corp. is probably not working in Jackson's best interest either. I wish there was a way to "semi-flood" the river where it could be better enjoyed for small boat fishing and exploring with green space parks running along side from downtown to the reservoir without the fluctuation's we have now. No island, no large lakes. Just some stability in flow and levels from dredging it deeper and a bit wider. Maybe putting in more flow controls north of the reservoir may help too.

pikersam

Feb 26 2007

The idea that Twin Lakes represents "development" and any act to preserve and utilize the Pearl River wetland area bordering our capitol city represents "environment" is way to stark to do justice to either. This juxtaposition is used to imply that the "environment" choice does not provide for economic development in our area. This is not the experience of cities who have gone that route. Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy testified at a Congressional hearing that trail construction was the main contributing factor to a dramatic downtown revitalization. Miles of trails connect millions of dollars of economic development, including stadiums, housing, office space and riverfront parks. A 1998 report for the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy found that conservation of open space and higher density development were essential to preserve a higher quality of life, an important factor in attracting employers and employees to California localities. Ruby Tuesday Inc. moved its Restaurant Support Center to a site adnacent to the Greenway Trail in Maryville, TN because it, "helps provide a sense of community to this area, as well as the many benefits it provides to our more than 300 employees." - CEO Samuel E. Beall, III A 1998 study by Enhancing America's Communities found the direct economic impact of the Great Allegheny Passage exceeded $14 million a year, even though the trail was only half finished at the time. In the months following the opening of the Mineral Belt in Leadville, Colorado, the city reported a 19 percent increase in sales tax revenues. The Mineral Wells to Weatherford Rail-Trail near Dallas TX attracts approximately 300,000 people annually and generates local revenues of $2 million. In a 2002 survey of recent home buyers sponsored by the National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders, trails ranked as the second most important community amenity out of a list of 18 choices. This is a sample from a report - Economic Benefits of Trails and Greenways: Rails to Trails http://www.railtrails.org/resources/documents/resource_docs/tgc_economic.pdf Check out the Most Livable Cities Index (http://www.mostlivable.org/index.html). Every one emphasizes environmental amnemities such as green space and natural features such as rivers or mountains in their excerpt. Jackson merely makes mention of their Parks and Recreation Department golf, tennis, and swimming. Dredging and controlling rivers is a thing of the past. Land management and conservation in addition to offering to buy property from individuals in the flood plain are the common practice of today. In response to whether or not a majority of Jackson wants a Greenway...this is a question that has yet to be explored by our City or major media sources. I would assert that the success Ridgeland has had with their bike focus is evidence of interest in the area. Our citizens historic association with the outdoors and the land are pretty good indicators. I would ask why we think there is overwhelming support for Twin Lakes? The only public note on the subject was a petition circulated by the developer which was biased through language and only gave an option between an Airport Parkway and Twin Lakes. When we will look at all the alternatives and make an informed decision. A decision based on facts and case studies. I do not doubt McGowan's sincere commitment and love of the Jackson area. I just think he is a misguided developer with an idea he can't let go. We have delayed real flood control study for 10 years now waiting on 2 feasibility studies giving him the go ahead. Alternatives have not been discussed because McGowan has been able to sell public officials on his plan and convinced them to just wait. The time to create real flood control that includes the creation of public amenities is past. Beyond the technical difficulties involved, we cannot continue to build our city around consumption-oriented activity. The citizens of Jackson are unhealthy...the unhealthiest on many national lists. We must make this space available for the community. This space will be the apex of our image to the outside world...will it represent consumption and man over nature development or will it emphasize our connection with the natural world and true community interaction. When one speaks of sustainable development such as a Greenway, there is no absence of economic opportunity. Quite the opposite. Instead of locating it all on an island, there would be local opportunity all along the Downtown border and beyond into Ridgeland and Flowood, tourists would come from all over our region to enjoy the scenic beauty of the wetlands and old-growth cypress many Jacksonians don't even know exist, our own citizens in our connected city communities would be integrated through recreation. With all the development going on Downtown presently, it would be nice to balance that with some urban green opportunities. Those visiting this area will be eating and enjoying the nightlife of these new Downtown opportunities. Businesses will want to locate in an area with such amnemities for their employees. This area will be larger than Central Park.

daniel johnson

Feb 26 2007

he idea that Twin Lakes represents "development" and any act to preserve and utilize the Pearl River wetland area bordering our capitol city represents "environment" is way to stark to do justice to either. Agreed, Daniel. Somebody is trying to divide and conquer here.

DonnaLadd

Feb 26 2007

Ra Ra Ra..... Go Lakes! (my only and best chance to ever be called a cheerleader) Very informative post. Thanks Daniel. Thanks for your time and effort in educating me on your position and this project. I agree that it should be put to the test of public opinion. Is there anyone backing the greenway plan, is it a plan at this point? Anyone with the money, financing, and backing to actually make it happen? From reading around on it, it looks like the Rankin-Hinds flood control district cited the twin lakes as the preferred plan, their second choice being levees. I got the impression that this was because of the better flood control possibility of a lake and the local economic development potential. Its a little naive, I think, to stomp the twin lakes plan and then act like the runner up won't get implemented in its place, ergo, a choice between the levee and the lakes. I doubt there are many of the greenway features in the corp levee plan, but I am often wrong, so if there are, please share. If the economnic benefit of the greenway plan can really go toe-to-toe with that of twin lakes I would think it would get support. I just have not seen anything about the net effects of either floating around. Most of the benefits you list I class as intangibles, how do you quantifiy the likelyhood that a large company will relocate to jackson because of a greenway? What tangible monetary benefit do we assign to the "apex of our image to the outside world...will it represent consumption and man over nature development or will it emphasize our connection with the natural world and true community interaction." High ideals to be sure, but they don't really generate tax revenue. Or more accurately, if they do, they seem hard to quantify. I was thinking more in the line of "thousands of square feet of property tax generating housing and business." Thats what I mean by development and thats a pretty easy sell to jacktown residents right now. I agree with Ladd on tax issues, and I will be very curious to see if they propose funding this development with tax increment financing, which would eliminate much of what recomends the plan as far as generating revenue for the city. As to the charette, is the JFP going to cover it or no?

Niles Hooper

Feb 27 2007

I agree that it should be put to the test of public opinion. This may just be semantics, but I don't think it should be "put to the test of public opinion" (like with some dumb Web site poll). I believe it should be put through rigorous public scrutiny—and on its own merits (or lack thereof). That is, is this a viable plan? How much will it cost the taxpayers? What are the problems and possibilities for failure (sans PR spin, thank you). There are folks reading this (or who will be) who can spew the eco-devo benefits of greenways and smart devopment that doesn't involve such extreme measures (and, yes, raping the environment, to boot). But, simply on the surface, it makes no sense to argue that a company *would* move here due to a big lake or two (er, we have one already) as opposed to a greenway/recreation area where their young information-movers could canoe and do all the outdoors rec stuff that has a lot more to do with attracing knowledge workers in the 21st century than another motorboat lake. And the problem with their promise of all the tax generation is the offset to the cost of the taxpayers, as well as the cost of failure. And a lot of businesses are going to be too smart these days to build in a floodplain. The problem with Two Lakes is that it's old-fashioned thinking that just may not be able to deliver what it promises. And the risks seem to be very high and very expensive. All that said, the biggest problem I see is that I do not see anyone supporting whom I trust right now to give us the straight story on the risks and costs. And, until the public can trust in what we're being told, this project cannot move ahead. The risk of failure is too daunting.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2007

Also, it makes no sense to say that an alternative idea, such as a greenway or anything else, is supposed to go "toe-to-toe" with the slick PR campaign that is Two Lakes. Screw that. We need all the information on the table, and elected officials who are doing more than kowtowing to their buddies and looking for their own strip of lakefront property.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2007

Oh, and for your last question: I'd be much more enthusiastic if the "charrette" was called a "public hearing" and promised what a "public hearing" should do. I'll get people out to what I can, but if it's just a bunch of PR puffery, then we're call it that and get on with our business of really reporting what going's on with this thing, charette or no pretention-sounding charette.

DonnaLadd

Feb 27 2007

The Pearl River Basin Coalition has been tracking the progress of this development since 1997. While their official stance is one of encouraging the city to consider all the alternatives, the alternate option of a Greenway would be the natural course for land use if basin wide flood control measures were taken. Most organizations which are following this development will tell you that they are waiting for the Environmental Impact Study to come out before drawing a clear position so this will certainly unfold in the future. Many in our scientific community are connected to government positions and are unofficially disallowed from discussing the plans and alternatives until such time as the EIS does come out. Of course, despite the fact that the study was done with public money, the Army Corp is only required to turn this over to the levee board so it will be up to them to release it or not. Knowing Conway Maloney's relationship to the project, i doubt he will be very interested in releasing this document. No doubt there will be requests for it though. As for wondering if a Greenway can go toe-to-toe with Twin Lakes as an economic benefit, i would first ask if economic benefit is the only variable to consider in urban planning? A Greenway will certainly provide economic benefit to existing businesses which benefit from increased tourism. Can Twin Lakes stand toe-to-toe on health benefits to the community both through recreation and the environmental impact such a large green area provides to our city? Does Jackson need an economic savior at all? With all the positive development going on it seems it would be in our interest to diversify our environment with outdoor areas to compliment our soon to be thriving Downtown entertainment, educational, and business districts. You are right on the net effects of neither being evident. The intangibles for both are many and mostly based on ideals. My ideals sanctify community empowerment through non-automotive transportation routes, community recreation accessible to all income levels, conservation of our natural resources, and aside from my plan for the Pearl, comprehensive community input into the use of public land. Should we look for tangible monetary benefits in every action? Should we perhaps view our city in terms of long term sustainability? Should we consider our actions with the Pearl and its effects on our neighbors downstream? As far as thousands of square feet of property tax generating housing and business, are we really discussing a tangible reality? McGowan has yet to offer a comprehensive plan accounting for mitigation, inflation, and unforseen construction costs. Just what does the Twin Lakes plan leave out that shaves $800 million dollars of the price tag and are those pieces necessary? What happens to the tributaries running through our neighborhoods which currently empty into the Pearl. Once we dredge up all the sandbars and wetland areas in preparation for this development it is INCREDIBLY difficult to reverse. We must ask hard questions now to ensure that this project doesn't flounder and leave us with neither economic development nor a picturesque river corridor to develop. As for funding a Greenway, i ask for no more faith than John McGowan asks when he claims to be able to create Twin Lakes with a little over $200 million dollars and plans for no unforeseen expenses.

daniel johnson

Feb 27 2007