Jackson Free Press

Levee Board member and Jackson developer Leland Speed made clear his belief at Monday's levee board meeting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has duped Rankin County mayors into prematurely accepting a flawed levee plan that the Corps has endorsed.

"They're being pushed to favor this levee plan when I know for a fact that this plan will cause terrible flooding in downtown Jackson," Speed told the Jackson Free Press yesterday.

The Corps has twice rejected any alternative plans to dredge the area along the Pear River and create a lake deep enough to hold excess run-off water during times of extreme flood. Board members have submitted multiple lake options, including a smaller lake plan that only calls for dredging the already channelized area near downtown Jackson, but the Corps claims any lake plan would trigger environmental mitigation requirements that go against Corps guidelines.

But Speed told the rest of the board members yesterday that the levee plan currently preferred by the Corps, to the exclusion of all other flood-control options, is an unfinished product that makes no account of water backing into the city from metropolitan waterways like Town Creek and Lynch Creek.

"See this dark water here filling up the inner portion of the downtown area?" Speed asked, hefting an aerial photo of the tragic 1979 flood. "That's backwater coming into the city from the creeks and out of the drains. That's water that these levees the Corps wants to force feed us won't handle, because their plan does not include creek pumps to keep the flood water from backing into the creeks."

A September Corps study proposes a $206 million earthen-levee plan, and contains costs for relocations, floodway control, diversion structures and mitigation, but no mention of mechanical pumps installed at the mouth of Jackson creeks. The degree of protection resulting from the levee plan, according to Corps calculations, is only 79 percent.

Creeks are well capable of backing up even during mild floods, as demonstrated in 2003 when Town Creek crept into the backyards of downtown businesses like Stuart Irby Co., and up to the back doorsteps of some north Jackson homes.

Speed said the Corps is playing upon the division among some levee board members: "The Corps is strong-arming this board into accepting a plan that will not protect the city of Jackson, and they're able to do it because they're counting on people not to give a damn about Jackson," said Speed, who estimated the city of Jackson would have to personally cover the $100 million cost of the pumps to maintain complete protection.

The Corps explained at a September meeting with the board that the levee plan involved incorporating flood-gates at the mouths of the creeks to keep high river water from coursing back up into the streams. The floodgates would prove useless if the river is rising with floodwater from upstream at the same time Jackson creeks are getting inundated with heavy, prolonged rain, however.

Corps officials assured members of the levee board that such an event would be rare. Heavy rain, they said, rarely accompanies rising spring floodwater from upriver. Even the massive flood of 1979 arrived on a sunny day, leaving residents stunned that floodwater was overtaking the levees.

Jackson Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr., is a member of the board who voted in favor of the levee plan, out of fear of losing $133 million in federal money provided through the Corps for the flood control project.

Johnson agreed that the Corps' preferred plan wasn't perfect, and said the board would have to continue working with the Corps as a plan moved forward.

"I hope that as we go through this process this board will have the opportunity to look at how it's progressing and take appropriate action at that time," Johnson said. "At this time, though, we need to make sure we maintain the level that we have outlined in federal legislation, which includes money and the ability to include recreational and water features. If that money is lost, then we are truly back to square one."

Shaking his head, Speed admitted he was not convinced that the Corps would be willing, or even able, to provide money beyond the $133 million to help finance the pumps.

The Corps is celebrating the arrival of Col. Jeffrey R. Eckstein as new commander of the Corp's Vicksburg District this morning and could not be reached for comment.

Previous Commentsshow

Hmmm...see my previous posts.

dkimball

Dec 15 2009

soooo how much is this Corps now liable for in New Orleans with the world class levees that they built there? Like the entire 9th ward inclusive of loss of life and property destruction? yeah Levees...sounds like a plan. I guess with this post, I am coming out in favor of the Two Lakes......but maybe too late.

atlntaexile

Dec 15 2009

Here's my theory, atl. I believe that, at least in part, the Corps decided to move now BECAUSE of the problems revealed about what was done, and not done, in NOLA. In other words, their own reputation, etc., would be on the line if they stood back as Jackson made the ill-conceived decision to fight for a Lakes plan that had no chance of ever happening due to environmental, eminent-domain, costs and myriad other issues. We have long been on the record saying that was irresponsible, both on the part of the Levee Board and the mayors, but also on the part of the Corps. Now, Two Lakes supporters are spinning this the direction that you speak of, which has a certain logic until you study the back story. Bottom line: They are not stopping a Lakes plan that is going anywhere fast. They are saying get to the levees, or you're going to be left with nothing the next time a big flood comes. Beyond that, it's up to the community to start working on other flooding/development solutions instead of waiting for the federal government to rubber stamp an unrealistic pipe dream and solve all our flooding problems for us. Fortunately, that is starting to happen around ideas for Town Creek, etc. Put another way: We would be in favor of Two Lakes if it made a lick of sense to be. It doesn't, once you dig below the public relations.

DonnaLadd

Dec 15 2009

Leland suprises me sometimes. Here i thought he was ignoring all the Twin Lakes opponents during the charrette but it seems he was actually aware of some of the criticisms being launched. McGowan dismissed concerns that flash flooding directly over Jackson would cause flooding in the creeks and drains during the charrette in 2007. The concern was similar - how can we protect ourselves from stream overflow if the Pearl has already been filled with water? Duwaney proposed pumps to ensure against this and Mcgowan essentially sneered and said that they were unnecessarily raising the cost of the project. Surely any solution to a complex problem such as upper Pearl drainage will involve a few steps. Levees are a thankful beginning and considering Watkins upcoming Town Creek revitalization project i find it hard to believe we won't be able to bridge the final narrow probablities of a simultaeneous massive upstream drainage and Jackson flashflood. To insinuate that the Corp are leaving us high and dry is to ignore that pursuing Twin Lakes would leave us underwater.

daniel johnson

Dec 15 2009

It also strikes me from reading the posts on yesterdays related story that people are confused as to exactly what the current Twin Lakes plan looks like. Currently there is not big uber development planned in conjunction with the Twin Lakes project which would "revitalize" Jackson. McGowan was so insistent to get ANY type of success in his decade long struggle that the current Twin Lakes featured multiple small islands without any public access or utilities. Jackson would merely lose a rather unique wildlife feature smack dab in the middle of its city and have it replaced with a ditch inhabited by little islands that only wealthy people could afford to develop and enjoy. Oh, and we would have also gotten multiple lawsuits from municipalities downstream, Gulf fisheries, and private and public environmental organizations. (And in fact, we would probably never actually get the lake because of those lawsuits...just a big dredged wetland area waiting for a lake while its developers languished in courts)

daniel johnson

Dec 15 2009

Here's a thought: Might Messrs Speed and Garrett, et. al., have enough pull with the Governor and various Legislators to revisit the Shoccoe Dry Dam solution in concert with comprehensive levees and Town Creek? Particularly given all of the post-Katrina development we've been able to secure in downtown, it seems that if the Governor could be convinced that the upstream dry dams would help protect the capital city from expensive flooding, it might be the best solution to the problem AND there might be the political will to get it done. http://www.pearlriverbasin.com/projects_studies_and_reports.php Shoccoe Dry Dam - Identified by Corps of Engineers as the most comprehensive flood control project - October, 1984 - President Reagan signed 1986 Water Resources Development Act which included authorization for the Shoccoe Dry Dam - November, 1986 - The Mississippi House of Representatives defeated a bill authorizing the District to serve as the local sponsor for Shoccoe - February, 1987

Todd Stauffer

Dec 15 2009

"Here's my theory"....yes Donna certainly makes clear sense. My view of levess is that they have failed many times and that they tend to be a fail safe when the river acually overflows it's natural levee and the "no mans" land that results from that build up. In short the river bank and levee are ugly. That land between the levee and the river bank is called, I believe, an Abbature and it's rarely developed into anythng but a defoliated burn zone. In fact where have we seen one that has been developed into any thing aproaching an ecololgical safe zone. On the land side of the levee, there is generally clear cut to allow for access and emergency maintance ie sand bagging. What will this thing look like? A ten mile long anaconda with a hurricane fence running along the top? On the other argument for developmemt: Well their are plenty of fine neighborhoods in say Monroe LA that are built on the land side of the levees that line the Wachita. And as far a "J" I can't see why smaller neighborhoods with small lakes could not be developed on the land side using the streams you have and that plenty of "livable communities" could be built around with class. But all of that would depend on pumps for emergency and heavy rain. I really think the fallow land that makes up hundreds of acres in North and Northeast "J" needs to be developed. Right now if you guys want "new" you will have to scrape and do tear downs (which I have seen over there now). In Madison and Rankin all they have to do is chase off the cows...... : ) and by the way....our last bought with floods.....in ATL....3000 houses were flooded and of those 875 were completely destroyed. WE have neither lakes or levees. we had the Chatt over flowing and backed up streams. After endless rain. I'm just sayin.

atlntaexile

Dec 15 2009

and anyway, are these proported levees going to be wide and tall enough to allow for land side development? Or just tokens, like they are now. itodd...shoccoe yes! and Daniel..what you have now is a fine wildlife area but after levees....and river bank clearing I think it will be agent orangeville. But who knows. How does this effect he proposed river walk and 34 acre lake for DT?

atlntaexile

Dec 15 2009

What will this thing look like? A ten mile long anaconda with a hurricane fence running along the top? I can clearly be disabused of this notion if someone would point out why it wouldn't work, but it seems that the Corps has been willing to move away from this clear-cutting/defoliation with more modern plans for Levees and flood control that are developed from the outset to make environmental sense. So, why couldn't the Pearl River project include a Greenway element as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Grand_Forks_Greenway http://geosyntheticsmagazine.com/articles/0209_f4_riverbank.html http://www.lizardacres.com/public/levee/levee.html http://www.broward.org/greenways/levee_trail.htm http://evansvillegov.org/Index.aspx?page=589 http://www.greenwaysfornashville.org/greenway-projects.htm (And, again, the notion that we wouldn't rely solely on levees, but also dry dams, could make more of this possible, it would seem.)

Todd Stauffer

Dec 15 2009

i'm not sure how long you've been here atlntaexile, but Jackson citizen's currently utilize the land between the present levees and the river for hiking, jogging, fishing, kayaking, and camping. This is despite the inhospitable access the city has created which virtually alienates Jackson from the river. Just imagine if this area was consciously developed to facilitate land-use rather than restrict it? With a Mississippi population known for its penchant for outdoors activity, a greenway in Jackson could not only provide vital community recreation space but become a prized jewel in attracting businesses with young, active workers.

daniel johnson

Dec 16 2009

I was in HS back in 79 when it flooded and I hope to never see that again. I'm not so convinced with either plan, especially, and would like to see a 3rd party evaluation. Exactly where would the Corps levees start and end?

bill_jackson

Dec 16 2009

I agree, Rex. Neither plan sounds ideal, even though the levees have always had more of a chance of actually happening. The saddest part of this whole thing to me is that the media allowed the backers of one plan to control the entire dialogue all these years when we should have been exploring the options as a community. Now that clock has to start. But better now than after Two Lakes languishes in court for years, I guess. Now that the Levee Board has turned its attention forward, we are going to be exploring the options as best we can. We urge everyone to help us do this so we can have a charrette in print, so to speak. BTW, someone wrote and asked if we knew if the Corps' assertion above about the sunny day is correct. The short answer is no: that was breaking news that they said to Adam yesterday. This is what I was able to find from a quick search, which is a pretty interesting chronology. Not sure what it proves about Town Creek, but everything we can get out there for discussion is vital at this point. At least we're going to be forced to have a long-overdue community discussion about flood control now. When will this community learn that one man cannot save us!?! APRIL PEARL RIVER FLOOD OF 1979

DonnaLadd

Dec 16 2009

The "sunny day" thing made me laugh. It had been raining for what seemed to a 16 yr old like forever that spring. I know it rained every weekend for a while. But to my question- where would the levees proposed by the Corps start and end? I'm interested in all this as I live very near the rez and I noticed some water levels recently that were higher than I've seen since moving this way.

bill_jackson

Dec 17 2009

Unless it happened recently, the Levee Board has still not released the results of the 2007 charrette with third party Andreas Duwaney. It would be very helpful to a "charrette in print" to have this as a starting block considering it contained influence from almost every interested party in Jackson.

daniel johnson

Dec 17 2009

itodd: now that's the way to develeope a "batture". And if those pics are what is store then by all means. Also, those levees as depicted are quite large. And Daniel on my next trip home I will definitely scout around the river recreation areas. I did not know that you guys were utilizing the river banks. This is great. Remember I will be home for good one day, soon I hope (and I mean above ground).

atlntaexile

Dec 17 2009

daniel - good point! something in print would definitely help.

Izzy

Dec 17 2009

Come on home, atl. This is the place to be. ;-) Screw the ATL.

DonnaLadd

Dec 17 2009

Rex, the sunny thing came from the Corps. I think they were making a decent point, but they chose an odd way to make it. But visit that link about the chronology. Interesting. We're digging deeper into the talking point about how levees would lead to flooding downtown. We need to be concerned about that, but we don't need to just listen to sound bites that don't take all the factors into account. We've had enough of that from the Two Lakes PR machine. We're at a great place now to do what should have been done years ago: Actively seek information on the best way to combine flood control with city improvement. And the best way cannot include a plan that would never survive environmental scrutiny. I think people are finally starting to get this and reject the brainwashing that we can somehow get by the legal problems if enough local people get behind a plan like Two Lakes. Nope. Any information any of you can provide would be great. I'd like to host a public forum in the spring about this after we've all had a lot of time to do research. Ward is going to spearhead our project about the posssibilities going forward with Adam continuing the watchdogging of the Corps, which incidentally we don't trust completely, either. Let's all focus on what is *possible*.

DonnaLadd

Dec 17 2009

We also have to watch the rhetoric that says levees can and only will be built one way, as Todd points out above. People for Two Lakes will keep saying that, but let's all be smart enough to not believe simplistic PR talking points.

DonnaLadd

Dec 17 2009

Rex, The entire report is available for download on the vicksburg corps of engineers website: http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/offices/pp/PRWS/index.htm Unfortunately the presentation is not good, and the only way to see the precise levee locations is to dig into the technical drawings in Volume 3.

pjiv

Dec 17 2009

Come on home, atl. ...you ain't kiddin...

atlntaexile

Dec 17 2009

"We also have to watch the rhetoric that says levees can and only will be built one way" It's pretty disheartening that even after losing the Twin Lakes battle, Leland would continue to use rhetoric to frame the discussion to ensure minimum input from the public at large. Of course, that is probably the natural dynamic for him to operate from. We definitely have to be involved in the development of the levee system. They should not just be slapped down in a manner completely defined by flood control necessity. Their design should accommodate intentional green development as well as flood control. The idea that levees can only happen one way reflects the authority/subordinate relationship that Leland sees the government in...a state which he prefers when he is the one guiding the "authority".

daniel johnson

Dec 17 2009