Jackson Free Press

A play to support a controversial lakes plan died on the House calender last week. The bill, H.B. 1549, proposed changing the make-up of the Rankin-Hinds Pearl Flood and Drainage Control District Levee Board. Authored by Rep. Mary Coleman, D-Jackson, and co-sponsored by Rep. Bill Denny, R-Jackson, and Rita Martinson, R-Madison, the bill would have expanded the Levee Board's membership with state appointees and extra members representing Hinds County.

Coleman is a critic of the levee board's recent decision to support a $206 million plan to expand the levee system between Hinds and Rankin counties instead of a $1.4 billion proposal to dredge the Pearl River and create a new reservoir to contain floodwater.

The representative said she noticed that a majority of board members supporting the levee decision over the lake plan happen to represent Rankin County, and believed additional representatives of Jackson might support the lake plan.

The board's current membership consists of four directors from the cities of Jackson, Flowood, Richland and Pearl; two directors appointed by the Rankin and Hinds County Boards of Supervisors; and one appointed by the State Fair Commission. Jackson Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr., a member of the board from Hinds County, said he supported the levee plan, in opposition to his Hinds County companions, because of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' refusal to support or help fund the more expensive lake plan. The other two members of the board representing Hinds County, businessmen Socrates Garrett and Leland Speed, regularly cast votes opposing the levee plan.

After learning of the Coleman bill, a majority of the Levee Board voted this month to send to legislators a letter opposing the bill, arguing that the bill would surrender local flood control along the Pearl River to state officials who do not live in the flood-prone area around the Pearl River who have no financial stake in the project and who have offered no funding assistance.

Coleman said the Legislature would revisit the issue in the future, and touted a second bill she submitted this year creating a joint legislative committee to scrutinize the effectiveness of flood and drainage control districts in the state. House Bill 1548, which passed the House, seeks to "determine whether through the existence of these districts, the overflow and surface waters have been controlled to insure adequate protection to the inhabitants of the State of Mississippi ... and to make recommendations regarding the districts' functional operations as they relate to their existence," according to bill language.

Coleman said her bill targets the effectiveness of the Rankin-Hinds Levee Board, in particular, and said she would keep filing bills scrutinizing the board even if this second bill did not survive the Senate.

"If we don't get any headway with that bill, then next year we might come back and try to re-constitute the whole board, because right now Rankin County controls the board," Coleman said.

For the JFP's full coverage of Two Lakes and Levees, visit the The Pearl River Archive

Previous Commentsshow

You've got to hand it to Rep. Coleman for coming right out and saying she was doing this because she didn't like the way the Levee Board voted against a lakes plan. I appreciate that kind of honesty. Now, one does wonder how versed she is in the problems facing the defunct Lakes plan that its developers are determined to bring back, hell or high water (pardon the expression). And it doesn't seem like she's picking the right issue with which to go after Rankin County -- they're in this, too. She, and at least some of her supporters, clearly didn't like the outcome, so decided to try to re-do the board, which she makes clear. Reminds me of Barbour and his special sessions.

DonnaLadd

Feb 15 2010

Have you read the latest Greater Jackson Business magazine? They have an article basically backing the Two Lakes plan. I hadn't had time to read it, but I'll try to get to it soon. Methinks it's a fluff piece, especially when you consider why they think it should be built.

golden eagle

Feb 15 2010

Someone sent me a PDF, but I haven't had time to read it. Who is Tom Willard who wrote it?

DonnaLadd

Feb 15 2010

From Linkedin: not sure if this is the same person. Current: * CEO at SAGE Advertsing/Marketing/Public Relations: * Broker at John Hancock Financial Services: Education: * Mississippi College * University of The South My experience is that when you see public relations professionals involved in a project that is purported to be for the benefit of the community you can be sure that the hand and the wallet of the private sector is involved. Don't know much about Greater Jackson Business, other than that this is their second issue (did not see the first)

annyimiss

Feb 15 2010

It's Jack Criss' newest venture. He's a nice guy, but his focus is not typically journalistic, which is what this story deserves. It's gotten enough puff pieces from the Ledger and the Sun over the years. I'll report back on my thoughts when I get a chance to read it. But the cover headline is telling: "Why the Metro Needs this Project, and why it should be built." ;-) I've said it before: If anyone promises an easy, cheap, fast solution to flooding in Jackson, they're not telling you the whole story, no matter which option they're hawking.

DonnaLadd

Feb 15 2010

But the cover headline is telling: "Why the Metro Needs this Project, and why it should be built." ;-) Which is why I think it may be a fluff piece. I'll try and read it as soon as I can. Don't know much about Greater Jackson Business, other than that this is their second issue (did not see the first) They are brand new. The first issue was about whether or not Harborwalk at the Ridgeland side of the resevoir will ever be built. That'll be just as big a boondoggle as Two Lakes might be.

golden eagle

Feb 15 2010

OK, I read it quickly at lunch just now. Beyond the fact that it is simply riddled with copy problems (including quote after quote that you can't tell where they begin and end; please tell me someone sent me a draft!), the piece is a complete puff piece. It starts: "Two Lakes is a dream as yet unfulfilled. However, it is still very much alive despite a sea of controversy." Factually, that's not really true. It has been rejected by the Levee Board in favor of pursuing a levee plan. People are trying to bring it back, mostly through political maneuvering at the Legislature and by anonymous smears of people who criticize it. On the second page, the story says that "the Levee Board has voted unanimously to rescind its earlier endorsement of the, Lefleur Lakes Lower Lake Plan, in favor of a technical study of alternative plans including the Two Lakes Plan." (sic) Yes, that happened a while back, but what about the December vote to pursue levees and not lakes. Wherever you stand, you can't just ignore that fact. Or maybe you can. At nearly the end of the main story, it quotes Two Lakes supporter Socrates Garrett who was one of two who objected to the December vote: "The position of the Board is that we have asked the Corps to consider all reasonable alternatives for flood control." Actually, the Levee Board voted to move ahead with a levee plan, taking lakes off the table. Why are they ignoring, or not telling people, where the thing really stands? How can this possibly benefit them? Either the writer doesn't know his subject at all, or they are purposefully trying to put incomplete information out. Very strange. It's also funny to watch Mr. McGowan repeatedly reference a Clarion-Ledger Web poll that he says showed 82 percent of people voting in support of Two Lakes. Everyone knows Web polls aren't scientific, and they send e-mails to get everyone to go vote. We haven't done Web polls precisely because they mean nothing.

DonnaLadd

Feb 15 2010