Jackson Free Press

The legislative Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review is investigating the process by which the Rankin-Hinds Pearl Flood and Drainage Control District Levee Board settled on a recent decision for flood control for the Pearl River.

On Monday, Levee board attorney Trudy Allen submitted a motion board to members on behalf of board chairman Billy Orr to acquiesce to PEER requests for levee board meeting minutes, and to authorize board attorneys and engineers to supply PEER with information related to flood control.

The levee board recently achieved unity in approving a locally preferred plan combining a $200 million levee expansion with a smaller $600 million lake plan that would flood only the channelized portions of the Pearl River--but still allow considerable riverfront development in the downtown Jackson area. Board members had battled for years over the potential economic benefit versus environmental impact of a larger, more ambitious lake plan for flood control, but the Corps rejected the larger lake plan as environmentally unfeasible and outside the Corps' scope.

Board member Socrates Garret asked Allen if PEER's interest concerned how the board had arrived at the consensus of the shallow lake and levee expansion plan.

"Yes," Allen replied. "That's the thrust of the request: they're looking for minutes and reports and some other information to understand the logic behind the board's decision--how many different things you looked at, how many different opinions of experts you had, they want to understand, basically, the project."
Garrett and other members of the board, including Allen, addressed their concern over PEER's authority to conduct the investigation in the first place, considering that PEER traditionally investigates state agencies.

"PEER's position is that we have a legislative nexus, as they explained to me," Allen said. "The explanation is that (because) we were created under a state general statute, they have the right to do this investigation. Before we started, though, we had about 15 or 20 minutes of productive discussion wherein they agreed we are not a state agency, and we still don't believe it's necessary for us to respond to PEER, but if Lt. Gov. (Phil Bryant) wants to know something about the project--which I think to be the origin of the request--Mr. Orr said we should give them whatever information they need."

Orr said he believed PEER had a "wide, sweeping hand of authority" over the board, but argued that the board should concede to PEER requests for the sake of government accountability and openness.

Allen warned members that the board needed to remain consistent with its earlier position that it should not be considered a state agency. In April, the board voted to argue before the state attorney general's office that the board is not a state agency, after an opinion request on the levee board's designation by the Mississippi Department of Archives and History. Archives and History later withdrew their request, but board members have advocated for their independence from the state.

"We want to continue to maintain that we are not subject to the legislative budget and we are not a state agency," Allen said. "Their argument is they are not coming to us as if we're a state agency. They think they have legislative reach over this because we are created by a general law."

State PEER Director Max K. Arinder said PEER does not make a habit of evaluating non-state agencies, but that the levee board endeavor does not set precedent.

"It's not a routine matter, by any means, but it's certainly not the first time we've done such, and probably won't be the last," Arinder told the Jackson Free Press. "The focus is not really on any impropriety or anything inappropriate the board has done. The focus is to learn as much as we can about the status of flood-control issues along that strip of Pearl River--where we came from, where are we going."
Board member and Jackson Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr. asked if the investigation could culminate in penalties if it uncovered any wrongdoing.

"What happens at the end of the day?" he asked. "Are there possible sanctions if we're not consistent with whatever protocol is put in place to make a decision?"

Ted Booth, who represented PEER at the Monday meeting, said the investigation is not designed to uncover misconduct.

"The point of this project is to understand where this board is with respect to planning for flood control. It is the understanding of what you considered, what you ultimately recommended. The point is not to conduct this investigation as there being any wrongdoing," Booth said.

Arinder, who described the project as "a study, not an investigation," would not confirm if PEER acted on a request by Bryant, as Allen told the board. Bryant's office did not immediately return calls.

The board unanimously approved aiding the PEER study.