[Publisher’s Note]  LeFleur Lakes Barreling Toward the Falls

by Todd Stauffer
February 28, 2007

The results are in from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study of the LeFleur Lakes project, and, according to a report in The Clarion-Ledger, the Corps says it isn't economically feasible. Estimating a price tag of $1.2 billion—which is a figure quite north of the Lakes' developer $200 million-$300 million estimates—the Corps doesn't recommend federal involvement.

So what's the next logical step? Apparently, the developers have planned a "charrette" starting on March 6 so that engineers and architects can build the "master plan" for the development, which we're told they intend to go forward with using private investment and public money.

The public is invited to give feedback at the charrette—I encourage you to attend. The presentations we're allowed to see are on March 6, 9 and 12. (I'm guessing that's when they tell us what they're going to tell us, tell us and then tell us what they told us.)

I can't help but get the feeling that the LeFleur Lakes project is ripping downstream like a barrel over Niagara Falls, unabated by the wistful callings of reasonable voices and cooler heads. And in the meantime, I'm concerned that we're missing a golden opportunity to do something about the Pearl—something conservative, both fiscally and ecologically.

I know that LeFleur Lakes is a pet project for a number of developers and architects in town, and I know that it's got some frenzied support from local politicos—perhaps even some of our state and national leaders.

If it were a feasible, reasonable solution, I could see how some might think it's a good idea—a one-two punch to create an eco-devo boondoggle while, at the same time, knocking out that irritating flooding problem of the Pearl once and for all.

And we'd do it all with engineering gumption and good-ol' American know-how.

But it's not feasible, according to the Corps, for anything approaching the amount of money that the developers say it will cost.

I say it's time we tell our leaders to seriously consider other plans. The LeFleur Lakes project is a two-time reject by the Corps. And the way I see it, it doesn't fully consider the "best practices" in flood damage control, river management and economic development for modern cities that have developed in the past few decades.

A few thoughts that I think we need to consider as a community:

• The Pearl River floods. That's a problem in particular for the development that's taken place in the Pearl River basin since the 1903, 1961, 1979 and 1983 floods that devastated the flood plain and surrounding areas. Some of that development probably shouldn't have happened, and we need to seriously consider both how much more development needs to happen in the Pearl floodplain and whether we need to buy back some of that property in the public interest.

• Today's river engineering tends to consider options for "flood damage management" instead of "flood control." The Pearl isn't (supposed to be) a drainage ditch; it's a living, breathing organism that benefits us in many different ways. As much as is politically and economically possible, we need to move from thinking "flood control" to thinking "flood damage management," which means both getting people out of the floodplain and protecting those that have to stay there by managing severe rain events.

• Today's planning also tends to focus on what are called "basin-wide solutions." We need real leaders on Pearl River management who can get people upstream and downstream to talk, plan and agree on how best to manage the Pearl River. The solutions for Pearl River flooding in Jackson are upstream. Additional problems would be created for communities downstream if we dam the Pearl in Jackson. Ergo, we need to talk to those people. And listen.

• "First, do no harm," is a mantra we should be familiar with here in one of the medical-technology capitals of the country. Once you engineer, dredge, channelize and pump a river into a new form, it's very difficult to go back. And as people will tell you in New Orleans, sometimes that technology doesn't work. Sometimes the levees break.

• "Economic development" does not always equal cul-de-sacs and shopping malls. There are other options for natural resources like the Pearl River that can cost less and still inject much-needed dollars into the economy. Eco-tourism, outdoor recreation, water sports, alternative transportation (meaning feet, pedals and roller blades) and access to urban forests are all items that, when properly placed on the "creative class" development agenda, can reap amazing rewards by encouraging young professionals and families to think of Jackson as a cool place to live. We can get everything we need on that front without building any more lakes.

• Water quality and wastewater are two huge issues facing the Jackson Metro right now, with a $100 million wastewater upgrade necessary to keep the Metro's toilets flushing down the Pearl in an EPA-approved manner. How does that fit into the plan to damn the river below the waterworks in Jackson? And how does it fit into the overall plan we must now undertake to locally finance a plan like LeFleur Lakes?

In the end, I'm concerned that we're going to spend another three to five years figuring out something that the Corps just got paid a few million bucks to tell us—that LeFleur Lakes isn't economically feasible.

Meanwhile, all over the country and the world, cities are revitalizing their rivers and urban forests and then selling themselves as "active" communities where flood control, river management and recreational options go hand-in-hand. In today's world, LeFleur Lakes is old-school thinking. This discussion needs to happen basin-wide, with a focus on flood damage management, water-quality issue and 21st-century development priorities.

Doing no harm, in the process, would be ideal.

Whether we've got $5 million or $1.2 billion to spend on the Metro's flood control—and its future—there may be a better way to spend that money than LeFleur Lakes.

We should at least explore that probability.

COMMENTS

Page 1 of 1 pages

100 recent comments »