Unresolved "One Lake" (Alternative C) Questions
Click to view document
|
Question 1:
Does a Lake provide less expensive, more effective flood risk reduction than a levee system? The Army Corps of Engineers said no in 1996 when they proposed the Comprehensive Levee System, no when they rejected the Two Lakes Plan, no when they rejected the LeFleurs Lake Plan, stating that the "Lakes Plan was less effective as a flood control than the Comprehensive Levee Plan" and no in 2020, when independent reviewers from the Army Corps of Engineers Agency Technical Review team stated: "the setback levee most likely will be the feature with the greatest (flood) risk reduction". In order for the Levee Board to receive the allocated federal funding for their flood reduction project, the project must be at least as effective and no more expensive than the Comprehensive Levee Plan proposed by the Corps of Engineers in 1996. A 2010 MS Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review PEER report 540 stated: "Many of the plans for flood control in the Jackson metro area mix flood control with economic development. The plans incorporating economic development cost more than levees." Will this Lake plan provide comparable flood risk reduction for Jackson or has the Levee Board's continued push for economic development again delayed a flood risk reduction solution for Jackson? |
 Click to view document
|
Question 2:
Has the Levee Board decided which Rankin Hinds Flood Control District residents will be taxed to pay for One Lake construction, maintenance and upkeep? How much will District residents pay for “special improvement assessments” and what will be their annual tax burden? MS law gives the Levee Board authority to raise property taxes to cover the costs of a “flood and drainage control improvement project” by levying “a special improvement assessment” on “property in the district that is directly or indirectly benefited by the project.” The 2007 map depicts a District boundary that encompasses a sliver of Jackson along the Pearl River, large parts of south Flowood, downtown Pearl and part of Richland. Thirty-five percent of the costs of constructing the One Lake project—an absolute minimum of $121 million—plus 100% of the costs of operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating the project must be paid by the Levee Board. These funds are expected to come from taxes levied on the residents of the Rankin Hinds Flood Control District. |
Click to view letter
|
Question 3:
Has MDOT approved a plan that would prevent the catastrophic failure of major interstate bridges? What is the cost of that plan? In a Sept 2018 letter to the Levee Board, MS Department of Transportation stated that “If the predicted scour depths occur, there will be a catastrophic failure of all seven of the main channel bridges...” Main channel bridges of concern include two on Lakeland Dr, two on I-55, one on US 80 and two on I-20. MDOT stated that “For this reason all bridges will need to be replaced and the cost to replace the nine bridges should be reflected in the cost of the Pearl River Basin Federal Flood Risk Management Project.” |
|
Question 4:
Will the One Lake project increase flash flooding in some Jackson neighborhoods? According to the One Lake plan, the higher water level of 258' at the new weir/dam will increase the flood profiles along all 8 Jackson tributaries. The City of Jackson storm drain and tributary channel system is currently not capable of efficiently managing stormwater flash flooding. Heavy rains often cause Lynch Creek to overtop its banks, flooding neighborhood streets, businesses and homes. Due to the deterioration of century-old sewer infrastructure, this stormwater typically contains raw sewage and other contaminants. According to the One Lake plan, increased backwater flooding from the higher lake level will occur about 2000 meters up each of the 8 Jackson urban tributaries. A higher flood profile on Town Creek could impact many Jackson entities including the MS Museum of Art, Jackson Fire Dept, US Courthouse and USPS. |
Click to view document
|
Question 5:
Has the Levee Board proposed a plan to replace 30% of Jackson's drinking water supply during the 3-4 years of project construction? What is the plan and how much will it cost? Will the City of Jackson pay for water supply replacement or will the Levee Board tax its District property owners to pay for it? Jackson's J.H. Fewell drinking water facility draws water directly from the area that would be extensively dredged and ponded to build One Lake. This 100-year-old facility supplies up to 30% of Jackson’s drinking water and was able to operate above normal capacity throughout the Jackson Water Crisis. The One Lake plan states that project construction could increase turbidity in the Pearl River to the point where the J. H. Fewell plant will not be able to operate. As a result, the City of Jackson would be required to somehow find a “temporary” water supply alternative for 30% of the City’s drinking water for potentially 3-4 years during project construction. |
|
|
Question 6:
When will the Levee Board conduct further testing of the 8 hazardous toxic waste sites in the One Lake project area? Since site cleanup costs, estimated in the tens of millions of dollars, must be paid for by the Levee Board and not the federal government, which MS residents will be taxed to pay for the remediation?
The Army Corps of Engineers independent review team recommended that the Levee Board "conduct further testing to quantify the extent of HTRW (Hazardous Toxic Radiological Waste) contamination" and reiterated that the Levee Board bears "complete financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances...that are located in, on, or under lands, or rights-of-way that the federal government determines to be required for construction, operation and maintenance of the project." The hazardous toxic waste sites in the project area include: creosote sloughs that "present a continuing source of release of creosote chemicals to the environment and to the City of Jackson's drinking water." and unregulated landfills where Site Assessments have found Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, benzene, cadmium, lead, nickel and creosote compounds which were well above regulatory standards.
The One Lake study states that "Construction activities have the potential to increase noise levels, erosion and runoff of silt, generation of air borne dust, and the release of hazardous substances from these HTRW sites."
When will the Levee Board conduct further testing of the 8 hazardous toxic waste sites in the One Lake project area? Since site cleanup costs, estimated in the tens of millions of dollars, must be paid for by the Levee Board and not the federal government, which MS residents will be taxed to pay for the remediation?
The Army Corps of Engineers independent review team recommended that the Levee Board "conduct further testing to quantify the extent of HTRW (Hazardous Toxic Radiological Waste) contamination" and reiterated that the Levee Board bears "complete financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances...that are located in, on, or under lands, or rights-of-way that the federal government determines to be required for construction, operation and maintenance of the project." The hazardous toxic waste sites in the project area include: creosote sloughs that "present a continuing source of release of creosote chemicals to the environment and to the City of Jackson's drinking water." and unregulated landfills where Site Assessments have found Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, benzene, cadmium, lead, nickel and creosote compounds which were well above regulatory standards.
The One Lake study states that "Construction activities have the potential to increase noise levels, erosion and runoff of silt, generation of air borne dust, and the release of hazardous substances from these HTRW sites."
Click to view letter
|
Question 7:
Has the Levee Board conducted a thorough evaluation of downstream impacts? When will the Levee Board release these additional evaluations to the public? In 2018, MDEQ requested the Levee Board conduct additional evaluation of downstream project impacts. Also in 2018, Senator Cassidy and Representative Scalise added wording to the 2018 WRDA (America's Water Infrastructure Act) that imposes important restrictions on moving the One Lake project to the next phase of detailed technical design, including a requirement to address all adverse downstream impacts. |
Click to view document
|
Click to view document
|
Question 8:
Why has the Levee Board chosen the flood risk reduction plan that both US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) independent reviewers consider the most environmentally damaging plan? Why has the Levee Board's own engineer stated that the use of mitigation banks to offset the wetlands loss due to the project would not be possible due to the size and scope of the One Lake project?
USFWS and USACE independent reviewer comments include:
Why has the Levee Board chosen the flood risk reduction plan that both US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) independent reviewers consider the most environmentally damaging plan? Why has the Levee Board's own engineer stated that the use of mitigation banks to offset the wetlands loss due to the project would not be possible due to the size and scope of the One Lake project?
USFWS and USACE independent reviewer comments include:
- "In my opinion, we are neither compliant with, nor operating within the spirit of the Clean Water Act."
- "there appears to be little consideration for environmental impacts within the selection process. The TSP (Tentatively Selected Plan) does appear to have the most substantial environmental impacts, including over a thousand acres of wetland fill."
- "There is no explanation why the most impactful alternative was selected as the TSP." "The report needs to justify why the TSP impacts are warranted..and why these objectives can't be met with other alternatives."
- "We cannot select an alternative if another practicable alternative could be selected with fewer impacts to waters of the United States."
- Regarding an Adaptive Management Plan: "This plan has specific requirements, almost none of which appears within the Feasibility Study."
Click to view document
|
Question 9:
Will the Lake impoundment plan require a weir or a dam? Army Corps of Engineers reviewer states that: "The proposed Alt C weir may be considered a dam which could require more permitting or regulatory work." "ER 1110-2-1156 (Safety of Dams) section 1.6 (2) lists an impoundment volume criteria of 50 acre feet above which a flood control structure is considered a dam." Additionally, if the new weir or dam's function would be used to impound water upstream in order to keep vegetation from growing in the floodway, weir relocation would be a non-federal cost, to be paid by the Levee Board. |
Click to view document
|
Question 10:
Has the Levee Board properly considered the potential devastating economic and community impact of the closure of the oyster reefs and associated fisheries at the mouth of the Pearl River? A 2020 Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries One Lake comment letter states: "The proposed flood control project may decrease the ability for oysters to thrive on established reefs. The potential ripple effect of loss of reef habitat would be felt throughout many fisheries. Local recreational and commercial (shrimp/crab) fishermen depend on the freshwater feeding the brackish marshes and viable oyster reefs. Additionally, nutrient load/effluent in the river water may be affected if there is a reduced rate of flow. If there is a reduction in river flow, there may be potential for reduced carrying capacity and a limited opportunity for dilution of potentially harmful materials carried by the river. Elevated contaminate loads may cause existing oyster reefs influenced by the Pearl River to be closed and remain closed for harvesting." |
Pearl Riverkeeper asks that everyone make his or her own decision regarding the "One Lake" project (Alternative C) using sound science and engineering. We encourage the review and thorough analysis of all available information. We welcome comments and feedback. Please email Pearl Riverkeeper or visit our Facebook for comment space. Our publishing, or re-publishing, of anyone else's research or opinions is not an endorsement on our part of those conclusions.
