Jackson Jambalaya

Hopefully someone will go back to these same areas after the storms Sunday night/Monday, for updated pictures.

Jackson needs to PUSH and pass the TWO LAKES PROJECT.

Jackson Academy baseball field and track have significant water on them. Very close to hitting Sheffield if more water comes.

The Two Lakes plan would not help this issue. It is not a flood control project. Two Lakes is merely an idea to revitalize and make an area of Jackson more appealing....much like other cities with water front development.

@11:30
Wrong!

you river rats need to quit your crying. everybody knew damn well what the risks were when buying in the flood zone. water already receding without ever having touched a doorstep. if u were there in 79, without any fair warning, or insurance for that matter, you'd shut up and quit worrying about freakin baseball and football fields gettin wet. what a bunch of self centered whiners and crybabys. and all this 2 lake bs to bail your asses out . . . pu-leeze.

11:30, really, no flood control?
Where do you get your "facts", the Jackson Free Press??

12:37, are you including downtown Jackson when you say to quit crying?
The 1979 flood you mentioned above flooded many, many homes and businesses outside the flood zone in case you don't remember.
You must be too young or you are obviously a transplant?

Two lakes without changes to how the Rez operates actually puts more water down stream.

It's in the studies.

@3:12
Wrong!

The Rez changed their operating procedure this year and the officials at the Rez know that the original 2 lakes or the newly proposed 1 lake plan will help them to prerelease more water at a higher rate during flood events and, wait a sec... here it is - not flood ANYONE including downstream communities. The Corps, Rez and Levee board all know this!
3:12 - you must have missed the memo.

@4:27 PM
Wrong!

Two Lakes, or One Lake, would certainly help with flood control. That is the main purpose of the plan. The additional benefit of the lower lakes rather than the levee solution was potential development of the surrounding land.

Anybody that wants to claim that the One/Two Lakes plan wouldn't affect flooding is just an idiot. Guess Donner is on here again posting.

As to the downtown flooding in 1979, that was the result of water backing up through the storm drainage pipes from the river. This caused the downtown flooding, and it stayed there for extended period because it was caught inside the levees.

I also agree with those 'crying' about their flooding - most knew they were building/buying within a flood zone, just didn't want to believe it could happen to them - or happen again. Now that they are having to pay market rates for insurance, rather than the govt subsidized rates, they are crying from both sides - afraid of the water and not wanting to pay the insurance. Sorry, ain't buying it.

The Rankin County land behind the levees and along Lakeland Drive to the airport was developed in the floodplain. The main obstruction in the floodplain is the bridge and Lakeland Drive with all the fill for the road front lots. The narrowing of the floodplain is at the Lakeland bridge over the Pearl River. Look at the aerial photos. The levee and road design is flawed and any amount of expensive engineering such as Two Lakes is just more snake oil.

9:42

If the "main obstruction" was Lakeland Drive, then water would buildup between Lakeland and the spillway and create a higher water level there as compared to down river.

Levees are constricting and are an attempt to claim a floodplain. The problem with levees is that it causes an unusually high water level, just due to constriction, but you still have to have inlets for tributaries that get backed up and backfilled with that high level of water.

A larger area of water can take more cubic feet without the corresponding height increase that levees induce.

This same novel concept is why reservoirs are used to help manage flooding. It's a concept of time and cubic feet. You can "store" more cubic feet of water over a short period of time keeping the overall water height, lower.

The footprint of the levee is too narrow and was constructed with the assumption that the headwaters would be managed by Corp built reservoirs. The Speeds, Primos, et al sold the riparian lots in the floodplain with fanciful assumptions of federal flood control which never materialized. They now support the Two Lakes idea with even more fanciful economic and flood assertions.

Is that the JFP hydrologic engineer?

The flood backwater is pushed into the Primos hunting club on the east bank below the reservoir. On the Hinds County side the flooding backs into the old Speed farm now known as Eastover and every creek in NE Jackson. If they fooled you once-- why buy their new product? We need to come up with a realistic and cheap flood mitigation alternative that marginalizes the earlier salesmen.

You are leaving out all of the other families, banks and other corporations including the city governments that benefited from the development on the squishy land. The Slade, Owen, Ogwynn, Stowell, Stovall, Kendrick, Harmon, etc families got a piece of the action. Blue Cross and Jackson Prep got some high ground too. Trustmark got a nice ball field. Who am I leaving out?

KLLM Transport, the nation's largest refrigerated freight carrier, in Richland, had five feet of water in all buildings. No baseball field there. This was a result of Pearl floodwaters south of Highway 80. The people who stand to benefit financially from a 'two lakes boondoggle' ought to have their posts deleted.

Stinkwater,

Perhaps my sarcasm meter needs readjusting, but your comment just affirmed the very reason why the "Two lakes / One lake" idea is necessary.

If we DON"T go with a 1 Lake/2 Lake (red lake/blue lake) concept, we are missing out. I have nothing to do with it, am not involved in promoting it, but have read both sides. Not only would it ease flooding it would create very valuable real estate INSIDE Jackson city limits, and bring in major tax dollars. If you live in the city limits, as I do, regardless of your income, property ownership, or political views, you should be hoping this comes through. I've been to several cities that successfully developed waterfront areas and revived dying parts of their city (Little Rock, to name one) - Jackson needs both new tax sources without increasing the burden on those already paying, and also new business opportunities - think nightlife, restaurants, and a boon to anyone living in the area. (Steps off soapbox and retreats into the background)

Took a ride on the motorcycle down to the end of the paved part of Westbrook Rd.Saturday afternoon past the wood rail bridge and saw enough plastic bottles,bags,ect. to fill up the back of a full sized pickup,along with dumped yard waste,tree limbs,one full sz boxed spring,three mattresses,and what look like some window air conditioner remains.Trash everywhere around the athletic complex on both sides. This is pitiful and disgusting.If the horse I saw down there behind the fence on the right hand side had been Mr. Ed ,I am sure he would have some interesting stories to tell.WZZQ comes to mind on the LZ song for the headline of this article.As I recall,they played this song over and over as the flooding began and got worse in 1979. Could the levee ever break???

All you 'One Lake Two Lake' proponents surely must understand that any project, large or small, requires leadership. Not the leadership of one man, but the dedicated leadership of a boatload (excuse the pun) of intelligent, forward-thinking, committed people. Not just huxters and profiteers, although those apprarently have a role here too.

Jackson has not had that in forty or so years and never will again.

I'm a "One Lake, Two Lake, Three Lake, Four" proponent and have lived in Jackson for over 40 years.

It's going to happen, despite 5:11's observation.

5:11's observation is a little too acute though. First, "forward-thinking" simply has a "progressive" connotation that I would rather stay away from. Secondly, leadership has little to do with things. There are plenty of intelligent, logical, committed planners in this area. The issue is that this metro area has never gotten behind a single positive thing. No major entertainment or development has received major support from the public because people, like 5:11, would rather jump on a soap box and naysay unless they see that they would somehow personally benefit.

That's actually a nationwide trait of our narcissistic baby boomer generation. And not to digress too much, it's my opinion that it's a trait born from modern technology, immediate access to information and immediate access to opine publicly. Thoughts don't get to stew, simmer, or have time to develop.

People just kneejerk react immediately on subject matter and it's the same thing as forever, when you are ignorant about subject matter, you will be negative about it. And we are collectively ignorant because nearly every piece of subject matter is discussed or commented on immediately without getting the full picture. (Now watch what I'm talking about with the comments that are surely to follow) So that has created this trait of naysaying and then one-up-manship causes the next person to go even more negative and thins just steam roll from there..... all down hill into this abyss of a modern America that we find ourselves in now.

2:23; Maybe your sarcasm meter DOES need adjustment. You miss the point, which was flooding on the south-eastern perimeter of Jackson was imminent and still is, regardless of who's operating the gates and in the absence of any two-lake magic.

A lake, in this regard, is like a borrow pit, but it's already virtually full to begin with, long in advance of a flood. What, then, will it syphon off? Half a million gallons, which is about twenty minutes worth of flood water?

The only way 'two lakes' would serve as 'flood control' is if they were empty at all times in anticipation of a flood. Then they'd simply serve to give two days warning to folks down-river. Full lakes won't take on much additional water and empty ones filled at that rate will be full in two days. Then what?

What 7:44 is saying is that if you disagree with him he's still right and you're still wrong.

7:52 and 7:54,

The Ross Barnett Reservoir serves the same purpose that the One Lake project would serve, except on a larger scale. You don't have to be an engineer to figure it out. All the One Lake plan does is expand the overall cubic feet holding capacity of the Pearl River from just the Ross Barnett Reservoir to another holding area.

For flood control, it would be just like taking the same area that the One Lake would cover and cut out around the Reservoir to a depth that the One Lake would be able to swell to in a flood event. Except that it's better because it stages the flood event allowing for more time because time is a factor of flooding.

The Rez this year did away with it's winter pool. That is why this water downstream now covers the Atwood Water Park in Monticello.

There have been no problems with the other creeks and streams in Lawrence County.

The Two lake/one lake plan calls for the Rez to have lower pools, so water then could be diverted to the lakes when we have the heavy rains.

The Rez is on record as saying they will not operate this way.

The independent engineering studies predict that if the two lakes were built and the Rez continued to operate as usual the only flood control would be to Byram. Further downstream would see up to an additional 2 inches in an Easter Flood of 79 event.

Those my dear friends are the facts, for I have read the studies myself.

7:52

I don't understand whatever it is you think you are trying to say. Flooding will always be an issue. The goals of projects are to mitigate a higher percentage of flood events.

If you simply wanted just to stop flooding downriver, then empty the Ross Barnett Reservoir every year. It can then just fill up in a flood event and slowly release that water over time.

But that's not a good balance between flood control and development. Which is the whole point to flood control..... so that you can have development.

Which means at Monticello, for example, an additional *two inches* would increase a '79 scale event by less than 1% (0.489%). Just sayin'.

At 9.12 AM

Which would put it in downtown Monticello.

8:50

Water at Monticello has nothing to do with the record flow and height from the Strong River, huh?

I guess the 34K cfs of discharge from the Strong River (which was nearly as much as the 35K cfs flow of the Pearl at Jackson at the same time on 4/8) has no bearing on the level at Monticello.

The real fun with the Rez is about to begin. Currently has the river at 34ft in Jackson and NWS is saying 3" fell in the Pearl River Basin above the Rez.

With more rain to come.

Two additional inches. Puts some water in the street. Maybe. The end of the world. Sacrifice the many to potentially avert the risk of a very few. Right Dave?

Whichever flood control plan is implemented will NOT increase flooding downstream. Period.
I'm told that the report on the plan or plans will be released to the public later this summer.
I have to think that power structure behind all the flood control is smarter than to choose a plan that increases flooding on anyone, not to mention that the Corps would go along with it if they did.
Everyone needs to settle down and wait until their report is released this summer and then come to conclusions on what their flood control plan will or won't do.

At 10.50

It would be more than water in the street, it would flood homes and business.

To the property owner in Monticello their property is just as important to any property owner upstream or downstream.

Yes this is Mayor Dave Nichols speaking up on behalf of the citizens I am elected to represent.

Get the Rez to operate the way two lakes advises and by all means build them, but until there is a guarantee I am sorry I can not sing the praises of something that would be harmful to anyone.

Wouldn't have anything to do with you wanting to create your own bit of waterfront development in Monticello, now would it?

No sir Mr. Kingfish. I want a plan that works for everybody.

Listen to 1180 am in the morning at 8 am and call in to Mr. McGowan you hick dipshit.

You can pick it up on a smart phone app called tunedin, but that would mean you would have to have a cell phone, but you don't because they have been proven to cause brain cancer.

So how do you control the Strong Dave? Remember 1983?

Sounds like Chief Cadet Ben has his panties in a wad again.

Don't bore Dave with the facts. He has already made them up.

The floodplain of the Pearl River was completely re-constructed to accommodate Lakeland Drive for the airport and suburbs in the late 70s. The flooding commenced after this. For those serious about the relationship between the Pearl flooding and the environment here

Kingfish is a comment Nazi chickenshit.

You all amaze me. I have said nothing derogatory against anyone on here. I have the studies that Mr. McGowan agreed to, they clearly say unless the REZ changes the way they operate it would put more water downstream. The REZ has said were not changing, in fact they have made things worse by maintain levels at the summer pool year round, that combined with the Strong River put the Atwood Water park completely under water. Please listen to what I say. If the Rez will operate the way Mr. McGowan recommends it DOES provide flood relief for all, and if they were to do that I would help lobby to have it built. Until that time in order to protect my citizens I can't and won't. I have met with Mr. McGowin, very pleasant ,meetings and he understands why I feel the way I do.