Apparently I’m not the only one who thought the massive study about the “One Lake” project left out an important detail: How much it will reduce water flows downstream.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services is asking for that information to be included, saying it will help “better determine downstream impacts.”
That’s been the key issue for people in Marion County and beyond who are afraid building another lake in Jackson will dry up the Pearl River. If the lake won’t do that, as its proponents have said, why not release data proving that?
As it is now, the Rankin-Hinds Pearl River Flood & Drainage Control District conspicuously avoids that issue in its 1,394-page integrated draft feasibility and environmental impact statement.
In an Aug. 16 letter to Michael Goff, president of Headwaters Inc., Joseph Ranson, field supervisor for Louisiana Ecological Services for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, addresses several areas where he says the study could be improved upon.
The main focus is on a loss of wildlife habitat, which would mostly be in the Jackson area where existing banks would be moved back to create levees and a lake, but it briefly hits on the downstream water concerns.
Ranson says hydrographs — charts that show changes in how much water flows past a certain point over time — should be included.
The 14-page letter also recommends stopping any additional withdrawals of water from the river.
“Because of the uncertainty regarding future water needs, the District should implement an enforceable water non-withdrawal (i.e., selling of water to users other than those currently withdrawing water from the project area) condition as part of the overall project to ensure adequate downstream flows can be maintained, especially during droughts. If authorized, withdrawals could further reduce stream flows between the higher and lower river stages as well as impact water quality with the widened river,” he wrote.
When the study first came out, I browsed through it to see what it said the impact on flows downstream would be because there has been so much concern locally about that issue. I was shocked to find it didn’t address that point, which I had assumed would be key to anything involving damming up a river. The only issue it addresses is loss of water from evaporation, which it goes to great lengths to demonstrate won’t be significant.
But forgetting about evaporation, from a common sense perspective any time you hold more water upstream, that means less is flowing down stream. “One Lake” would do that through a weir, which is different from a dam because instead of completely blocking a river to create a lake it does so by slowing the flow and letting water run over it. The proposed weir would have a gate, which would allow them to release water downstream during a drought if the flow wasn’t high enough to reach the top of the weir.
Including a gate is certainly good for downstream communities, but the study should address exactly what effect it will all have.
Some of the criticism that the Rankin-Hinds board has faced could have been alleviated if it had been more up front on points like that. Instead, it has tried to squash any information that might not reflect favorably on the project. With the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others getting involved, that strategy may be backfiring.
Contact Editor and Publisher Charlie Smith at (601) 736-2611.
