WHEN JOHN MCGOWAN, conceiver of the LeFleur Lakes flood control project, decided to put out a ballot asking the public to give its views on which of two projects, LeFleur Lakes or the Airport Parkway, they would rather see implemented, he was unsure what kind of response he would get.

But nearly 800 people responded to the ballot, an overwhelming number voting in support of the lakes idea.

“We didn’t know what to expect, and we didn’t expect the response (we got),” said Robert Muller, an engineer hired by McGowan to work exclusively on the LeFleur Lakes project. “John was a little nervous that there wouldn’t be any response.”

A total of 769 ballots were received, of those 752 voted in favor of the LeFleur Lakes project and 17 for the airport parkway project.

The issue of the possible incompatibility of these two projects has come to the public’s attention recently, with McGowan publicly stating that LeFleur Lakes will not be feasible if the airport parkway becomes a reality.

McGowan is proposing that instead of building one freeway-style bridge to move traffic across the Pearl River, as the design of the airport parkway calls for, that three bridges - which he says would cost the same amount of money as the parkway — be built instead. One would be a controlled access bridge and connect across the river in Flowood to a parkway to the airport. Two open access bridges would allow access to the island, which is a major component of the project, and the developments that would be built on that new land.

WHILE MCGOWAN HAS publicly said that the LeFleur Lakes project is in danger, representatives with the Mississippi Engineering Group who have been charged with conducting preliminary work on the project, say that is simply not the case, and the project is in a better position of becoming a reality than ever before.

MetroJackson Chamber of Commerce, state economic development officials and the Mississippi congressional delegation.”

Many of the ballots received by McGowan contained statements allowing people to express their thoughts on why one or the other project would be better for Jackson.

“I can readily see the huge benefit of the LeFleur Lakes Plan for flood control, a future water supply for a rapidly growing metropolitan area and the enormous economic benefit for our cities and state,” said Joseph E. Lauderdale of Jackson, in the comment section of his ballot in support of LeFleur Lakes. “This is a project that could pay for itself in a short period of time utilizing the proposed island for the revenue source to retire the construction bonds. It is a citizen’s ideal public works project. It encompasses transportation improvements, flood control, relieves traffic congestion from Lakeland Drive, provides an abundant water supply, endless recreation opportunities and job opportunities.”



THE COMMENTS ON THE votes in favor of the LeFleur Lakes plan contained a variety of reasons why people seem to hope that LeFleur Lakes will become a reality, from more flood control to economic development.

“My home and business are both located in the city of Jackson,” said Doug Hudgins in the comment section of his ballot in support of LeFleur Lakes. “My children go to school in Jackson and we are members of First Baptist Church downtown. My home is located in the flood zone as well as my children’s school. With that said, my concerns are twofold. First is obviously my tremendous exposure to flooding. Second is the lack of business development in the city limits of Jackson and our need for a real shot-in-the-arm. Without question the LeFleur Lakes project would provide us the needed solution for both. Should we not move forward with this project and when we flood again, what businesses and homeowners we do still have will simply load their wagons and move on and you can flip-the-switch on this town.”

But while the majority of ballots cast were almost exclusively in favor of the LeFleur Lakes project, there were a handful, which expressed a preference for the airport parkway project. The main reason for the preference for the airport parkway, according to those comments on the ballots, was the issue of preserving Jackson’s wetland areas.

“I want the Jackson wetlands to be saved. I do not want millions of public monies being used to benefit private businesses. I think the money should actually be spent on crime prevention in the city of Jackson,” according to a comment attributed to Gregory Simmons.

There is also some organized opposition to the LeFleur Lakes plan. Organizations such as the Green Party of Mississippi and Pearl River Basin Coalition have stated that other options for flood control and economic development on the Pearl River need to be considered.

ONE POTENTIAL alternative suggested by both the PRBC and the Green Party of Mississippi would be to create a greenway, which would be composed of parks, trails, nature preserves and campgrounds.

“What a greenway would do is develop it responsibly for recreation, for environmental tourism and things that would create jobs for the city and draw tourists for recreational activities,” said William Vaughan, secretary of the Green Party of Mississippi. “And it would do so in a way that would be less likely to encourage massive amounts of building in the flood plain. It could very well be a central park for Jackson. And it does tend to attract young professionals who bring in businesses and jobs in a city, more so than a huge waterfront strip mall.”

But as far as McGowan’s ballot initiative is concerned, a majority of people wish to see the LeFleur Lakes idea come to fruition.

And the most interesting thing about the entire ballot idea, according to Muller, is seeing how much people are invested in the future of Jackson.

“Despite all the bad press you see, people really care about the city,” Muller said. “They just truly love the area and want to see it be a better place to be.”