A Lake in Disguise for George County?

 

trees picUpland pine hillside seep with pitcher plants. The proposed lake would cover similar areas.The Mississippi Water Resources Conference was held in Jackson in early April. This annual conference is sponsored by Mississippi State University’s Water Resources Research Institute and features technical presentations on municipal, agricultural and industrial water use. The conference covers all sorts of water projects, including some that threaten streams and wetlands.


One presentation focused on the George County Lake project. Promoters of a lake for the county have been at work for at least a decade. The current proposal for a 5,200 acre water supply lake would dam a yet undisclosed Pascagoula River tributary in George County. One deficiency of the earlier efforts to create a smaller recreational lake was the difficulty of providing adequate wetland mitigation. According to federal law, if a project destroys wetlands, that loss must be mitigated by creating, restoring or preserving wetlands in the same watershed. George County has numerous streams that originate as bayheads, seeps and bogs. Damming any suitable valley to create a lake would submerge many acres of these wetlands. The larger lake now being promoted would still need adequate wetland mitigation. George County has scaled-up the lake’s size while bringing in stakeholders from another county.


The County has disguised its desire for a recreational lake by promoting it as a water supply for use in drought years when the Pascagoula River approaches minimum flow.  The state must protect streams by halting permitted water withdrawal in the event that flows get too low to adequately support fish life. This has happened once in the last 12 years in the Pascagoula basin. The promoters say such a lake would support the future water needs of the industries of Jackson County to the south - mainly the Port of Pascagoula. However, if industry needs the water, it certainly hasn’t said so. Pitching a lake that the local government desires for economic and real estate development as a means of providing water for industry in a neighboring county is more about self-interest than altruism.


George County is a place of contrasts - it has supported successful designations of four of the County’s waterways as state scenic streams: Black Creek, Red Creek, the Pascagoula and Escatawpa Rivers.  Yet, now it wants a 5,200 acre lake that will change natural streams and their wetlands into a reservoir that can be tapped to provide for industrial needs downstream. In the face of increasingly variable rainfall due to climate change, lake promoters must be blindly hoping the drought/drawdown scenario won’t happen very often.  A lake built for the purpose of supplying water can be drained completely if the need arises. Conflicts with downstream industry over water use can be anticipated when lakefront real estate becomes developed, and property owners resent shipping lake water downstream to a refinery or power plant or so a sewage treatment plant can have the proper dilution of its effluent.


No information was presented at the conference on the lake’s likely effect on wetlands, stream or fish habitat, or on the annual water budget of the Pascagoula in years of normal rainfall (when the lake isn’t needed to augment water supply).  Whether or not the lake’s water is needed, normal evaporation will transport vast quantities of water into the atmosphere that otherwise would contribute to natural streams. The Pascagoula has been praised as the last free flowing river of its size class in the lower 48 states. A new dam in its lower watershed would tarnish that distinction. The Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) has been actively promoting the damming of streams into lakes for real estate development. George County aside, lakes are being promoted by state government as a panacea for revenue-starved counties. This process needs to be watched and serious questions needed to be asked about whether such a lake is necessary at all. We believe the answer is probably “no.”

Andrew Whitehurst is GRN's Assistant Director of Science and Water Policy

Tags:

Recent Posts

Many Americans have never heard of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), despite the...
Written by Raleigh Hoke
Friday, 12 October 2018
The comment period closed September 6th on the “One Lake” project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement...
Written by Andrew Whitehurst
Tuesday, 09 October 2018
Last month, the federal government filed new reports suggesting that the Taylor Energy oil leak,...
Written by Raleigh Hoke
Thursday, 04 October 2018
Gulf Restoration Network has begun a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiative that will inform...
Written by Andrew Whitehurst
Wednesday, 26 September 2018
1985 seems like a long time ago. For those who care about clean water—which is...
Written by Christian Wagley
Monday, 24 September 2018
The Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA)’s “Coastal Connections on the Water” event in...
Written by Kendall Dix
Tuesday, 18 September 2018
This article originally appeared on the blog of Marine Fish Conservation Network. It was reprinted...
Written by Kendall Dix
Friday, 31 August 2018

Latest Actions

SHARE THIS PAGE