JACKSON, Miss.—Tamitha Dill worries her house could be in danger every time it rains. Her northeast Jackson neighborhood is highly susceptible to flooding from the nearby Pearl River and its tributaries, and she was one of many residents who evacuated in 2020 when the river crested at near-record levels.
Dill has followed evolving government plans to reduce Jackson-area flooding along the Pearl, but recent versions touted by local officials have left her wanting.
“We need a solution, a real solution that makes sense,” Dill told the Mississippi Free Press at her home on May 21. “We have pride for our communities, and we want to stay here, but we want to stay in an environment where we feel safe.”
On Saturday, May 16, Dill joined other residents and community leaders at Sheppard Brothers Park in Jackson to voice her opposition to the latest proposal, which calls for widening the river near the capital city and potentially building a dam along the waterway. The plan’s design is reminiscent of “One Lake,” the contentious, decades-old plan to excavate and dam the Pearl near Jackson and create new waterfront property along the river.
During the May 16 press conference, speakers highlighted concerns over the plan’s ecological toll and expected burden on taxpayers. Several questioned the underlying motivations behind the design, describing it as a development scheme with ancillary flood-control benefits.
“Today, we are calling all taxpayers, residents, business owners, faith leaders, community organizations and efficacy groups across this region to stand together and properly demand accountability,” Dill said at the event, which was hosted by the Pearl River Action Network, a grassroots coalition of residents and advocates from around the river’s watershed. “Federal flood mitigation should prioritize protecting families and reducing flood risk—not creating development opportunities while neighbors remain vulnerable.”
Cascading Effects
The plan under discussion is the result of a yearslong collaboration between the Rankin-Hinds Pearl River Flood and Drainage Control District—the project’s local sponsor—and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency tasked with its design and implementation. Last summer, the Army Corps released a draft study with two similar flood-control proposals for consideration, dubbed Alternatives D1 and E1. Both involve lowering the banks of the Pearl around Jackson and adding levees near flood-prone neighborhoods, though only Alternative D1 includes a dam.
On Feb. 26, the Rankin-Hinds Flood Control District announced that the federal government had selected a final plan design based on Alternative D1, citing a Jan. 31 memo from Adam Telle, the assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works. But the memo directed the Corps to move forward with a combination of Alternatives D1 and E1, and Telle subsequently clarified that more studies are needed before a final design is formally authorized.
These include a Final Environmental Impact Study with mitigation plans for expected habitat loss, as well as additional research on the project’s downstream impacts. For years, critics of “One Lake” and similar proposals have warned that dredging and damming the Pearl near Jackson would devastate downriver industries and ecosystems, disrupting the river’s hydrology and putting threatened species at greater risk.
Speakers echoed those warnings at the May 16 press conference, claiming that using a lake design for flood management would accelerate land erosion and imperil economies and habitats downstream.
“The construction of (any) One Lake plan would be an environmental catastrophe,” emphasized Martha Watts, the former mayor of Monticello, Mississippi, located about 80 river miles south of Jackson. “Protecting property from floods in Jackson is important, but protecting the thousands of landowners downstream is just as important.”
In a March 11 interview with the Mississippi Free Press, Rankin-Hinds Flood Control District attorney Keith Turner confirmed that the Corps will conduct downstream sedimentation and water quality analyses as part of its final environmental study. Past studies modeling the downriver impacts of previous lake plans showed no meaningful changes to water volume or quality, he added.
“There’s been no evidence thus far to suggest that there’s any reason to be concerned,” Turner said, noting that the district plans to work with federal agencies to install permanent water quality and conveyance monitors downstream of the project area.
To Dam or Not to Dam
A key outcome of the Corps’ remaining assessments is the possible inclusion of a dam in the final plan design, which would create the lake championed by the Flood Control District and other local groups. While proponents say the impoundment would expand recreation and development opportunities around Jackson, critics insist it would drive much of the project’s downstream destruction and habitat loss.
The Corps’ own draft study from last summer states that Alternative D1’s proposed dam would not deliver any flood protection, though the document adds that it could help address water supply issues moving forward.
The addition of the dam would also make the project more expensive. In its 2025 draft study, the Corps projected that Alternative D1 could cost as much as $917 million to implement, compared with $753 million for the dam-less E1 proposal. While the federal government would cover 65% of the project’s overall price tag, the local Flood Control District—and district taxpayers—would be on the hook for the rest.
“Even with federal funding, Mississippi taxpayers could still be responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars,” Tamitha Dill stressed at the May 16 press conference. “Before any final decision is made, the public deserves answers: What will this truly cost residents? What will annual assessments look like? Will flood insurance rates decrease, and will vulnerable neighborhoods truly be protected?”
Dill believes a project this costly should address other sources of flooding around Jackson, like aging drainage infrastructure and flash flooding from the Pearl River’s tributaries. Previous flood-control proposals included resources for tributary clearing and maintenance, but recent plans leave that work to the city and neighboring municipalities.
Keith Turner said he expects the project’s actual cost to be significantly lower, noting that Corps estimates include contingencies that drive up construction and maintenance rates. He predicted that the final plan will cost between $450 million and $500 million, telling the Mississippi Free Press that the Legislature “should consider” contributing to the Flood Control District’s share of the total.
As the federal government nears a final decision on the project, press conference attendees urged officials to select a plan that better reflects the interests of the entire Pearl River watershed.
“The Pearl River is our river,” said Martha Watts, who left office as Monticello’s mayor in 2025. “It’s everyone’s river. It’s not to be controlled by a politically connected … group looking for gain.”
The Army Corps is expected to release its final environmental impact study later this year, and potentially by this summer. The public will have 30 days to provide feedback on the document before a Record of Decision is made.
