COLUMBIA, S.C. – Georgia's port ambitions cleared a huge environmental hurdle Thursday when an S.C. agency ruled that the deepening of the Savannah River – a potentially crucial economic development project for Atlanta – can move forward.
Georgia’s victory didn’t come cheaply: at least $60 million will be added to the estimated $650 million deepening cost to satisfy South Carolina’s latest environmental demands.
And, even before the deal was done, environmentalists and key S.C. legislators vowed to continue the 12-year battle to dredge the river and harbor, possibly by unsheathing legal and administrative weapons. Curtis Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA), is ready for any additional challenges.
“This is a big step forward regardless of whatever bumps arise in the future,” said Foltz after the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) board’s unanimous vote. “It’s great to see the states work together. There’s no doubt the region needs all the port capacity it can get. We all wanted to move this forward and not fight each other.”
But bi-state squabbling – leavened with a heavy dose of political intrigue – has been the hallmark of Georgia’s latest efforts to advance the port deepening project. Georgia wants to soon begin dredging the Savannah port and river to ready for bigger container ships that could ply the Atlantic Ocean by 2014. South Carolina too wants a bigger share of the lucrative cargo business and just began undertaking a years-long study to determine the feasibility of deepening the port of Charleston.
For Atlanta, the stakes are high. Businesses across the metro region shipped $9.5 billion in cargo through the ports of Savannah and Brunswick the last fiscal year, according to the GPA.
Deepening the Savannah River to 48 feet from 42 feet, could boost trade, revenue and jobs. Dredging is expected to take four years. Most East Coast ports are hustling to get deeper to accommodate ever-larger post-Panamax container ships that will begin traversing the Panama Canal in three years.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Savannah began studying the economic and environmental consequences of a deepened port and river in 1999. It completed a preliminary report a year ago, insisting that serious environmental issues – de-oxygenated water, saltwater intrusion, endangered species’ impact – could be mitigated.
S.C. environmental staffers, who jointly monitor the Savannah River with their Georgia counterparts, disagreed and denied a critical water quality permit six weeks ago. The Corps’ division in Savannah, with jurisdiction over the project, appealed setting up Thursday’s hearing.
An S.C. environmental official testified that all sides – the Corps, GPA and DHEC staffers who initially opposed the permit – had resolved all outstanding environmental issues earlier Thursday.
The agreement calls for the Corps, or Georgia if the feds aren’t financially forthcoming, to pay an additional $1.2 million a year for 50 years to ensure enough oxygen is pumped into the river to prevent summertime fish kills.
“We feel this protects the river and the state of Georgia has done a fine job coming forward to resolve this issue,” said DHEC staff attorney John Harleston. “The Savannah River is the fence (between) us and good fences make good neighbors. We think we’ve taken care of that fence.”
. The bi-state harmony, though, proved short-lived.
S.C. State Sen. Larry Grooms said he’ll push the quasi-governmental Savannah River Maritime Commission, which represents South Carolina’s interests on the river, to challenge the permit at the group’s December meeting. Grooms will also request that the S.C. Department of Natural Resources challenge DHEC’s decision.
Grooms said a proposed port at Jasper, S.C. -- not due on line for at least two decades -- would be jeopardized by the deepening, even though Jasper lies between Savannah and the ocean. Environmentalists fear any dredging would irreparably harm the river and its ecosystem. The Southern Environmental Law Center and other environmental groups will likely appeal Thursday’s ruling to an S.C. administrative law judge.
“This was a classic political deal cut to the disadvantage of taxpayers in South Carolina and Georgia that could inflict lasting damage on these natural resources,” said Chris DeScherer, a law center attorney.
Grooms notwithstanding, S.C. opposition to the Savannah dredging waned the last few weeks. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who effectively tried to delay Savannah’s deepening in September, co-signed an Oct. 5 letter with Georgia Sens. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss asking the Corps not to “impede or delay” the dredging.
And S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley, who previously opposed to the Savannah port’s advancement because she thought it would hurt Charleston, later said she would, instead, do what’s “right for the region.” DHEC board members were appointed by Haley.
“Anytime you see a state agency reverse itself on a major issue such as this, questions of political influence come into play,” Grooms said.
Board members denied politics influenced their decision.
About the Author
