Thursday, in a South Carolina hearing room, Georgia’s 12-year journey to deepen the Port of Savannah could pass a critical environmental test.
Perhaps that same day, on the Senate floor in Washington, tens of millions of dollars may be freed to dredge the river from port to open ocean to allow ever-larger container ships to reach Georgia’s docks.
And, finally, early next year under the Gold Dome in Atlanta, another $47 million will be pledged to jump-start the state’s most important economic development project in decades.
For Atlanta, the consequences are huge. Businesses across the metro region shipped $9.5 billion in cargo through the ports of Savannah and Brunswick the past fiscal year, according to the Georgia Ports Authority. More trade, and revenue, is expected once — if — Savannah’s harbor and 32-mile channel to the sea are deepened from 42 to 48 feet. Dredging is expected to take four years.
Right now, the financial, environmental and political stars appear to be aligning in Georgia’s favor. But appearances do deceive, especially when South Carolina and Georgia lock horns over such a massive — at least $600 million — and massively important project that could propel either state’s economy forward.
Nothing, of course, is guaranteed when it comes to money and politics. While Georgia officials say publicly they expect the South Carolina environmental agency to approve the deepening of the river, which divides the states, privately they’re skeptical and expect legal challenges from environmental groups.
While South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley says she’ll do what’s “right for the region,” Georgia officials aren’t convinced she can overcome South Carolina legislative opposition to Savannah’s deepening.
And while U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., Gov. Nathan Deal and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed profess optimism that millions of federal dollars will soon be pledged for Savannah, nobody can predict what an anti-spending, tea party-infused Congress will ultimately do.
“Let’s just put it this way: In the next couple of weeks a lot of those questions are going to be answered,” Isakson said last week. “We’re close. We’re not there yet, but we’re very close.”
Isakson and other officials know that quick action is critical. The Panama Canal will be deepened to 50 feet by mid-2014, allowing so-called post-Panamax container ships, capable of carrying more than 10,000 containers, to ply the East Coast. Ports from Miami to New York scramble to deepen to accommodate the big ships.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Savannah began studying the economic and environmental consequences of a deepened port and river in 1999. The Corps completed its preliminary report a year ago, insisting that serious environmental issues — de-oxygenated water, saltwater intrusion, destruction of freshwater habitat — could be mitigated.
Georgia taxpayers have already ponied up $134 million to deepen the river. Deal will ask the General Assembly to approve another $46.7 million during the upcoming legislative session.
Big money, though, is expected from Washington. The Senate is set to consider a spending bill this week that includes funding for the Corps. While only $600,000 — a so-called place-holder — has already been dedicated to deepening the river, Georgia lawmakers have worked behind the scenes to line up millions of additional dollars for Savannah.
That the deepening project is well along in the appropriations process bodes well for Georgia’s chances of receiving a pile of money, congressional sources say. The House has already passed a Corps funding bill; a conference committee awaits once the Senate does likewise.
Georgia legislators will work to include language allowing Savannah to use dredging money even before the project is approved.
“The $600,000 — that was the proverbial foot in the door,” Isakson said. “Once you got a placeholder, you’re halfway there. Then the Corps has to determine how much federal money they can deploy in that first budget year.”
Savannah’s chances markedly improved once Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., appeared to drop his opposition to the river’s deepening. On Sept. 9, Graham added language to an energy and water appropriations bill requiring the Corps to evaluate within six months which East Coast ports could best handle the new container ships.
The cost-benefit legislation was perceived in Georgia as an attempt to scuttle Savannah’s deepening plans. It also made clear that South Carolina fully intends to upgrade its port at Charleston, a competitor to Savannah.
On Oct. 5, though, Graham seemingly changed course. In a letter signed by Graham, Isakson and U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Senators requested that the Corps’ study “not encompass nor impede or delay authorized port and inland waterway projects.”
Savannah’s deepening is already congressionally authorized.
“Sen. Graham is a statesman and has the best interest of the country, as a whole, at heart, and recognizes that the port of Savannah is critically important to the economy of the Southeast and the U.S.,” said Steve Green, a Georgia Ports Authority board member.
With Graham and Haley apparently on board, attention now turns to Thursday’s hearing at the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) in Columbia. Five weeks ago, DHEC staffers denied the Corps’ deepening permit citing potential harm to the quality of the river water as well as nearby wetlands. Thursday, the Corps and Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division will make their case to DHEC’s board — whose seven members have all been appointed by Haley.
“We’re optimistic that [the board] will recognize that the science supports deepening and that they will approve the permit subject to some considerations,” Green said. “But if we are not successful, then the governor and various affected state and federal entities will have to assess what their options are.”
The Corps could attempt a legal end-around, as its Philadelphia office did in 2009, if the deepening permit isn’t approved. The Philadelphia port authority wanted to dredge a 100-mile stretch of the Delaware River, but the state of Delaware denied the environmental permit.
The Philadelphia office ruled that it was exempt from state law, citing a Clean Water Act provision that allows dredging to “maintain navigation.” Delaware challenged the ruling, but a district court ruled in Philadelphia’s favor.
South Carolina legislators and environmental groups vow legal action to stop the deepening of the Savannah River if the permit is approved. First up: an appeal of the board’s ruling to an South Carolina administrative law judge.
“I fully expect there to be lawsuits filed,” said South Carolina state Sen. Larry Grooms, a Republican who chairs the Transportation Committee. “I can imagine South Carolina taking the Corps of Engineers to federal court. The issue would be states’ rights. That could also cause the matter to be tied up in courts for years.”
He added, “The project will certainly gain more support if it were Jasper Ocean Terminal-friendly. The project needs to accommodate ocean-going traffic to the Jasper site. Right now it does not.”
The future Jasper port site sits between Savannah and the ocean. Former Govs. Sonny Perdue (Georgia) and Mark Sanford (South Carolina) pledged in 2007 to one day jointly develop a port along the South Carolina side of the river. But Grooms and other South Carolina officials fear that the Savannah River will only be substantially dredged one time and the proposed Jasper port will never be developed.
Georgia officials have reaffirmed support for Jasper (which may not get built for 20 years) and Charleston, but South Carolina legislators remain skeptical. Perdue said holding Savannah hostage to Jasper is “very short-sighted and very disappointing.”
“Unfortunately,” he continued, “the politics of provincialism has overcome some of the policy makers in South Carolina. I hope they’ll come to their senses and realize this is good for the Port of Savannah and Georgia, but it’s also good for the port of Charleston and Jasper.”
--------------------
Continuing coverage
AJC reporters have been following developments at the Port of Savannah – a key economic engine for metro Atlanta and the state. Today, they report on the financial, environmental and political issues affecting the port’s future.
About the Author
