The Savannah Port expansion could move forward with a $662 million price tag under a water resources bill introduced in the U.S. House on Wednesday, bringing the project one step closer to breaking ground.
The House bill is silent on the water dispute among Georgia, Florida and Alabama that recently sparked a lawsuit by Florida accusing Georgia of quenching its thirst at the expense of Florida’s oyster population.
But Florida lawmakers, who heavily populate the House transportation committee, could inject the “water wars” into the bill as it goes to the full House in the weeks ahead.
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act technically does not spend a dime but authorizes about $10 billion in water projects around the country, according to Transportation Committee chairman U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa. The bill appears to be on a fast track, with floor consideration expected in October.
Among those projects is the Savannah Port, an economic engine for the state that has been a high-priority development project for Gov. Nathan Deal and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed. The port and its cousin in Brunswick support 100,000 metro Atlanta jobs and, according to a University of Georgia study, constitute a $39 billion economic boost for the state.
Deepening the waterway from 42 feet to 47 feet would allow bigger ships coming through the expanded Panama Canal to dock in Savannah and keep the port competitive with its East Coast neighbors.
The Panama Canal project is scheduled to be completed in 2015, while the target completion date for Savannah lags behind. The Army Corps of Engineers gave the final go-ahead last year and the state has socked away $231 million, but Congress must clear the way for the project to proceed at its new, larger price tag before workers can break ground.
The Senate version of the bill passed with a big bipartisan majority in May and also includes the Savannah project. But it kicked up a fight over downstream water flows in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa basins. Alabama and Florida senators sought Congressional intervention in the decades-long dispute — in which the downstream states argue Georgia, particularly growing metro Atlanta, takes too much water — but Georgia senators beat back the effort.
Last month, Florida Gov. Rick Scott said he plans to take the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Georgia’s leaders are optimistic but wary. Inclusion of the port project in both chambers’ bills is a move forward, but the recent revival of water wars litigation with Florida threatens to complicate the tangled politics between the states even more.
Still, Deal said he’s hopeful that the legislation will pass and remove what he sees as “the only remaining technical objection” that blocks the dredging project from beginning. Ports officials have said they could begin awarding contracts to start work within weeks of a final bill becoming law.
Yet he acknowledged even if the hurdle is crossed, Congress and the White House must agree on the bigger challenge of who will pay for the project. President Barack Obama’s budget proposal next year will be a key test of how much the feds are willing to pony up, and it will be a certain topic of discussion when Vice President Joseph Biden visits the port on Monday.
“We’re ready to spend the $231 million we’ve set aside and we’ll be asking for the federal government to live up to their promise and spend 60 to 70 percent of the project,” said Deal.
State ports chief Curtis Foltz said he believes the opponents who blocked the water legislation from passing in previous years is weakening.
“The entire Southeast recognizes how important this will be,” said Foltz. “We’re not overconfident. But we’re confident that the spending limit issue regarding our deepening project will be finally addressed.”
State Rep. Al Williams, D-Midway, expects political maneuvering.
“Florida is going to play politics. They will try to hold it up. But we will prevail. This is our economic future and we will do everything to make it happen.”
Asked whether it will be difficult to steer his bill through the spending-conscious Republican conference, Shuster said the bill should actually be counted as saving money because it also cancels another $12 billion in projects.
The bill also streamlines permitting processes for new water projects, a departure from Savannah’s long slog since 1999.
“Savannah already has their project, and that’s great,” said Susan Monteverde, a lobbyist for the American Association of Port Authorities. “Going forward for other ports, they are kind of learning that projects shouldn’t be taking as long.”
About the Author
