No item in President Barack Obama’s budget, to be released Monday, is more highly anticipated by Georgia political and business leaders than a much-coveted $105 million to begin deepening Savannah’s harbor.
Many of Georgia’s across-the-river neighbors, though, would like nothing better than for the president to leave Savannah high and dry. Some South Carolinians are actively working to scuttle Savannah’s long-held plans to deepen the harbor and river that runs 36 miles to the open sea.
What’s good for Savannah — easier, quicker upriver access for mega-container ships expected to start calling on East Coast ports in 2015 — isn’t necessarily beneficial to Charleston and its port, which trails the fast-growing Savannah port and fears falling further behind.
South Carolina state senators unanimously approved a resolution Wednesday opposing the river’s deepening. Dissension, a South Carolina hallmark, permeates Palmetto State opposition. Charlestonians, Columbians and Upstaters generally oppose deepening Georgia’s harbor. But South Carolinians nearest to Savannah, particularly those in Beaufort and Jasper counties, tend to support a deeper river.
Jobs don’t stop at the river’s edge. In addition, a planned port downriver in Jasper County might benefit from the river’s dredging.
“I’m moving beyond the competition between the two states and looking at where there’s a place for common ground,” said South Carolina state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, a coastal Democrat. “I don’t want the Jasper port site to be a casualty of war.”
The Georgia Ports Authority and Georgia’s congressional delegation requested the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers seek $105 million from the White House to deepen the Savannah River.
Wednesday, in a Washington meeting with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and other media, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, “ports are a critical part of putting people back to work.”
The corps released its long-awaited harbor-deepening study last November. It showed that the river could be dredged to 48 feet, from its current 42-foot level, with minimal environmental impact. The cost, to be borne by Georgia and federal taxpayers: $551 million.
East Coast ports are scrambling to get deeper. Shippers predict a 25 percent uptick in East Coast cargo traffic as larger container ships bypass the West Coast.
Norfolk is the only U.S. port on the Atlantic Ocean with a 50-foot channel and harbor capable of handling the big ships.
“Our nation’s infrastructure is one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement,” said Kurt Nagle, president of the American Association of Port Authorities. “We would certainly hope that remains the case with the president’s exporting initiative.”
Georgia, though, is firmly a red state. Obama has but a few friends in the state’s overwhelmingly Republican congressional delegation. Still, U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., remains encouraged by talks with White House officials.
“The administration is very understanding about the port of Savannah,” he said. “The president talked so much about trade in the State of the Union address and in other recent remarks. He knows trade is key to economic vitality.”
Savannah is booming, the rare port with a 50-50 balance of exports and imports. It is the nation’s fastest-growing, and fourth largest, container port. And it surpassed Charleston as the East Coast’s second busiest port a few years ago.
Charleston, too, wants to deepen its port, from 45 feet to 50 feet. It seeks $400,000 from Washington for a harbor-deepening study.
“Unfortunately, there are elements within South Carolina who believe if they could delay or prevent deepening in Savannah that would slow Savannah’s continued growth and success, and that would make Charleston successful again,” said Steve Green, a Georgia Ports Authority board member.
South Carolina state Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, who chairs the transportation committee, acknowledged that thwarting Savannah for Charleston’s benefit “may be the motivation of some.”
“But there are many more who believe if there’s cooperation then we can achieve much more together than separately,” said Grooms, the primary sponsor of the Senate’s anti-dredging resolution.
South Carolina’s environmental agency recently tried to thwart the project by raising water quality questions. South Carolina’s new governor, Nikki Haley, said, “Georgia has had their way with us for way too long, and I don’t have the patience to let it happen anymore.”
Fighting words, all.
“The competitive juices are flowing; it isn’t the first time,” said Pinckney, who supports Savannah’s deepening as long as it doesn’t preclude a future Jasper port. “We need to move forward.”
At the end of the day we’ve got [competition] from Jacksonville, Virginia, even on the West Coast. We need to work together for something good for both states.”
For Georgia, the good news could come Monday. Isakson, though, isn’t holding his breath. Contingencies abound, yet all are fraught with financial and political roadblocks.
Georgia taxpayers, for example, may be asked to foot a larger share of the bill. Gov. Nathan Deal has already requested $32 million to help pay Georgia’s share of the deepening.
Isakson and U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., have indicated they’d request the money via congressional earmarks, the much-disparaged practice that lets congressmen steer money to their home states. GOP House leaders have pledged to prohibit earmarks.
“I don’t look at this as an earmark,” Chambliss said. “It’s not like this is a new, out-of-the-blue thing that nobody’s talked about in the past. [It’s] funding for economic development.”
The port authority’s Green worries that regional and national politics may scuttle this round of Savannah harbor financing.
“It would be an unfortunate bump in the road,” he said. “And you would question whether it was a decision driven by economics or partisan politics. I’d like to think the president is driven by the best economic interests of the country.”
About the Author
