South Carolina legislators went into overdrive last week attempting, in essence, to scuttle the deepening of the port of Savannah — a critical economic engine for Atlanta — in hopes of boosting the port of Charleston.
Their efforts, though, proved mere sideshow to the real work of dredging the ports of Savannah and Charleston pursued jointly by members of Congress from both states in Washington.
There, buried in the legislative minutiae of an appropriations bill awaiting action on Capitol Hill, sat a potential pot of deepening gold: $189 million that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can divvy up among port projects nationwide.
South Carolina eyes as much as $10 million to fully finance a study on the feasibility of deepening Charleston’s port. Georgia hopes for maybe $60 million to help defray the estimated $650 million cost of deepening the Savannah River.
Both ports, and states, scurry to deepen in preparation for the megasized container ships that will traverse the Panama Canal and call on the East Coast by 2014. The Corps has studied since 1999 — on Georgia’s behalf — the economic, engineering and environmental obstacles to dredging 32-plus miles of the Savannah River, which is jointly governed by both states.
Charleston, way behind the dredging curve, is just beginning its feasibility study and will hold its first public hearing Dec. 13. But South Carolina officials vow to waste no time catching up to — and even surpassing — Savannah for the potentially lucrative expansion in ocean-going cargo trade.
“If you look at [deepening] strictly based on the merits, and which port gets the biggest bang for the buck, it’s no question that Charleston makes more sense,” Bill Stern, chairman of the South Carolina State Ports Authority, said last week. “Savannah has been in the permitting process for 12 years and has its own set of problems to deal with. Our port makes a lot more sense because it’s closer to the open sea.”
South Carolina, though, remains embroiled in a nasty, internal ports squabble pitting GOP Gov. Nikki Haley against the Republican-dominated legislature. In short, Haley is accused of siding with Savannah over Charleston in the big-money race to deepen their respective ports. Charges of political skullduggery, backroom deals and influence-peddling abound.
Yet some politicians and ports officials on both sides of the river say Charleston and Savannah can mutually benefit from the so-called post-Panamax ships capable of carrying more than 10,000 steel containers. Georgia businesses shipped $17.9 billion the last fiscal year through the ports of Savannah and Brunswick, according to PIERS industry research. Metro Atlanta tallied the lion’s share — $9.5 billion — of the imports and exports.
Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal and South Carolina’s Haley; U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed have lobbied Washington for money to improve the ports.
“We’re focused on trying to find a new system that will allow Savannah and Charleston to access new funds for deepening,” said Graham. “At the end of the day, when you work together it creates a chance for success. We’re either going to work together at the federal level or die together.”
The senators pushed to add $189 million to the $31.6 billion fiscal 2012 energy and water appropriations bill awaiting Senate action. The House has already approved a similar, yet smaller ($118.4 million) version.
Savannah targets an estimated $60 million to help defray the dredging costs. State taxpayers are already on the hook for $134 million and Deal proposes another $47 million.
While the senators have tacitly agreed to support each state’s deepening request, there’s no guarantee Georgia will receive tens of millions of dollars next year. Anti-spending Republicans in the House, for example, could scuttle the deal. Time, though, could prove a greater deterrent.
Georgia isn’t eligible for federal deepening money until the Corps gives final environmental approval via a so-called Record of Decision. The much-delayed ROD may not come until mid-2012. Appropriations are meant to be spent within the fiscal year, which ends September 30. Georgia may have a tough time convincing the Corps that it can efficiently dredge $60 million worth of river within, say, three months.
But moneys from Washington are fungible and have a habit of skirting bureaucratic dictums and deadlines. Savannah port backers also cast covetous eyes toward other pots of federal money, including President Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget. In all, Georgia officials angle for upward of $120 million in port deepening money from Washington over the next year.
“It’s imperative to the Southeastern economy that this deepening happen as soon as possible,” said Steve Green, a Georgia ports authority board member. “While we’re being deepened we’re fully supportive of the study allowing Charleston’s port to be deepened. I don’t believe it’s an either-or proposition. I believe it’s necessary for both ports to be deepened as quickly as possible.”
Charleston needs roughly $10 million more to finance a lengthy, Savannah-style feasibility study. Last June, the South Carolina ports authority signed a joint financing agreement with the Corps’ Charleston district to pay for the $18 million-$20 million study. Stern’s board came up with its share; the Corps must now pony up the rest.
Lisa Metheny, the Corps’ official in charge of Charleston’s deepening study, doesn’t expect Washington to offer up the full $10 million next year. What’s important is to create a steady ports revenue stream, Sen. Graham and others say, so that the program, and additional money, flows in successive years.
“In 2013, we’ve got to do it again with bigger numbers,” Graham said. “We’ve got to come up with a sustainable process that will have money set aside to be allocated to ports like Charleston and Savannah based on who can make the case. I can’t guarantee that Charleston will get the money, but I can guarantee that they’ll have a chance at getting the money.”
Charleston Corps officials believe their deepening study can be completed in a minimum of five years.
Their Georgia counterparts, frustrated by a dozen years of studies, reviews and environmental challenges, say that’s wishful thinking.
The Corps estimates the cost of dredging about 16 miles of harbor and channels to a depth of 50 feet at $350 million, about half the price of Savannah’s deepening. Deepening costs for both ports, though, will likely rise.
“Preliminary studies at other nearby harbors show that Charleston Harbor would probably be the cheapest South Atlantic harbor to deepen to 50 feet,” the Charleston Corps reported in July 2010.
Jim Newsome, president of the South Carolina ports authority, took a not-so-veiled swipe at Savannah last month and its proposed 48-foot deepening.
“All South Atlantic ports are currently seeking deepening projects, but all other projects are really designed to achieve the functionality, at best, that we have here today in Charleston,” he said during the annual State of the Port address in Charleston. “A 48-foot harbor plan conceived in 1999 is no longer sufficient to be the answer for the new Panamax ship services of the future.”
Responded Green, the Georgia ports board member: “The Savannah harbor deepening has one of the highest cost-benefit ratios in the country and is critical to the U.S. economic recovery.”
--------------------
Continuing coverage
AJC reporters have been keeping close tabs on the Savannah port, vital to the state and local economy. Today’s story details the political and financial controversy over the Savannah and Charleston ports.
About the Author
