President Obama’s proposed budget has just $1.28 million for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, which would deepen the Savannah River channel to 47 feet to better accommodate larger vessels expected to use the widened Panama Canal in 2015.
That allocation is obviously far, far short of the $400 million or so that the federal government has been expected to contribute to the $652 million total cost.
Deepening supporters weren’t anticipating the entire amount would come this year, but a commitment in the tens of millions would have signaled that the feds would continue funding the project in the coming years.
A cynic might focus only on the political dimensions here.
While U.S. Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, both Republicans, have shown some willingness to compromise with President Obama on budget matters, Georgia’s Republican-dominated House delegation has strongly opposed key White House policies.
As a member of the House of Representatives in 2010, Gov. Nathan Deal even sent the White House a letter asking the president to address questions about his birthplace.
Beyond the politics, it’s worth noting that the president’s proposed budget has only about $900 million for “the coastal navigation portion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program,” according to a press release last week from the American Association of Port Authorities.
That amount is higher than last year but still “hundreds of millions shy” of what’s needed for America’s ports, according to Kurt Nagle, AAPA’s president and CEO.
And the president’s budget would actually reduce funding for projects such as Savannah’s harbor deepening.
According to the port authorities association: “The budget calls for cutting the Corps’ Coastal Navigation Construction program from the $151 million proposed in fiscal 2013 to $108 million proposed for fiscal 2014.”
Consider the relatively small amounts in Obama’s budget for other dredging and widening projects.
There’s a mere $600,000 in the budget for expansion of the Port of Mobile. Of course, the entire channel-widening project will cost only about $40 million, so Alabama officials have reason to be pretty upbeat about the budget line.
Another $20 million in the president’s proposed budget would go to dredging the Delaware River.
South Carolina’s proposed port expansion received only $1.17 million, even less than Savannah received.
These numbers seem to reflect a new budget reality.
Americans have long been accustomed to funding many infrastructure projects primarily with federal dollars, but we just can’t count on that anymore.
So what next?
It’s theoretically possible that Congress could find the funding for Savannah’s project.
But given the current political climate, I doubt that Georgia’s Congressional delegation could gain adequate support to make that happen.
Despite rhetoric at the state and local level that suggests deepening is a no-brainer, there are plenty of objections, both reasonable and not so reasonable.
Environmentalists are legitimately concerned about both anticipated and unanticipated impacts. Fiscal conservatives are concerned about federal spending and overreach, even if economists predict the spending would have stimulative effects.
Some South Carolina officials view the Georgia ports as direct competition or see its 47-foot depth as inadequate for any future port in Jasper County on the north side of the Savannah River.
If federal dollars do not come through, the state will have to come up with the money.
Almost exactly one year ago, Gov. Nathan Deal appeared in Savannah and pledged to “do whatever necessary” to expand the Savannah harbor. That seemed a risky political move even at the time.
If Georgia leaders are willing to pay the full cost of deepening, why should the federal government be expected to contribute more than $400 million?
But with state revenues and spending still under pressure, would state leaders actually approve a budget that covered the entire cost?
Given constraints on the state budget, many legislators might not wish to make cuts to other programs.
And if deepening is not funded, how worried should we be?
According to the Corps of Engineers’ economic analysis, the amount of cargo coming through the Georgia ports will increase at the same rate whether the channel is deepened or not.
I have been surprised by the “do or die” rhetoric of deepening advocates who apparently dismiss the Corps’ predictions out of hand.
At the same time, the Corps has argued that increased global trade will require the expansion of pretty much all the East Coast ports, including Savannah.
But there are uncertainties that call that prediction into question.
We are going to see West Coast ports fight to maintain business that could be lured to use the widened Panama Canal. We don’t yet know how much Panama Canal officials will increase fees for larger ships.
There are other uncertainties, too.
It’s certainly going to be interesting to see how all these issues play out.
City Talk appears every Tuesday and Sunday. Bill Dawers can be reached via billdawers@comcast.net and http://www.billdawers.com. Send mail to 10 East 32nd St., Savannah, GA 31401.