scrawl, “Be like Nike, and just do it!”
Curtis J. Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports
Authority, which runs the port, shares the frustration. In an
interview, Foltz warned that harm will come to a wide
range of stakeholders—including the U.S. economy—“the
longer this project drags on without giving our customers
deeper water.” Further delays would “weaken the competi-
tive position of our ports,” he added.
The next major milestone is March 2012, when the
departments of Commerce and Interior, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army, all of
which have authority over the project, are scheduled to give
it their blessing. Foltz is confident of approval, noting they
all have supported the dredging. The earliest that work
could begin is the spring of 2012, with completion scheduled for early to mid-2016. By then, the expanded canal will
have been open for nearly two years.
Then there’s the issue of money. Foltz estimates the project’s total cost at $600 million, of which $200 million
would be earmarked by the state to mitigate any environmental damage the dredging might cause. Of the $200 million, the state has already approved and set aside $103 million. At this writing, the Georgia Legislature was expected
to approve Gov. Nathan Deal’s request for an additional
$32 million in his fiscal year 2012 budget.
The bigger problem may be at the federal level. President
Obama’s FY 2012 budget authorizes just $600,000 in “
preconstruction” funding for the Corps of Engineers to finish
its study. That’s a far cry from the $105 million that state
officials said they would need this year to move the project
forward. Foltz says federal funds will come in four-year
increments, adding that “we would hope there would be
federal dollars available” to proceed.
If it’s any consolation to Savannah, other ports didn’t fare
particularly well in the Obama budget. Charleston didn’t
receive $400,000 in funding for a Corps of Engineers study
to determine the feasibility of deepening its harbor to 50
feet. Nor did Miami receive $75 million for its own dredging project to go to 50 feet.
The winner seemed to be the Port of New York/New
Jersey, which was authorized to receive $65 million to complete a $1 billion span elevation project at the Bayonne
(N.J.) Bridge that will allow its 50-foot channel to accommodate the larger vessels.
Free Samples
+ 2!.;
5+ 1.;;//!0/;
with RackGuard Containment Netting
• Reduce product damage
• Protect people from falling objects
• More economical than woven nets
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ZZZ;LQGXVWULDOQHWWLQJ;FRP
A WAITING GAME
With the situation at Savannah in limbo, the supply chain
waits. To be sure, no one expects vessels to stop calling on
Savannah, or for shippers and importers to suddenly relocate their operations to other ports. But experts say
Savannah’s inability to dredge the harbor could change the
complexion of things.
Ben Hackett, whose company, Hackett Associates, pro-
duces the widely followed monthly “Port Tracker” reports
on import container volumes in conjunction with the
National Retail Federation, says the “impact on the supply
chain would be significant. The port is not only a large
importer but also an exporter for the Southeast region.”
Hackett adds that any meaningful shift of vessels to
Charleston or Norfolk (Va.)—both of which have deeper
channels than Savannah—would “lengthen inland haulage
mileage and thereby increase costs. It would also increase
truck emissions significantly.”
Charles W. Clowdis Jr., managing director, transporta-
tion consulting and advisory services at consultancy IHS
Global Insight, says a shift in vessel calls and supply chains
would never occur “all at once.” However, he says a diver-
sion of calls to Charleston—about two hours to the north
by road—would add time and cost for deliveries through-
out the Southeast and, especially, into Florida.
Clowdis surmises that operators of the larger, post-Panamax vessels may call on ports in the Caribbean and
even Cuba, and then trans-load their freight to smaller vessels to call on Savannah. That practice, he says, would also
add time and cost to delivery schedules.
Clowdis says Savannah is a powerhouse port, whose
dredging is a project of national importance. “It’s just stupid,” he replied when asked about the lengthy process of
moving the project forward. “They need to find the money
from somewhere.” ;
