Colloquy Regarding Harbor Dredging Projects

Mr. LEVIN: Mr. President, I come to the floor today because there is a very serious situation facing Great Lakes shipping. In Michigan, and throughout the Great Lakes, there is a significant dredging backlog. The Corps estimates a backlog of 16 million cubic yards at commercial harbors, which has had very real impacts to Michigan shipping. Several freighters have gotten stuck in Great Lakes channels; ships have had to carry reduced loads, and many shipments have simply ceased altogether. This problem stems in part from the way the Corps’ budget is prepared using performance metrics such as cargo value, tonnage, and ship miles. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Office of Management and Budget and the Army Corps began implementing new budget guidelines and criteria for funding the Operation and Maintenance of commercial harbors that relied primarily on the amount of tonnage a harbor handles. Although I do not object to using performance metrics, I am concerned that the metrics currently used do not adequately account for the situation at smaller harbors, many with economies that revolve around the harbor. I filed an amendment yesterday that would help address this very serious situation. The amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Voinovich and Stabenow, would direct the Corps to use all available data relating to economic impacts, and to not solely use the tonnage handled by a harbor.

Mr. VOINOVICH: Mr. President, I join the senior Senator from Michigan in sponsoring this amendment because the Great Lakes shipping infrastructure is in peril. Commercial freighters working in the Great Lakes cannot carry full loads, making for very inefficient water transport, and leading to very real economic consequences, not only for the Great lakes region, but also for the nation. The Great Lakes are the waterways that carry the steel for our cars, the coal for our electricity and the limestone for the construction industry. Light-loading vessels increases the prices of these goods and in turn the goods produced from them. It has been reported that in Toledo, what was once a 150-meter-wide channel is now a 30-meter channel. We need to correct the way the Corps budgets for these Great Lakes harbors – the backbone of our nation’s manufacturing economy – so they are not faced with the very real possibility of having to shut down altogether. This amendment would require the Corps to use all available economic data in making its budget decisions, something that I think all of us should support. Mrs. BOXER: I agree with the Senators from Michigan and Ohio that the Corps needs to address this dredging backlog. I also agree that the Corps should make their budget decisions using all economic data available and not based only on an arbitrary tonnage limit. While the bill managers were not able to reach an agreement on an amendment, I will work with the Senators to ensure that Great Lakes dredging issues are addressed when the bill is in conference.

Mr. INHOFE: As I’ve said before, we have an infrastructure crisis in this country. If we do not provide for adequate water transportation infrastructure, we will force even more traffic to our already-clogged highways. I believe we need to provide proper maintenance of our entire system, including the Great Lakes, not just switch focus from one component to another as they begin to fail.

Mr. LEVIN: I thank my colleagues for their recognition of the dredging crisis in the Great Lakes. I also thank Senators Boxer and Inhofe for their support of another amendment that I filed to this bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Voinovich and Stabenow, that would direct the Army Corps to expedite the operation and maintenance of the Great Lakes navigation system. Although that amendment would be helpful to the overall Great Lakes commercial shipping infrastructure, I remain concerned that the Corps is using budgeting criteria that simply do not reflect the reality of the Great Lakes shipping system. The Great Lakes should not be compared with ports on our coasts. Tonnage alone should not be the criteria for making budget allocation decisions. We should not have to fight for our smaller ports and harbors each and every year. These ports and harbors are of commercial importance with large economic impacts. The Corps’s use of an arbitrary one million ton cut-off for prioritizing projects is simply unfair. There are about 300 harbors in the Great Lakes that handle less than one million tons of cargo per year. Two-thirds of all shipping in the United States either starts or finishes at small harbors. About half of the Great Lakes Corps-authorized harbors are classified as small ports. The amount of cargo handled should not be the sole factor in determining priority for funding. A small harbor may in fact have a much greater economic impact on a community than a larger harbor does. For example, Manistee Harbor on Lake Michigan is classified as a smaller harbor by the Corps. It handles less than 1 million tons of cargo annually; it handles 940,000 tons. Yet, multiple companies rely on this harbor, including Morton Salt, and there are 600 jobs that rely on the freighter traffic at Manistee. For a city with a population of about 6,500 people, this translates into about 10% of the population that is economically dependent on this harbor. And yet the Corps would classify this as a lower priority project because it handles less than one million tons annually. Is that what you understand the Army Corps is doing?

Mr. VOINOVICH: Yes, that’s correct, that’s what they are doing. A harbor handling less than one million tons, even if it has a large economic impact on the community, would have a lower budget priority specified by the Corps because it only handles 940,000 tons. The amendment that we have filed would help address this inequity by requiring the Corps to use all data regarding economic impacts and not just tonnage.

Mr. LEVIN: We have a problem that urgently needs to be addressed. The Corps is using a budgeting system that does not reflect the reality of the Great Lakes shipping infrastructure. I receive reports on a regular basis of how this dredging crisis is threatening our economy: The Wirt Stone Dock in Buena Vista Township, Michigan reported a reduction of 25% in shipped tonnage. Tugboats have been needed to turn boats around because channels have not been dredged, at a cost of $15,000 to $20,000 each week. After one freighter ran aground at Saginaw, Michigan last year, the ship’s rudder was torn off, and never found. Mrs. BOXER: I agree that we have a problem here, and I will work with you in conference to address this situation.

Mr. INHOFE: I agree that the Corps needs to make sure that its funding allocations take into consideration small harbors with large economic impacts. The Corps should not develop a budget that is unfairly biased against rural communities, and which will have a detrimental effect on small-town, rural America, causing job losses, and increased hardship for businesses. We must work to protect our nation’s shipping infrastructure.