U.S. ports face brighter funding picture in 2001

By Staff -- Logistics Management, 1/1/2001

It never comes easy for U.S. ports: Every year seems to bring a new struggle for attention and funding from Congress. This year, though, might be a bit different. Passage of keypieces of legislation during the 106th Congress should allow ports to get on with the business of handling America's booming international trade volumes.

The first piece of legislation, H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, passed through several incarnations before it was finally signed into law as H.R. 4635 in late October. President Clinton had vetoed the original legislation, which included appropriations for the Army Corps of Engineers and funding for waterways and flood-control improvements, because of objections to a controversial water-management project on the Missouri River. But proponents reworked the bill and incorporated it into two subsequent proposals, which later were approved.

Similarly, the Water Resources Development Act (S. 2796), which requires reauthorization every two years, authorized a number of projects that will improve navigation infrastructure, including the deepening of ship channels. Ports share the cost of these projects with the federal government. In the past, WRDA legislation has often been held up in Congress, leaving ports without authority to make improvements that would allow them to accommodate today's bigger containerships.

In addition, funding for the U.S. Coast Guard and the St. Lawrence Seaway Corp. was included in H.R. 4475, the Transportation Appropriations bill, which became law in late October. That legislation also included budget authorizations for the U.S. Department of Transportation and its subsidiary agencies. Also important to ports was the passage just before Christmas of H.R. 4577, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included some provisions of an earlier Treasury and Postal Service appropriations bill. The consolidated version included startup funding for U.S. Customs' Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) project, which will modernize the agency's overburdened information systems.

Despite these victories, port executives say, Congress still does not fully grasp the urgency of port development projects. "We need to bring attention to the role of the marine transportation system [in the economy] and improve coordination between federal agencies," said Kurt Nagle, president of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), in an interview with several port executives. According to Nagle, the Office of Management and Budget has been casting its eye on port funding, although federal spending on port infrastructure is small in comparison with the $1.5 billion port authorities spend each year, he noted. In response, he said, ports will emphasize the future benefits to the economy of spending on infrastructure now.

A critical challenge again this year will be to balance environmental concerns with growing demands on port facilities, said Bobby Bray, outgoing AAPA chairman. Ports are subject to local, state, and federal environmental restrictions on building and dredging - restrictions that can delay urgently needed infrastructure projects for years.

Now, some environmentalists, who view ports as pollution sources and threats to wetlands, reportedly are pushing regional control over port development in Congress. "Environmentalists are looking at the national port system and they're asking, 'Why do we need to deepen several ports? Why can't we minimize environmental damage and limit [improvements] tojust one port?'" said Eileen Denne, AAPA director of communications.

Thepotential for such proposals to slow the flow of goods into and out of the country is significant, said Nagle. And although it may seem impossible to meet both economic and environmental needs, port managers will continue their uphill battle. Says Bray: "None of us wants to do anything that harms the environment."