Pros and cons of river dredging

By LAWRENCE HAJNA
Courier-Post staff
Published: December 30. 2005
 

(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association February 2006 Newsletter)

The following Q&A examines the history of the river dredging project and summarizes the interests of the stakeholders.

Q: What is the proposal?

A: The river's main shipping channel has been set at a depth of 40 feet (mean low water depth) since World War II, when it was last deepened to accommodate battleships being built in Philadelphia.  In 1992, Congress first authorized deepening the river's main shipping channel to 45 feet at the request of the Delaware River Port Authority.

The DRPA's charter had just been changed from solely operating the bridges and PATCO.  The stated idea was to benefit the region's refineries by allowing tankers to carry more oil up the river without unloading some at the mouth of the bay, a process known as lightering.  But port business leaders saw the deepening as an opportunity to attract larger cargo ships that need deeper water.

Q: Where would the river be dredged?

A: The project boundaries are from the Beckett Street terminal in Camden to the mouth of Delaware Bay, about 102 miles.

Q: How much would it cost?

A: Estimates have fluctuated widely.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had been using a figure of $311 million, but in September revised the figure to $264 million.

The federal government would pay $161 million. DRPA and the states of New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania would have to contribute about $103 million.

There is no money budgeted by the federal government for the project.

Q: How much sediment would be removed?

A: The Army Corps estimates the project will generate 26 million cubic yards of sediments -- about 18.7 million cubic yards from the river and 7.3 million cubic yards from the bay.

Q: Where will they go?

A: This is the biggest question swirling around the project.

Sediments dredged from the bay will be used to rebuild wetlands along the bay in New Jersey and Delaware. The Army Corps has identified six existing upland sites and three new sites along the river in Gloucester and Salem counties to accept spoils, which could create hills up to 75 feet high.

Pennsylvania and Army Corps officials have studied using spoils to fill in mines in Northeastern Pennsylvania and stop the flow of acid-tainted water into streams and rivers. Several years ago, the Army Corps estimated this would add $190 million to the cost of the deepening project.

Q: Who is in favor of the project?

A: Longshoremen and trade unions, the South Jersey Port Corp., Pennsylvania's House of Representatives, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Pennsylvania's DRPA commissioners.

Q: Who opposes the project?

A: Most South Jersey state lawmakers, U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, South Jersey's DRPA commissioners, and environmental groups, including the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

Q: Why do supporters say the project must be done?

A: Shipping and labor unions argue the Port of Philadelphia is at a significant disadvantage for cargo shipping, arguing bigger cargo ships are now using ports at New York and Norfolk, Va., which have deeper shipping channels.

Q: Why do opponents say the project is not necessary?

A: They say Philadelphia, unlike New York and Norfolk, is too far upriver to attract bigger ships. They say new berths are needed in places like Paulsboro and Salem to accommodate more of the same size ships that now use the river.

Opponents also say that many of the larger ships today need 50-foot channels and that the river cannot be deepened this much because bedrock lies just below the sediment.

Q: What are the environmental impacts of dredging?

A: Environmentalists contend the project will disturb habitat for species such as the short-nose sturgeon, blue crabs and horseshoe crabs.

They fear that digging into sediments that have lain dormant for decades would release harmful industrial contaminants, although the Army Corps insists most of the sediments are clean and even virgin material.

Opponents also contend that digging into the river could crack a massive underground water supply known as the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, potentially contaminating it.

Q: Would the project generate new jobs?

A: While DRPA has conducted a study showing the ports of Camden and Philadelphia generate some 75,000 jobs directly and indirectly, no one has performed a detailed study of the impact a deeper river would have economically or whether it would indeed attract newer and bigger ships.

Federal law required the Army Corps to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to ensure taxpayers don't lose money if the project is built.

The Corps has looked primarily at impacts to refineries but also factored in effects on the shipment of some products such as scrap iron and cement slag.

Triggered by environmental concerns, South Jersey officials demanded an independent audit of the project's anticipated economic benefits. The federal General Accountability Office found that the project would lose about 50 cents for every dollar spent on construction, in contrast to initial Army Corps calculations that estimated the project would generate $1.40 for every dollar spent.

The Army Corps conducted a new analysis, showing the project would generate $1.15 in economic benefit for every dollar spent.

Q: Why is the project on hold?

A: The state of Delaware has withheld a permit the Army needs to disturb the river bottom. New Jersey also says the Army Corps needs to update studies on environmental impacts disposal sites would have.

New Jersey also has not taken action to appropriate its share of project funding.

Because of these issues and the economic questions, DRPA has not signed a project cooperation agreement with the Army Corps.

[News Contents] [Top]