SC board asked to revisit dispute over Savannah harbor expansion project

  • Follow Government

COLUMBIA — The latest maneuver in the battle over Georgia’s harbor deepening comes back to the question: Who is in charge of the Savannah River?

On Thursday, South Carolina’s environmental board will consider whether to grant an appeal hearing to the Georgia Ports Authority and the Savannah District of the Army Corps of Engineers, which are both challenging a South Carolina panel’s efforts to restrict the Savannah harbor expansion project.

The corps and the ports authority argue the South Carolina Savannah River Maritime Commission, a panel created by the South Carolina Legislature in 2007, does not have the authority to impose its own terms and conditions on Georgia’s harbor deepening. They want the Department of Health and Environmental Control board to invalidate the Maritime Commission’s May 8 notice, which includes limiting the deepening to 45 feet from its current 42 feet, instead of allowing it to be deepened to 47 feet, which is the depth the corps recommended.

The reason the corps appealed to the DHEC board on May 23 was to maintain its legal standing before the body while waiting for the South Carolina Supreme Court to resolve a lawsuit filed by the Savannah Riverkeeper, the Maritime Commission and others against DHEC, the corps’ Savannah District spokesman Billy Birdwell said Wednesday morning.

In that conflict, the environmental groups argued the DHEC board usurped the powers of the Maritime Commission in November when the board granted the corps permits for water quality and construction in navigable waters.

The South Carolina Supreme Court suit is just one amid a tangle of legal and legislative challenges centered on what is considered to be Georgia’s most crucial public works project.

Environmental groups, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, are also challenging the massive project in federal court on the grounds that a pollution permit should have been sought but was not.

Correspondence last week from the corps and ports authority to DHEC indicate there is confusion over the proper channels to oppose the Maritime Commission’s efforts to restrict the $653 million deepening. Both note that they are also petitioning for a contested case hearing before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court.

The DHEC board has been friendly to Georgia Ports Authority’s cause.

In November, the six-member board – all appointed by Gov. Nikki Haley – voted to accept the DHEC staff’s reversal of its initial Sept. 30 denial for the project’s 401 Water Quality Certification and Navigable Waters Permit.

Members of the South Carolina Legislature remain angry with Haley for granting Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal’s request that the board hear Georgia’s appeal. Palmetto State lawmakers also battered DHEC for the November reversal, with some calling it the most destructive decision the agency had ever made.

Among South Carolina critics’ concerns is the prospect of a deeper port of Savannah further outstripping the Port of Charleston in global commerce.

A host of other objections are detailed in Maritime Commission chairman Dean Moss’ “Notice of Proposed Decision,” dated May 8.

The commission detailed a new complaint: That the settlement that DHEC staff and board members ultimately approved when they tossed aside the Sept. 30 denial was drafted with significant involvement by the corps and Georgia Ports Authority.

“Even the five-page DHEC decision was not really DHEC’s own decision but one crafted by the Savannah Corps and GPA to meet their needs and desires,” wrote Moss, citing e-mails exchanged between the parties.

The commission’s notice also criticized the project’s proposed dissolved-oxygen injection system, the funding assurances to keeping it in operation and the potential harm to the Savannah estuary. It also contends that the corps’ Environmental Impact Statement in April didn’t fully address the disposal of toxic material, specifically “high levels of cadmium” in the dredge material.

The commission also questioned the corps’ and GPA’s commitment to a proposed bi-state Jasper Ocean Terminal.

“The environmental impacts on wetlands, water quality, and fish and wildlife, independently and collectively, dictate that a shallower depth be authorized,” wrote Moss.

“The difference in adverse environmental impacts between controlling depths of (45 and 47-foot depths) is significant, and the difference in economic benefits is minimal.”

The deeper water is intended to service larger container vessels coming through the expanded Panama Canal in 2014. Georgia officials have said the deepened harbor will bring economic benefit to both Georgia and South Carolina and will boost the prospects of a shared Jasper Ocean Terminal on South Carolina’s side of the river.

Comments (5)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
JohnBrownAug
1962
Points
JohnBrownAug 05/30/12 - 04:31 pm
0
0

Understand the implications

Understand the implications of a deeper harbor on the end of the Savannah River to Thurmond Lake.

Little Lamb
40160
Points
Little Lamb 05/30/12 - 04:47 pm
1
0

Basically,

none.

The lake elevation is so far above mean sea level that the harbor cannot affect the lake in any manner.

JohnBrownAug
1962
Points
JohnBrownAug 05/30/12 - 08:55 pm
1
0

Salt Water Intrusion is the Problem

It has nothing to do with the elevation of the lake. But the freshwater release from the lake is instrumental in keeping saltwater intrustion from moving inland. A deeper harbor will mean more water and it will be saltwater unless adequate flows from Thurmond Lake are maintained. The freshwater, saltwater balance at Savannah is fragile.

Little Lamb
40160
Points
Little Lamb 05/31/12 - 08:07 am
0
0

Backwards

I disagree that saltwater intrusion will occur, but for argument's sake let's assume that saltwater intrusion from dredging will be a problem for the marshes.

That still makes your first post wrongly worded. It is lake management that impacts salinity of the harbor. The harbor (or as you put it, "the end of the river") cannot affect the lake.

If you think about it, merely deepening one section at the mouth of a river is a tiny speck on a large elephant. It has no meaningful impact on the whole. One of the best things the Corps could do regarding this project would be to tear down the lock & dam at the airport. That would allow the river downstream of Clarks Hill to be more natural and allow more fish to migrate upstream.

JohnBrownAug
1962
Points
JohnBrownAug 05/31/12 - 08:47 am
0
0

Ah, it's anything but a small

Ah, it's anything but a small speck of water. It will be another 5 feet deep for many miles and fairly wide for the channels. That's the equivalent of a huge, new, saltwater lake that can only be neutralized by fresh water release from Thurmond Dam. That's the implication in my first comment. It has nothing to do with Thurmond being unaffected on the upper end of some kind of water slide to the coast.

Back to Top

Loading...