|
 |
 |
| |
SupportTheDeepening - Deepening the Delaware should not be delayed
| |
Deepening the Delaware should not be delayed |
|
|
| |
January 1st, 2010 7:00pm |
|
|
|
(from Times of Trenton) -- In the middle of a severe economic downturn, it continues to amaze that some are fighting a project that will create good, new jobs and help spur economic development for years to come, especially since a failure to act will put thousands of jobs at risk. Those are the stakes in the debate about deepening the Delaware River.
Recently, after years of planning and environmental study, the Army Corps of Engineers announced it would begin work on the long-awaited deepening to 45 feet. That news unleashed jubilation in the tri-state maritime and business communities, among merchants at the port and workers whose jobs will be protected.
As with any large public works project, however, there are detractors.
Much confusion has been created by unfounded allegations and doomsday proclamations by special-interest groups opposed to the project. Some opponents have filed lawsuits to block the project. It's important to set the record straight.
First, it's important to know that the Delaware River is dredged each year to maintain a safe shipping channel. The deepening project goes further, but studies show it will yield the same materials (e.g. sand, silt and clay) and will be stored in the same locations.
Opponents warn of lurking toxins, yet they offer no scientific evidence, and numerous environmental studies proving otherwise are ignored. They similarly ignore the positive environmental features of the project, including beach replenishment and habitat creation in Delaware. Instead, opponents attempt to sow confusion with unsubstantiated allegations while failing to raise similar objections to other deepening projects. Such fear-mongering is simply unacceptable.
Second, the deepening is critical if the Delaware River ports are to remain economically viable. Commercial ships grow ever larger, and ports that can't accommodate them are left behind. If we're committed to the future economic viability of the region's ports, we need to deepen the river to 45 feet. Failing to do so will drive maritime business out of the Delaware River, along with thousands of family-sustaining jobs.
Moreover, there's evidence that the private sector invests in ports that are deepened. The Baltimore port was recently deepened, and now more than $750 million of new private-sector investment is pouring in. While no one can predict whether a similar private-sector investment will occur for the Delaware River ports if the river is deepened, it is undoubtedly true it won't happen if it isn't.
Third, while the critics of the deepening allege the Army Corps of Engineers is trampling on states' rights by not obtaining permits from local governments, they neglect to note that the Delaware River is unquestionably a federal navigation channel. Certainly, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have an interest in ensuring the project is safe and environmentally sound, which is why, for years, the Corps has worked hard to satisfy their concerns. But allowing local governments to have a de facto veto over critical federal projects like the deepening by denying or delaying permits is akin to letting them erect tollbooths on whatever road they choose. It will create havoc and put a stop to almost every project.
We can't afford to lose sight of why this project is so critical. If we deepen the channel, we will keep the thousands of jobs already here and create thousands of new ones. That's why business leaders across the tri-state area support the deepening project. After more than 17 years, it is time to move forward. More than two dozen studies have been conducted that confirm the project will have a positive economic impact and only a minor environmental impact.
Given the facts, we believe that fair minds will see the overwhelming need for the deepening project and the tremendous benefits it will bring to the region.
John H. Estey is chairman of the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
