Citing an independent review by a former Army Corps of Engineers official, opponents of the Delaware River main channel deepening on Friday accused the corps of using "highly unlikely" economic forecasts to justify its ongoing dredging work.
The criticisms emerged as contractors wrap up dredging along the first 16 miles of the 103-mile-long channel between Philadelphia and the sea, work that cut part of the river bottom to 45 feet from its previous 40-foot depth.
Supporters and opponents of the project have clashed over the nearly $300 million project at all levels of government and in the courts in recent years. Arguments are scheduled in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals later this month in a case involving claims by New Jersey and environmental groups that the corps wrongly refused to conduct a new environmental-impact study for the project.
"The Philadelphia District should be a brighter shade of red today, as we look at this and recognize that, once again, the books are being cooked," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "The errors were too obvious and too numerous to be a mistake."
Dennis Rochford, president of the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay industry group, said the group's claims are inaccurate, and said he is confident in both the benefit and need for the dredging.
"We cannot be the only major port on the East Coast restricted to 40 feet of water, when every other major port from New York down to Jacksonville, Fla., is 42 to 50 feet and deeper," Rochford said.
Revenue dispute
Pennsylvania and port interests have covered all construction funding to date as an advance payment of local matching funds. Shippers and business groups have argued repeatedly that the Delaware River needs a deeper bottom if local ports and businesses want to save jobs and compete with other Atlantic coast commerce centers.
But opponents said that work should stop before the corps begins pouring federal taxpayer money into the job, citing new doubts about costs and other concerns.
"I conclude that the corps' estimated benefit-cost ratio claim that you get $1.64 back on every dollar spent is over-inflated to the point that you can't justify the project at all," said Robert N. Stearns, a water resources consultant and former deputy assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, who was commissioned to review the project by a coalition of taxpayer and environmental groups.
Stearns held his deputy secretary's post under the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He concluded that the corps' most-recent economic justification for the project heavily overstated likely savings that a deeper channel would mean for fruit and vegetable shipments to the Philadelphia region.
Food commodities now account for 57 percent of the container ship benefits cited in the corps' supporting studies. Stearns said it was a "virtual certainty" that dredging justifications would evaporate if officials admit that many fruits and vegetables will still be cheaper to deliver to Philadelphia on shallower-draft vessels than to route through New York's deeper-water ports.
New emphasis
The deepening, hotly debated for decades, was originally cited as a boon mainly for the oil industry, with as much as 80 percent of economic benefits expected to come from new access for deeper-bottomed oil tankers. Pennsylvania has pressed the dredging case most aggressively, linking the deeper channel to hopes for developing a huge new container port in Philadelphia.
Emphasis has since shifted to bulk and containerized cargo savings as Delaware River refineries announced shutdown plans or confirmed that they would not take advantage of deeper passage.
Four of the six major refineries operating on the Delaware River when dredging began last year are closed or threatened with closing, including Sunoco's Philadelphia, Marcus Hook, Pa., and Eagle Point, N.J., refineries and Conoco-Phillips' plant in Trainer, Pa. Only PBF's Paulsboro, N.J., and Delaware City plant remain open. Marcus Hook accounted for 19 percent of predicted savings on crude oil shipments, critics pointed out.
Nevertheless, corps forecasts anticipate $34.6 million in annual economic benefits from the deeper channel, including $20 million on food imports, $5.8 million from imported steel and nearly $6.6 million in savings on crude oil deliveries. Those benefits, supporters argued, will easily exceed the long-term annual cost of the dredging.
Maya van Rossum, who directs the Delaware Riverkeeper environmental group, said the corps has consistently relied on "inaccurate, biased and clearly manipulated information" to support their deepening plans. Officials have underestimated dredging and spoils disposal costs, van Rossum said, and have continued to use disputed benefit values linked to use of dredged-up sand along eroding areas of Broadkill Beach, in northeastern Sussex County.
Supporters of the project, including the Markell administration and the Port of Wilmington's Diamond State Port Corp., have argued that the river needs a deeper channel to accommodate business with new generations of deepwater vessels.
Edward Voigt, spokesman for the corps' regional office in Philadelphia, said Friday that schedules and funding decisions have yet to be developed for the next phase of the deepening, although the next deepening section will likely be north of Fox Point. Contractors already have done most work between the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal and the Fox Point area.
Opponents say corps using 'unlikely' economic forecasts (The News Journal)
Discussion
Sign Up for Updates
