We recently marked the second anniversary of a landmark event in the development of a new maritime port on the Savannah River in Jasper County.
Two years ago – on July 29, 2008, to be exact – the Georgia Department of Transportation conveyed the 1,517-acre port site to a new bi-state joint venture owned equally by South Carolina and Georgia.
The plan was for the new port to start handling shipping containers when capacity at the existing public ports in Savannah and Charleston (about 12 million containers a year, combined) was exhausted, projected to occur in or around 2018. And the bi-state joint venture has done a good job the past two years of laying the groundwork for a new container port.
As a result of the economic recession, however, it is now estimated that container capacity in Charleston and Savannah will not be reached until 2024, or perhaps longer, and politicians and port officials in both states have responded by putting plans for the Jasper port on the back burner. I think that is a mistake and a waste of a tremendous South Carolina economic asset.
What is needed, instead, is a different way of thinking about the new port.
If demand has ebbed for a new mega-container terminal – and it clearly has – then attention should be paid to attracting the types of shipping business not targeted by Charleston and Savannah. In this regard, I think there are three things that state legislators in South Carolina and Georgia should keep in mind next year as they consider the bi-state compact that will chart the course of the Jasper port.
First, direct it to go after short sea shipping, also known as “blue highway” business, which moves cargo along our coastal and inland waterways, and have it fitted for the roll-on/roll-off lift-on/lift off barges used by such operations. For example, a private investor in the Augusta-Aiken area wants to reopen the Savannah River for cargo navigation; the Jasper port would be a great “ocean link” for a sister port upriver. Transporting cargo in this manner is favored by the federal governments and grant money is available for the necessary infrastructure.
Second, limit its operations to the smaller shippers that carry break-bulk and/or containers on deck, including the small independent container carriers that now operate in the Caribbean and along the east coast of South America and that use smaller-tier ports like Port Everglades and Fernandina.
These smaller shippers are not favored by the public ports in Savannah and Charleston, since they typically do not maintain fixed schedules, have slower vessel discharge rates and require extra services.
Third, have it cater to and accommodate refrigerated- or frozen-good shipping operations, especially those that import and export poultry, beef and other perishables.This business is a huge missed opportunity. Poultry products, for example, earn more than any other Georgia crop, with an estimated $13.5 billion economic impact annually, yet Pascagoula, Miss., and Jacksonville, Fla., handle the shipping because the necessary facilities are neither available nor wanted in Savannah. The Jasper port could and should capture that business.
In short, start thinking about the Jasper port as a niche site for rapid turnarounds, not as a traditional container terminal; align it with existing economic need.
Jasper County and the nearby counties need jobs now, not in 2024 or sometime beyond, and going after this other shipping business makes economic sense. Terminal operators and stevedores are eager for the opportunity, right now, to invest their capital and do business at a Jasper port.
It makes sense for other reasons, too. It makes political sense in that those with vested interests in the Charleston and Savannah ports will not view the Jasper port as a threat to their container business. It makes environmental sense in that the smaller ships would not need a deeper channel dredged. And the smaller footprint of these initial operations (less than 100 acres of the 1,517-acre port site would be needed) would make cooperation by the Corps of Engineers, in terms of permitting and having it release its spoil disposal easement, more likely.
Success relatively quickly at this more modest level would beget success at higher levels in the future. Specifically, the initial operations would not prevent the Jasper port from handling the larger container traffic when that finally became necessary. Most importantly, it would be a move beyond the concept of a new port on the Savannah River in Jasper County to a working commercial enterprise that actually creates jobs and wealth.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Tom Davis represents Beaufort County in the South Carolina State Senate. Visit his website here.
By Columbia Insider August 9, 2010 at 2:47 pm
An interesting piece. Davis seems to suggest a Jasper port direction that, both politically and economically, has some chance of success. Why aren’t the two governor candidates talking about issues like this? All we get from them is nonsense about email records and tax returns.
By Recovering Lobbyist August 9, 2010 at 3:04 pm
I agree that the Davis plan has merit, but it will go nowhere without buy-in from legislators like McConnell, Leatherman and Harrell. Good ideas don’t get you very far in Columbia. You have to have the muscle and Davis doesn’t have it yet (and maybe never will — that remains to be seen). But his new suggested approach does seem to overcome some of the political obstacles that Charleston legislators have in place.
By Roger August 9, 2010 at 3:15 pm
A pretty smart piece. I wonder if Sen. Davis got the go-ahead on this from the ports authorities or if he is just flying blind. I agree with Recovery Lobbyist that it doesn’t really matter whether Davis’s plan makes sense (it seems to, but then again I am not a ports expert), but if the power brokers in the State House are willing to let it happen. My bet is that Glenn McConnell and Bobby Harrell will oppose anything that even remotely has the chance of taking business away from Charleston.
By RINO Watcher August 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm
This plan has no chance. Maybe it has merit, I don’t know. Sounds reasonable enough. But it doesn’t matter. The Charleston legislators will never let anything relating to ports happen outside of the Port of Charleston. Period, end of story. Jasper County? Let them eat shopping malls.
By Joseph Reynolds August 9, 2010 at 4:41 pm
2 Questions…
We shut down the break bulk ports om Georgetown and Port Royal, in part at the direction of Sanford (and therefore Davis). Why build a new one at a cost of millions of dollars of tax payer funds? Does that not imply that the earlier actions were not wise, and in fact may have been politically motivated?
Also…what kind of federal Grants could he be wanting to spend?? There is no such thing as a grant, I thought? Didnt he refuse to vote for stimulus dollars? Where would this magic money come from??
So why is he trying to spend federal dollars all of sudden??? Does that mean that he now supports the stimulus??
By CNSYD August 9, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Interesting that Sanfraud clone Davis wants to get Federal grant money for his boondoggle. I thought he was anti government. Question: Does Davis have to pay FITS for these political ads or are they free?
By Old Bike Dude August 10, 2010 at 7:33 am
I like Tom Davis but this is nothing but a rooster crowing at headlights. The Jasper port goes nowhere without the support of the senate and the Ports Auth. And don’t forget the power and influence of the tourism and hospitality industry which depends on Jasper and Hampton counties for cheap labor. Those of us who have always been here have seen the promise of industry disappear at the request of these Hilton Head comyahs.
By Tom Davis August 10, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Thanks, Will, for picking up the op-ed that was published yesterday in the Savannah Morning News. I also appreciate the comments that have been posted by third parties (well, most of them).
The federal money I refer to would be used to improve coastal waterways for commercial navigation, primarily by barges. Using barges is a much less expensive way to transport commercial goods; in addition, it reduces highway congestion. And, of course, improving the navigability of our nation’s waterways for interstate commerce is precisely the sort of thing our federal government should be doing. I am not “anti-government,” I just want government to limit itself to core functions, and this is one of them.
As for the break-bulk ports in Georgetown and Port Royal, they had fallen into disuse by the SC State Ports Authority well prior to Gov. Sanford taking office. As I recall, the amount of business conducted in one day in the Port of Charleston at the time he took office eclipsed a year’s worth of business in the Port of Port Royal, and the legislature passed a law directing that it be closed. As for the operations in Georgetown, it is my understanding that this port still does some limited break-bulk business, but that the marketplace considers the Jasper site a superior location.
The port infrastructure at the new Jasper port would be paid for with private capital, either using landlord-tenant or concession models; that is expressly stated in state law. I would not support the state spending millions of taxpayer dollars to build the port, and in any event such is not necessary. Private investors are now ready, able and willing to provide that development capital.
I agree with the comments made about the political viability of this proposal; such will depend on convincing Charleston-area legislators that a Jasper port would not undercut business at the Port of Charleston. I may not like that fact, but it is a reality. I think the new suggested approach for Jasper might help with the convincing. We’ll see.
By Gen. Longstreet August 10, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Some prankster using Sen. Davis’ name or is that the real McCoy?
By CNSYD August 10, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Dear Mark, ehh, Tom Davis, exactly where in the US Constitution does it specifically say it is a core function of “government” to increase the navigability of our nation’s waterways for interstate commerce? If you say Section 8 (regulation of commerce) then that is a huge leap from original intent. Exactly where, in your view, is the line drawn as to what are the core functions of government in regard to commerce?
By Elmo August 10, 2010 at 1:47 pm
In an ideal world, since the Jasper port is closer to the open ocean, it would handle the deepest draft vessels, and allow the smaller vessels to make their way up the shallower Savannah River to the Savannah terminals.
Instead, we federal taxpayers will spend money to unnecessarily dredge the Savannah River deeper for the Georgia Ports Authority’s terminals way upriver in Savannah.
By Tom Davis August 10, 2010 at 2:49 pm
CNSYD, there is an interesting discussion of the federal government and its role re: our country’s navigable waterways, and the doctrine of navigable servitude in general, at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigable_servitude
I think the Commerce Clause has been badly abused by the US Supreme Court, particularly in the New Deal era, to expand federal power beyond that envisioned by the Framers, but I also think that the regulation and improvement of interstate waterways easily falls within the bounds of that clause. Anyway, just my opinion.
By Recovering Lobbyist August 10, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Let’s see if I have this right, CNSYD: you think it is “a huge leap from original intent” to argue that the improvement of interstate waterways to facilitate commerce among the several states somehow falls within the power of the United States Congress to “regulate commerce among the several states,” is that right? You truly do put the “Dumbass” in “Crosby, Nash, Stills, Young & Dumbass.” And aren’t you the guy who whined about protecting this country from the communists and then never getting any thanks? I hope to God you aren’t a Marine.
By CNSYD August 10, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Recovering Lobbyist, news flash for you. Since obviously you have not read the Constitution, let me point out a phrase for you, “provide for the common defence”. Perhaps you may have heard that hurled at you when you marched in your anti war parades. Just to express it in a way in which you will understand, “You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way.”
IRT commerce, do you in your wildest dreams think the founding fathers’ intent was for the federal government to use the treasury to dredge waterways for commerce? I take no position one way or the other, my question to Davis was where do you draw the line.
Obviously your recovery has been a failure as you still want government to line your pockets.
By CNSYD August 10, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Tom Davis, I agree that it is within present day “thought” and/or laws/rules that what you proposed is “legal”. My question was that I think that once you start down slippery slopes like these there is virtually no end.
By Tom Davis August 11, 2010 at 9:38 am
CNSYD, you make a fair point about the Commerce clause being used improperly in recent years, as if its elasticity were sufficient to authorize any possible federal action, and also about slippery slopes. But I still think improving interstate waterways to promote commerce among the states falls within an originalist construction of the clause. As that website I referenced earlier notes, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1824 that the Commerce clause empowered the federal government to regulate and improve navigable waterways, which were an important hub of transportation in the early years of the Republic. Like you, I am very suspicious of federal power, but this is one area in which it is properly exercised.