Georgia eco groups blast Savannah Port expansion, question project’s potential to create jobs

• Stephen B. Morton

Georgia’s top politicians yesterday celebrated the long-awaited approval of federal funding for the Savannah Port’s expansion. With a total of $706 million secured, including $266 million already set aside by state officials, it’s possible that crews can begin dredging the Savannah River before the year’s end.

But not everyone is on board with the Savannah Port project. Colleen Kiernan, director of the Sierra Club’s Georgia chapter, tells CL in an email that the decision to deepen the port is one that “defies all logic and reason” because of its potential environmental threats and exorbitant price tag.

“Taxpayers are poised to spend 6 million to deepen a 37 mile channel that will put the Savannah River on life support forever, threaten Savannah’s drinking water and undermine the tourism industry,” she says. “None of the studies considered that there are other East Coast ocean ports that would need less extensive digging, less environmental mitigation and could be deep enough to actually accommodate the new ships. No comprehensive planning has ever been done for our ports. ”

Critics of the deepening project, including Kiernan, also question the degree to which the project will actually spur the economy development, and create jobs in the process. In a 2011 op-ed, Gov. Nathan Deal called the Savannah Port a “jobs creating project.” Last month, U.S. Rep. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., who noted that the port is responsible for 297,000 jobs across the state, told WSB-TV that the dredging would lead to “many more” employment opportunities.

David Kyler, executive director of the Center for a Sustainable Coast, says there are no guarantees that the port expansion will lead to increased commerce due to the port’s ill-suited location. He says the Army Corps of Engineers, which will oversee the dredging, has claimed that project would allow goods to pass on and off its piers more efficiently - something that doesn’t automatically result in more economic activity.

According to Kiernan, the corps has never said that the port’s deepening would lead to the creation of more permanent jobs. Because of that, Kyler says, promises of new employment opportunities are “bogus claims” from the port’s backers.

“There’s no evidence by the Army Corps of Engineers that the port’s expansion would create more jobs,” Kyler tells CL. “If you’re talking about increasing efficiency, then arguably there’d be fewer jobs. You’d need fewer people to move commerce on and off ships. Logically, that wouldn’t require more of jobs.”

Despite the bipartisan politicians now celebrating the project, Kyler says the dredging project is far from a done deal. Although President Barack Obama authorized funding, he says that the federal funds still need to be appropriated - and that doesn’t always happen for approved projects. If Georgia moves forward with the project, he thinks state lawmakers should commit to fully funding the project to ensure that public money doesn’t potentially get wasted in case the federal cash falls through.

“It’s only fair to tell taxpayers that they may never see all or any federal funding,” he says. “The legislators should be willing to commit to the full cost of the project. ... otherwise that’s throwing money down a rat hole on a project that shouldn’t have been started in the first place.”

We’ve reached out to spokespeople for both Deal and ACOE for comment. If we hear back, we’ll post an update.