In the 1970s, the Federal government built 26 Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) to contain the sometimes polluted sediments dredged from the Great Lakes. Prior to these CDFs, Open Lake disposal of dredged material had been the common practice.
The CDF program of the 1970s was a proper response to a valid concern. Decades of industrial and social activity had tainted some of the bottom material in certain Great Lakes ports and waterways. The downside was an overreaction by some environmental groups. Not all sediments are polluted; in many instances, continued Open Lake disposal would have presented no threat to the Great Lakes environment. Instead, unfounded fears forced virtually all dredgings to be deposited in a CDF. As a result, the 26 sites are rapidly nearing capacity. In fact, it is anticipated that all but two will be full by the year 2006.
If new or expanded CDFs are not built in the very near future, Great Lakes shipping will slowly cease to be a competitive segment of the U.S. transportation system. The steel industry’s cost for transportation will increase, thus harming its international competitiveness. Coal-powered utilities will have to raise rates to cover their increased transportation costs.
The Corps’ ability to maintain the Great Lakes system at a designed vessel draft of 25½ feet is crucial to the efficiency of waterborne transportation. [ Although the project depth is 25½ feet, the Corps generally dredges to a depth of 27 feet (deeper in areas where the bottom is hard rock). Some ports, such as Escanaba, are naturally deeper than the system’s dredged depth.] A 1,000-foot-long ship forfeits approximately 270 tons of cargo for each 1-inch reduction in loaded draft. An ocean-going vessel sized to fit the St. Lawrence Seaway (740’ x 78’) loses roughly 100 tons of cargo capacity for each lost inch of loaded draft.
Given the stiff competition among transportation modes and port ranges, even a 1-inch reduction in loaded draft is a disadvantage for carriers, ports and their customers. However, the problem is much more serious. The available depth in the entrance channel to Toledo, Ohio, has been reduced by as much as 18 inches by siltation. For a 1,000-footer delivering iron ore to Toledo, those 18 inches of lost draft equal roughly 5,000 tons of cargo each time the ship calls on the port.
Indiana Harbor has not been dredged for nearly 20 years. Ore boats feeding area mills surrender as much as 16 inches of draft, or more than 4,300 tons of cargo each arrival. What this means is that the ship must make more voyages to deliver the customers’ raw material requirements. The increased fuel and operation costs benefit neither the carrier nor customer.
In addition to the sometimes unfounded environmental concerns, construction of new CDFs has been stalled by uncertainty over the Federal government’s role in financing projects. The original 26 CDFs were built at full Federal expense, and, in some instances, the enabling legislation specified that the Federal government would pay all costs for expanding the existing CDF or construction of a new facility to serve the harbor in question.
However, full Federal funding became a non-starter in these times of budget deficits and spending reductions. The uncertainty as to the Federal Government’s involvement has been resolved, however; the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 mandates that the Federal government will fund CDFs at the same ratio as its contribution to the navigation project. The Federal government’s share is determined by the depth of the project. For the Great Lakes system, that means the Federal government will contribute 75 percent of the cost of new or expanded CDFs.
Resolution of the funding question should not blur another important issue. The next Clean Water bill should include Federal funds to assist ports to stem the influx of sediments. A study of the Cuyahoga River found that 54 percent of sediment build-up was from upstream erosion. Federal dollars spent on stopping sediment build-up would come back in reduced dredging costs.
Lastly, Open Lake disposal should be revived for non-polluted dredgings. Open Lake disposal is still the most cost-effective option. Nor should the potential to use clean sediment for shoreline replacement or land creation be overlooked.
Now that the funding formula for CDFs has been set in law, Congress must include Great Lakes CDFs in the next Water Resources Bill. Each year there are fewer and fewer stop-gap measures available to extend existing CDF capacity. Unless Great Lakes ports and waterways are maintained to their designed depth, the competitive advantages of waterborne commerce will be eroded to the point where the system is no longer viable.