Funding for JaxPort deepening project due within a year

[thelakelander]

Taxpayers may need to come up with some local cash quick to keep this dream alive.

By Carole Hawkins, Staff Writer

Container cargo through JaxPort could triple by 2035. Nearly 14,000 new jobs could be created. The regional economic impact could top $850 million per year.
But before that can happen, $684.2 million must be spent to deepen JaxPort's shipping channel. A bit less if the scope of the project is scaled back.

The first installment of that money needs to be on the table within a year or else JaxPort will fall off a timeline, an outcome that would affect market confidence.

"I don't think we're running out of time as we sit here today," said JaxPort CEO Brian Taylor. "On the other hand, if we were to reach a point in time where our customers see we're not moving and other ports are, then I think that's the tipping point."

With the federal government slow to spend money on infrastructure, state and local funding will likely play a larger role than normal in starting the deepening project on schedule.

Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546086

[Tacachale]

That's been the case for years. About time we have some real movement.

[Charles Hunter]

Now, where is the City going to come up with  a couple hundred million dollars  (or more )?

[sheclown]

600 million and a devastating environmental cost.  Just ask Miami.

Re the Aug. 18 article Port dredge damages more coral: As one of the original litigants opposing the PortMiami deep-dredge project as it was permitted, I say, with no satisfaction, We told you so.

Our original contention, that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers couldn't conduct this project without grave consequences to precious reefs and inshore grass prairies, has been shown to be correct. Unfortunately, damage far exceeds boundaries the Corps used to justify the environmental permit pitched to Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

The article estimated reef damage to be more than 260 acres. In reality, siltation has occurred 1.5 miles to the north and 2 miles south of the work site.

Additionally, the Corps' barges used to take dredge material offshore for disposal leaked, spilling even more sediment over a much-larger area. National Marine Fisheries cited only 13 violations in March and April. In reality, barges were leaking on every trip.

Add to that the fact that the barge operators were "short dumping" on the way to the official dump site. Time is money and a shorter trip pays with larger profits.

The original litigants have been prohibited by the courts from contesting this environmental travesty, holding that our settlement before the projects started with the Corps precluded any future challenges.

It will now be up to Miami-Dade County, the Corps, FDEP, National Marine Fisheries, EPA and NOAA to hash out where to place the blame and eventually determine what mitigation or penalties will be assessed.

Dan Kipnis, Miami Beach

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article31827711.html#storylink=cpy

[The_Choose_1]

The key word here is "could" triple by 2035.

[Tacachale]

It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.

I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.

[The_Choose_1]

It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.

I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.

Your still wrong and I hope the St Johns Riverkeeper bogs this project down. You will Never get the really big ships into the St Johns River even when you dig down to what 47 feet?

[strider]

It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.

I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.

The money does indeed appear to be a big issue.  We do not have it.  It is unlikely the Feds are going to fund much of it and I suspect that the figures used by the advocates of dredging do not include the mitigation cost of the damage the dredging will do.

From what I have seen, the standard upon which the funding could be based puts us last among the other regional ports which seems to mean that we will be  unlikely to be successful at attracting the jobs and money the advocates of dredging like to talk about. In my mind, that puts the whole concept in question. Perhaps the port would be better off making sure we become the best alternative for the smaller vessels as the costs rise for those ports that put out the hundreds of millions it takes to deepen their channels.

[sheclown]

It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.

I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.

Your still wrong and I hope the St Johns Riverkeeper bogs this project down. You will Never get the really big ships into the St Johns River even when you dig down to what 47 feet?

I don't think at 47 feet we will get the really big ships.  I think that has to be 52 feet.

[Noone]

Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting today 9/9/15 at 9:30 am in council chambers. Open to the Public. Anyone going? Anybody care? The Deep dredge is ON the agenda.
The Backroom FIND update is NOT on the agenda. Not good. Especially when discussed at the COJ Finance budget hearings. Can't make this stuff up.
We are so LOST.
HEY JACKSONVILLE! We have a BARGE! Does Putnam county know about this?
Plan on doing a RICO loop in our highly restricted unamerican RIO St. Johns river Downtown.
May throw in some environmental Ethics- Vince Seibold.
A Vivian Harrell KJB Bluebag cleanup.

The year of the Regional taxpayer subsidized boat ride?

[Tacachale]

It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.

I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.

The money does indeed appear to be a big issue.  We do not have it.  It is unlikely the Feds are going to fund much of it and I suspect that the figures used by the advocates of dredging do not include the mitigation cost of the damage the dredging will do.

From what I have seen, the standard upon which the funding could be based puts us last among the other regional ports which seems to mean that we will be  unlikely to be successful at attracting the jobs and money the advocates of dredging like to talk about. In my mind, that puts the whole concept in question. Perhaps the port would be better off making sure we become the best alternative for the smaller vessels as the costs rise for those ports that put out the hundreds of millions it takes to deepen their channels.

The news cycle has a short memory, but the federal money was already committed last year and it still hasn't been spent or reappropriated. That's the least of our worries. The state contribution is also ready. It just leaves the $200 million or so local contibution, which can be bonded. All that remains is for the local interests to get their act together, which seems to be happening. Of course, the opportunity cost is a separate issue. Is this really the most impactful use of $200 million? The economic impact is probably overstated, but on the flip side, the environmental concerns are also overstated.

[Charles Hunter]

I think Congress has "authorized" the project, but has yet "appropriate" any money, beyond the Corps study. Identifying and securing a local source is critical. I don't think the fed money will come without the local doll2. I am assuming the state share will be available when needed.

[The_Choose_1]

It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.

I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.

Your still wrong and I hope the St Johns Riverkeeper bogs this project down. You will Never get the really big ships into the St Johns River even when you dig down to what 47 feet?

I don't think at 47 feet we will get the really big ships.  I think that has to be 52 feet.

But I don't think we're going too 52 feet? I sure hope not the St Johns River at this depth would screw up the river pretty bad. Just so some fat cats can make a buck.

[sheclown]

It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.

I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.

Your still wrong and I hope the St Johns Riverkeeper bogs this project down. You will Never get the really big ships into the St Johns River even when you dig down to what 47 feet?

I don't think at 47 feet we will get the really big ships.  I think that has to be 52 feet.

But I don't think we're going too 52 feet? I sure hope not the St Johns River at this depth would screw up the river pretty bad. Just so some fat cats can make a buck.

52' Was the depth we needed to compete with the new larger ships.   It is my understanding that Super Post Panamax megaships need 50 feet.  These were the ships were we hoping to bring to Jax.  New York, Norfolk and Baltimore are at this depth now, I believe.

The cost to dredge to 52 feet soon made it unfeasible, but I don't know how this changes our goal of being a major port --
47' is now the new goal.  But we can't compete with the deeper ports at this depth.   

So not really sure how dredging to 47 feet is the "game changer" -- but I don't know that much about it.

[mtraininjax]

The economic impact is probably overstated, but on the flip side, the environmental concerns are also overstated.

I'd agree with the economic impact overstatement, lest we forget all the promises a Super Bowl would bring, ugh.

The environmental issues are real, and in digging down and allowing more salt water into the river, we are changing the river as we know it. Look at how far down the river the shrimp are being caught. We are seeing a lot more salt water in the river. Once you go to 47, you can't go back and fix the river, what's done is done.