Nikki Haley vetoes S.C. bill to block dredging of Port of Savannah
Gov. Nikki Haley has become quite popular. In Georgia, anyway. From the Associated Press:
COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley on Monday vetoed a bill that lawmakers had passed unanimously in their efforts to undo a permit allowing Georgia to expand its Savannah port.
The measure would retroactively suspend the Department of Health and Environment Control’s ability to make dredging decisions in the river shared with Georgia. Legislators hoped it would strengthen their case in court and supporters of the measure expected the veto to be overridden.
The action “amounts to unconstitutional legislative overreaching into an agency’s ruling,” Haley wrote in her four-paragraph veto message. Additionally, she wrote, it “reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about the administrative process.”
She writes that only DHEC can issue the water quality certifications and notes a 2010 opinion from former Attorney General Henry McMaster. Such opinions don’t carry the weight of law.
The Republican governor has come under fire for asking the DHEC board she appointed to hear Georgia’s appeal last fall, after staff initially denied the water quality certification. Minutes before the appeal, the agency reached a settlement with the Georgia Ports Authority and Army Corps of Engineers.
“When you pick up the phone and try to circumvent DHEC’s original ruling is really where the problem occurred,” said Rep. Jim Merrill, the measure’s main sponsor, in response to the misunderstanding comment.
Legislators complain DHEC’s decision grants an unfair competitive advantage to a rival port over Charleston, which is also racing to deepen its harbor to accommodate mega-size ships that could regularly call after the Panama Canal is widened in 2014. Those ships are currently limited in Charleston to a two-hour tidal window.
Legislators also complain the permit kills plans for a port in Jasper County, miles closer to the Atlantic Ocean, that’s supposed to be a 50-50 project with Georgia.
The issue puts on the same side Republican legislators and environmentalists, who argue the project will deplete dissolved oxygen in the already impaired river, destroying habitat of endangered fish and hundreds of acres of fragile freshwater marsh.
The joint resolution suspends DHEC’s authority as of 2007. That’s when legislators created the Savannah River Maritime Commission and gave it authority to represent South Carolina on navigability issues in the river. The commission was not consulted about the settlement.
Merrill, R-Charleston, expects the veto to be easily overridden.
“Why the governor persists in being the sole person in the state of South Carolina who is intent on helping Georgia gain an advantage over South Carolina is baffling,” he said.
Current Attorney General Alan Wilson is representing the Savannah River Maritime Commission in its challenge. His spokesman, Mark Plowden, has said the joint resolution should help arguments in court that the commission has permitting authority. The Southern Environmental Law Center is also appealing.
A joint resolution has the same force as law, and must go through the same approval process, but is a temporary measure that dies when the issue’s over. If Haley hadn’t signed or vetoed it by Tuesday, it would have taken effect without her signature.
Her veto message points out that the language in the measure’s final paragraph references a “construction in navigable waters permit,” rather than the “401 water quality certification” in question. Saying the resolution only seeks to undo the former, Haley says the measure has no practical effect anyway because it attempts to reverse a permit that wasn’t issued.
However, while that paragraph specifically refers to the navigable waters permit, it also broadly suspends all post- 2007 decisions “related to all matters pertaining to the navigability, depth, dredging, wastewater and sludge disposal” and other issues involving the Savannah River and ocean-going container ships. Also, the set-up to that paragraph — which provides a timeline and explains legislators’ intent when they passed the 2007 law — does mention the water quality certification.
“The governor is looking for an out when she should be looking for an opportunity to join in with us on the fight to protect South Carolina’s environment and economy,” said House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston. “The governor is trying to focus on what’s not in the bill, because she doesn’t want to talk about what is in the bill she vetoed. … The vetoed bill directly states that DHEC did not have the authority to unilaterally approve this dredging permit.”
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
77 comments Add your comment
The State of Georgia Sucks!
February 28th, 2012
10:00 am
The only reason you guys are bashing South Carolina is because all around it is a much better state. Georgia – past Atlanta, sucks. It’s dirty and full of trailor parks. There is nothing great about Georgia. South Carolina is beautiful and clean and full of classy people. Georgia is full of rednecks and hicks.
FenderMan
February 28th, 2012
10:03 am
Vuduchld, kiss my southern ass. Delta is ready when you are.
Zoomie
February 28th, 2012
10:30 am
DIA nailed the issue perfectly. SC has a say in use of the Savannah River due to the shared border. The SC legislature is bullying the State of Georgia to block improvements to Savannah port access in order to leave Charleston as the SE USA’s only port facility equipped to handle the megaships. The environmental issues the SC legislature is “dredging” up is nothing more than demagoguery, the most-used, most-effective weapon in the arsenal of intellectually-bankrupt politicians serving an equally intellectually-bankrupt constituency. The SC legislature is worried, because Savannah provides better access to the inland expressway system that distributes goods throughout the US. In order to undermine what they perceive as an economic advantage for Georgia, they will, without compunction, flop on their backs and throw a collective tantrum like a group of two-years-olds deprived of nap-time.
If America was willing to make the changes necessary to be a competitive provider of goods, we could send those ships back out packed with all kinds of “Made in America” goodies. As pointed out already, the ships are coming and will need a port in SE USA. The only proper way to resolve this issue is to upgrade both port facilities and let the shippers choose their desired port.
Be careful, though. When it starts to look like the South Carolinians won’t get their way economically, they have a tendency to stop negotiating and start shelling. They’ve already shown they’re not afraid to be the first to shoot.
Self_Made
February 28th, 2012
10:42 am
Georgia ports are already net exporters because Georgia has the inland infrastructure to bring goods from the interior to the ports. Savannah already surpasses Chlarleston in tonnage and value of cargo handled. SC is playing ‘dog in a manger’ with their political shenanigans. Good for Nikki Haley for being a stateswoman and not a state’s woman.
ash
February 28th, 2012
11:22 am
@ “state of ga sucks…you obviously have not traveled around south carolina very much.
Keith
February 28th, 2012
11:26 am
Upstate isn’t the problem
February 28th, 2012
9:07 am
Upstate is the only part of SC that is functioning. They have Michelin and BMW trying to get goods in and out ASAP.
Charleston is stuck in the 60’s…the 1860’s and Columbia is obsessed with stopping Georgia b/c of their own inferiority complex.
——
Charleston stuck in the 1860s? That’s why they now have Boeing with 3,000 employees and a growing tech sector that is starting to gain the attention of Silicon Valley VC. Charleston metro has a lower unemployment rate than Atlanta metro.
Upstate isn't the problem
February 28th, 2012
11:38 am
Keith:
I’m glad North Charleston got Boeing. North Charleston is not Charleston, it’s a separate city. The people that run “Old Charleston” detest the cruise ships that dock in Charleston (b/c of all the fat slobs that only shop in the market). They think “new money” is anything newer than the Spanish American War.
Keith
February 28th, 2012
11:45 am
Upstate:
Fair play regarding the old money argument. However, my argument still has merit that the Charleston METRO, is functioning just fine.
Tea Party Hobbit
February 28th, 2012
11:57 am
Upstate: having lived in Charleston, the real problem in SC is Columbia. It would be like letting Macon run the state of Georgia. While Charlestonians are proud of their history, they recognize the need to move forward, but are constantly hamstrung by a bunch of people stuck running the state from its armpit (I am referring to the weather there, but other similarities apply!)
Mark
February 28th, 2012
12:13 pm
There is so much wrong information in these comments, it’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad. I wish I had time to debunk them all. My favorites are:
“The port has been dredged before and no harm came to it.”
And any of the ‘Atlantan’ ones. When you have people like that spewing nonsense, it’s no wonder people hate Atlanta. And I say that as a proud resident of the city for over a decade.
Mark
February 28th, 2012
12:30 pm
@Pete – “Trying to say “project will deplete dissolved oxygen in the already impaired river, destroying habitat of endangered fish and hundreds of acres of fragile freshwater marsh” is easily seen as a bogus excuse.”
The state of Georgia disagrees with you. They readily acknowledge that dredging will deplete oxygen and destroy marsh. The state will try to convince you that they will mitigate the damage. But by definition, if you push mitigation, you acknowledge there is damaged to be fixed.
Next.
Mark
February 28th, 2012
12:40 pm
@Big Wheel – “Here is the rub on this whole thing, the federal government recently did a study on all ports both existing and planned to see where they should spend federal money to accomodate the larger ships coming through the Panama Canal. That study clearly marked Savannah as a target port for deepening. Charleston was much less desireable per the criteria, mainly due to transportation issues.”
That is absolutely untrue. The study you are talking about only looks at the Savannah port in a vacuum. What it doesn’t do is look at the entire Eastern coast and see what ports will give us the best bang for the buck. Why should the US taxpayer pay for Savannah when they can pay LESS and get MORE with other ports?
I cannot believe people would even make this stuff up.
David
February 28th, 2012
12:41 pm
Wow a politician who is not using gimmics to gain votes. Yes as governer she should look out for her own state; however the way to look out for your own interests is not to prevent someone from looking out for their interests. Go back deepen your own harbor and compete.
Dubya
February 28th, 2012
12:45 pm
Ha! Now Savannah can move more empty containers in and out of the port to claim the large volume of trade that they always have since 2008… lol. Empty containers…. Only the ILA is benefitting from that…. Must be nice.
The State of Georgia Sucks!
February 28th, 2012
1:06 pm
@ ash. Actually I have. You must not have traveled around SC. Greenville, SC is in the top 10 places to live in the United States. Open your eyes. And Charleston is a historical Landmark. Open your eyes.
peachie
February 28th, 2012
1:07 pm
For some background read this
USA today 9/30/11
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-09-30/ports-bigger-ships/50637090/1
Mark
February 28th, 2012
1:15 pm
@Durden – “You mean a politician decided to take into account what’s best for the nation and not just for their immediate constituents?”
You couldn’t be further from the mark. Haley is looking our for herself and nothing more. Not only is she leaving her own constituents out to dry, she is doing a disservice to the nation.
“WOW! Amazing! Savannah is a more developed port and offers easier entrance and access. Its the one that needs to be dredged.”
Do you know anything about either ports? Let’s get some facts straight.
Savannah – To dredge 36 miles to 48 feet will cost about $700 million
Charleston – To dredge to 50 feet will cost $300-400 million. Plus, very little of that distance is in a fresh water river.
While Savannah handles more cargo, you’re an idiot to call it more developed. Charleston has always had the ability to handle larger ships. And to say it has better access is a joke. Charleston has certain terminals that have DIRECT access to open ocean. Savannah has nothing remotely similar to that. Plus, in our plan, we only get a single, ONE WAY 48 foot channel. They will get a DUAL WAY 50 foot channel. How does that mean Savannah has better access???
Mark
February 28th, 2012
1:26 pm
In recap:
The Federal government ends up paying for about 50% of these projects. As such, they should pick the ones that serve the nation the best – getting the most for our money. I don’t give a flip if it’s Savannah, Charleston, JAX, Miami, NYC…..etc. What I do know is:
We can spend $600 to $700 million dredging the Savannah river to a depth of 48 feet and get a one ship wide channel. The problem is the largest ships need 50 feet.
We could instead spend $300 to $400 million to dredge the Charleston Harbor/Wando River/Cooper River to 50 feet and get dual access and cause less damage to the environment.
It saddens me to realize this, but sometimes infrastructure projects are just better served by going to other areas.
SouthernLaw
February 28th, 2012
1:39 pm
Governor Haley’s position is actually the correct one because she is well aware that SC’s position on expanding the Savannah Port is a losing one. I don’t care what SC’s state agencies have to say on the subject of construction because ultimately it is a Federal matter since it involves a navigable waterway used for not only interstate but international commerce…..which means whatever is good for the country is good for the port….here’s a little quote from the above references USA Today article on that point “It typically takes about 10 years from the beginning of the study phase to a decision on such projects — essentially, approval from FOUR FEDERAL AGENCIES, the secretaries of Commerce, Interior and the Army, and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to begin construction. Some frustrated officials here gripe that this is one of the longest-studied federal projects in history.” Funny, SC’s puny legislator is mentioned in there at all. But hey keep tilting at windmills SC legislator cause all politics is local politics.
SouthernLaw
February 28th, 2012
1:40 pm
Correction: Funny, SC’s puny legislator isn’t mentioned in there at all.
honested
February 28th, 2012
2:02 pm
southern law,
A better statement might be ‘gov. haley’s position on expanding the port would be to accept that expanding Charleston is a better idea, no matter how much campaign cash she might receive to achieve the impossible in Savannah.’.
Mark
February 28th, 2012
2:15 pm
@SouthernLaw
Jokes on you dude. Sure, they need approval from four Federal Agencies. And the law doesn’t explicitly say they need approval from SC.
But because most of the damage from the dredging will occur in SC wetlands and they want to dump the potentially toxic sludge on the SC side of the river, they need a SC permit. If GA wanted to dredge in the middle of the state, they could. But because the river is shared and because they want to dump the waste in SC the Corps needs SC on board.
Of course, this will go to trial and the courts will decide in the end, but only if the COE wants to try the heavy handed approach.
SouthernLaw
February 28th, 2012
2:29 pm
Honested,
Your statement is based on Politics and Economic arguments, her actions were based on the law, as in Constitutional law. What the SC state legislators did was political posturing for its constituents, PERIOD. You bring that before a Federal Court, because BTW that is where this little dispute is headed, and it will mean jack-squat! It will be the four FEDERAL agencies mentioned in the article who make the decision on who gets what, and when.
Maybe Mark’s comments above are right, and the Corp of Engineers will decide the better water access is in Charleston, or maybe the Secretary of Commerce likes the Interstate and Rail access to Savannah better for product distribution purposes, or hell, maybe the Department of Defense doesn’t want increased commercial access clogging up its access to their SC military bases, or better yet, maybe the Federal Govt has already spent the better part of a Billion dollars on developing the infrastructure in Savannah and doesn’t feel like doubling down on a new location.
At the end of the day, none of those things are decided by the SC State legislator, Are they?
If Charleston is the better place, then fine, follow the procedures in place for making your case, harass / sale it to the right people, do a different study that contradicts the EPA and Corp of Engineers, but don’t make BS laws (retroactive btw) trying to solidify a weak position, that won’t hold-up to Court scrutiny.
SouthernLaw
February 28th, 2012
2:36 pm
@Mark,
SC actions in this matter will already land this thing in Federal Court where it will be slapped down. I honestly don’t think Haley is taking money/donations on this one, I think she just sees the writing on the wall. Which is that this is simply the wrong tact to take on trying to get the Corp to dredge the Charleston Harbor BEFORE they dredge the Savannah river. But hey, SC has never been above embarrassing itself in the past. I guess we will see everybody in Atlanta before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals!
honested
February 28th, 2012
3:00 pm
southern law,
Then let it end up in court.
Maybe the 11th Circuit will suggest or demand cooperation from the Corps to develop a plan for largest tonnage per dollar spent (and least environmental remediation per ton) rather than the current ad-hoc fiefdom approach currently used. (Imagine that, a broad based examination to determine the BEST location for port infrastructure development providing the taxpayers with the beat use of Federal and State funds, what a concept.).
In any case, channeling 38 miles to have a one-lane access for ships that will not be delivering any MORE cargo only using FEWER ships at taxpayer expense doesn’t make a lick of sense. (Well maybe to sonny it did, but go fish.)
honested
February 28th, 2012
3:01 pm
TYPO should have been ‘best use of Federal and State funds’.
Atlantan
February 28th, 2012
3:36 pm
@Mark be honest – you hate the Koch brothers…. SC doesn’t give a crap about the river they give a crap about Charleston becoming a bigger port and will do what they can to stop Savannah from expanding. If Alabama and FL really gave a crap about the water resources they’d be actively doing whatever they can to control water use in their respective states. In the deep drought in 2008 they didn’t to my knowledge.
Atlanta isn’t perfect by any means and neither is GA, but as a long-time resident of the state, the city and my knowledge of the south I speak the truth. It is sad you cannot handle it. Maybe you should get out of Atlanta more. Trust me outside of 285 and definitely outside of the metro area there is no love lost for this great city and the growth / business success it has had.