Erosion Draws Funds From Congress

WASHINGTON – The federal government spends millions of dollars a year dredging the Savannah River shipping channel that leads into the city’s harbor.

Now it is set to spend more than $6.3 million to fix erosion at nearby Tybee Island beaches – damage caused primarily by the dredging.

The Savannah harbor is one of the largest in the country, and few argue that the Army Corps of Engineers should suddenly stop clearing the channel that guides container ships to port. But critics say the domino-effect spending, which is ultimately directed by Congress, shows the dangers of trying to battle forces of nature.

“The more we engineer solutions to problems, the more engineering that’s required to correct the problems we cause by the first engineering,” said Frank Carl, the executive director of Savannah Riverkeeper, a nonprofit group that works to protect the river. “We just keep digging that hole deeper.”

The money to restore Tybee’s beaches was in a massive spending bill that Congress sent to President Bush last week. It was inserted by Rep. Jack Kingston, who represents the Savannah area, and Sens. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss.

THE ISLAND SITS at the mouth of the harbor channel, and city officials have long argued that the dredging wreaks havoc on the beaches. The corps confirmed that assessment in a study released in September showing that 70 percent to 80 percent of the erosion could be attributed to the channel work.

The problem is that sand that normally drifts south toward the island gets caught in the shipping channel and never makes it to Tybee, officials said.

The agency is exploring ways to reduce the impact of the dredging, including by dumping sand near the Tybee shore in hopes that it would gradually drift to the beach, said corps spokesman Billy Birdwell.

But Will Berson, a coastal policy analyst with the Georgia Conservancy, said the corps’ options are limited. Renourishment – adding tons of sand to the beach – might be the only way to preserve it, he said.

And although he compared the process to trying to “hold back the sea,” he said a case can be made to do it in this situation.

“As an environmentalist, you could definitely look at it as wasteful spending … but they dug the channel a long time ago and only now are we piecing together the way these things work,” Mr. Berson said. “In a sense the damage was done. It totally underscores the idea that it’s not wise to fool with Mother Nature.”

THE CORPS SPENDS about $12 million a year on routine dredging in the channel and the harbor, Mr. Birdwell said. While shippers pay fees to the state for using the port, the navigation project is entirely funded by federal taxpayers.

Mr. Carl said beach erosion is just one of the negative side- effects of dredging.

Other costs include the encroachment of saltwater into delicate freshwater wetlands and a general degradation of the river habitat.

“I really don’t think John Q. Public should accept that bill,” he said.

Mr. Kingston, a Republican, said he was open to new cost-sharing proposals. But he said the economic benefits the port brings to the area outweigh the costs.

According to the state ports authority, Georgia’s deep-water ports and inland barge terminals support more than 286,476 jobs and contribute $2.8 billion in taxes.

Mr. Kingston said the beach funding might become part of the cost of doing business in the harbor, noting that he plans to link money for channel dredging and Tybee beach protection in future spending bills.

“I think man is inextricably intertwined with the river and the beach at this point,” he said. “There’s no proposal to extract man from this situation, so hopefully this will help us figure out a better way and we can get a little smarter about it.”

Originally published by A ssociated Press.

(c) 2007 Augusta Chronicle, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.