Report Card for America's Infrastructure














NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS


As the world's leading maritime and trading nation, the United States relies on an efficient and effective marine transport system to maintain its role as a global power. More than 1,000 harbor channels and 25,000 miles of inland, intracoastal, and coastal waterways with 238 lock chambers serve over 300 ports with more than 3,700 terminals that handle passenger and cargo movements in the United States. The waterways and ports provide intermodal links to 152,000 miles of rail; 460,000 miles of pipelines; and 45,000 miles of interstate highways.

This navigable waterway system has improved our quality of life and has provided a foundation for the economic growth and development of the United States. Our flood control works, water transportation systems, and multi-purpose projects all contribute to our national prosperity. The benefits are realized as flood damages prevented, reduced transportation costs, and increased trade. For example:

  • Navigable channels provide efficient and economic corridors for moving a staggering 2.3 billion tons of the nation's domestic and foreign commerce.
  • For every $1 invested to improve navigation infrastructure, U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rises more than $3.
  • Flood control/protection, on average, prevents $22 billion in damages per year, saving $6 for every $1 spent.
  • Coastal projects protect 426 critically eroding miles of the nation's shoreline.

Unfortunately, in recent years, national investment in water resources projects has not kept pace with our level of economic and social expansion. Over the last 30 years the U.S. population has increased more than 40% while the GDP has grown from $2.5 to $7.5 trillion. Meanwhile, capital investment in public water resources infrastructure has decreased by 70%. For example in the 1970s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' civil works construction appropriations were in the $4 billion range. However, in the 1990s the funding dropped to an average of $1.6 billion a year. The combination of declining investment, coupled with an expanding population and economy, has created an "investment gap."

Currently the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports a backlog of over 500 active authorized projects with a Federal cost to complete these projects of about $38 billion. At the current levels of funding it would take 25 years to complete the active projects in the backlog without even considering additional project authorizations.

Demographers predict that over the next 20 years the population will grow by 50 million, to a total of 325 million, while over the next 10 years the GDP will grow to $12.5 trillion. Undoubtedly, such growth will place a greater demand on the performance of the navigable waterways infrastructure. Without significant new investment the size of the investment gap will widen, and the ability of our navigable waterways to provide the benefits we have come to expect as a society will be compromised.

Conditions

Half of the navigation locks on inland waterways are over 50 years of age. Many locks are undersized for modern commercial barge movements. Many deep-draft channels are undersized for the wider and deeper mega-container ships that are becoming standard for international cargo movements. There is currently a backlog of $9 billion of needed waterway improvements. In addition, a maintenance backlog of $238 million will be experienced in FY 2001, resulting in further unrepaired wear and tear on lock chambers and channels.

Nationwide, queuing delays at locks total some 550,000 hours annually, representing an estimated $385 million in increased operating costs borne by shippers, carriers, and, ultimately, consumers. Construction of new locks with additional capacity and major rehabilitation of older locks is essential to maintain the efficiency of the system.

According to the American Association of Port Authorities, more than 90% of the nation's top 50 ports in foreign waterborne commerce require regular maintenance dredging. These ports move approximately 93% of all U.S. waterborne commerce each year. If these ports are not dredged many port facilities and navigation channels will be non-navigable in less than a year.

According to a U.S. Department of Transportation report on intermodal freight connectors, connectors to ports, as opposed to other freight terminals, received the smallest level of funding and were found to be in the worst condition, having twice the percentage of mileage with pavement deficiencies when compared to non-interstate National Highway System routes.

Serious problems are likely if current levels of investment continue. Demands on the waterway system are expected to double by 2020, while the current system can barely accommodate current traffic levels. In the short term, service will be sustained; however, the aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance created by insufficient investment levels will result in degraded system performance, safety concerns, increased delays, higher transportation costs for goods and services, and negative impacts on GDP and employment.

Keys to improving the infrastructure regarding the navigable waterways are as follows:

  • Dredging and marking the harbor channels that connect U.S. ports to the world;
  • Modernizing locks and dams to regulate waterflow and facilitate commerce;
  • Improving marine terminal capacity and access to rails, roads, and pipelines; and
  • Minimizing conflicts among land uses along the waterfront and intermodal connections.

Flood Damage Reduction Infrastructure

The nation's flood control infrastructure consists of more than 400 major Federal dams and reservoirs, 8,500 miles of levees and dikes, and hundreds of smaller local flood protection projects. Since 1950, this infrastructure has prevented nearly $500 billion in riverine and coastal flood damage, returning nearly $6 in flood protection for every $1 invested, and preventing on average, $22 billion in flood damages annually.

The existing stock of Federal infrastructure is generally well maintained; however, unfunded, critical maintenance amounted to $82 million in FY 2001. In addition, over $15 billion of flood damage reduction infrastructure is awaiting construction, but has been postponed because of insufficient funding. This represents investments for needed major rehabilitations to existing projects, as well as new projects to service current needs.

The significant portion of the 100,000-panel flood map inventory maintained by Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) is outdated and may not accurately reflect flood prone conditions in the country. This is especially true in areas of rapid population growth where the flood plain can change with alterations to the original landscape resulting from new development. On average, $5 billion in flood damages occur each year, and the new construction of homes and infrastructure in the floodplains continues to increase.

The need exists for continued investment in flood prevention, including both structural and nonstructural approaches. It should be noted that flood control structures once designed to protect agricultural land now must also protect homes and industrial structures. Additionally, there is an urgent need to update flood hazard boundary maps and to identify flood hazards in unmapped areas.

Urban development in flood prone areas continues to increase by 1.5% - 2.5% per year. In addition, at-risk coastal areas are growing much more rapidly than other locations. In contrast to the increasing development in flood prone areas, investments in Flood Damage Reduction infrastructure have decreased by almost 70% in real terms over the past three decades. The combination of these two trends makes it likely that residual flood damages could increase substantially in the years ahead. For example, in the Highland Lakes area of central Texas, the number of structures located in the floodplain has increased over 180% during the last 10 years. Over $18 million in federal and local funding is estimated to be needed to provide engineering and mapping to accurately identify flood prone areas in this basin alone.

Policy Options

There has been a federal/port partnership involved in the development of our nation's port system for nearly 200 years. While the Federal government historically funded 100% of navigation channel improvements as well as maintenance, since 1986 the federal role of the partnership has been cost-sharing capital improvements to federal navigation channels.

U.S. public ports are varied, but generally act as semi-autonomous authorities. Local, statewide or regional ports are responsible for investment, development, and operation of marine terminal facilities. Ports are also responsible for dredging of berthing areas and access channels connecting the port facilities to federal navigation channels. In 1998, the cumulative local investment in port facilities was $1.5 billion. An additional $9.1 billion of non-federal investment is expected before 2002.

The U.S. Congress must address the funding issue for both Harbor and Inland Waterways financing. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Inland Waterway Infrastructure Trust Fund both have surpluses as of 2000. Congress should use all of the money that accumulates in both the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Inland Waterway Infrastructure Trust Fund and protect them from future abuse by removing them from the unified budget. Congress must also provide adequate funding on an on-going basis to address the $38 billion backlog of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorized projects.

Specific recommendations supported by ASCE:

  • A program of improvement and maintenance of ports, harbors, and waterways is essential to the economic and environmental well being of the nation.
  • Removal of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Inland Waterway Infrastructure Trust Fund from the unified federal budget.
  • Increased funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to relieve the $38 billion project backlog.
  • Funding of programs to mitigate the effects of natural disasters such as floods.
  • Support for both structural and non-structural floodplain management options, and encouraging the government to consider the value of each component in devising and funding flood mitigation programs.
  • Increased funding for FEMA's National Floodplain Mapping program.

Sources

  • U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT), An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System, 1999.
  • U.S. DOT, NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors, 2000.
  • U.S. DOT, Maritime Administration, Capital Expenditures for U.S. Shallow Draft Public Port Development, preliminary draft, 1999.
  • U.S. DOT, Maritime Administration, United States Port Development Expenditure Report, 2000.
  • U.S. General Accounting Office, Commercial Maritime Industry: Updated Information on Federal Assessments, GAO/RCED-99-260, 1999.
  • United States Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Hearing on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project Backlog and Mission, May 16, 2000.
  • United States House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Hearing on Harbor and Inland Waterways Financing, November 3, 1999.
  • United States House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Hearing on the Administration's Harbor Services User Fee and Harbor Services Fund Proposal, May 26, 1999.
  • "High Performance Public Works: A New Federal Infrastructure Strategy for America", U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, November 1993.
  • Concluding Report: Federal Infrastructure Strategy Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, January 1995.
  • United States Army Corps of Engineers.
  • ASCE Policy Statement 218 "Improvement and Maintenance of Ports, Harbors and Waterways," 1997.
  • ASCE Policy Statement 299 "Infrastructure Improvement Policy," 1999.
  • ASCE Policy Statement 324 "Infrastructure Financing," 2000.
  • ASCE Policy Statement 434 "Transportation Trust Funds," 2000.
  • ASCE Policy Statement 389 "Mitigating the Impacts of Natural Disasters," 1999.
  • ASCE Policy Statement 421 "Floodplain Management," 1998.
  • ASCE Policy Statement 440 "Infrastructure Investment," 1998.
  • ASCE Policy Statement 162 "Coastal and Offshore Development," 1998.