Posted on 03/28/2024 8:52:21 AM PDT by Red Badger
The best time to repeal the Foreign Dredge Act was before the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed. The next best time to repeal it is right now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge figures to snarl traffic around Baltimore, but the bigger problem might be the downed bridge's effect on maritime activity.
Until the bridge's wreckage can be cleared away, the Port of Baltimore is cut off from the Chesapeake Bay, the Atlantic Ocean, and the global supply chains beyond. It remains unclear how long the port will be closed, but federal Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Wednesday that there could be a "long and difficult path" ahead.
In the meantime, trade flowing through the port will have to be redirected to other ports along the East Coast. That's a disruption that could mean higher costs and other complications—and it is a particularly acute issue for the roughly 15,000 workers who earn a living off the commerce that passes through Baltimore's port.
Clearly, there's every reason to make sure the port can be reopened as quickly as possible. Buttigieg acknowledged as much on Wednesday, and said the White House had given a "clear directive" to "tear down any barriers, bureaucratic as well as financial."
But Buttigieg stopped short of naming any specific federal regulations that might be waived to speed along the recovery efforts in Baltimore. Here's one that should go right to the top of the list: The Foreign Dredge Act of 1906.
The Foreign Dredge Act is an older cousin to the more well-known and infamous Jones Act, which bans foreign-built ships from moving goods between American ports. As a result, it drives up shipping prices to places to Puerto Rico and Hawaii, adds traffic to American highways, and leaves sizable parts of the country without access to natural gas.
Like the Jones Act, the Foreign Dredge Act is a purely protectionist law that forbids foreign-built dredges—vessels built to remove debris from waterways and to deepen and widen shipping channels—from operating in the U.S. Any foreign dredge caught doing work in American waters is subject to immediate forfeiture.
The law was originally meant to protect American dredge-building companies from foreign competition. More than a century later, however, the primary outcome of the Foreign Dredge Act has been severely curtailing the number of dredges available to do important work like removing the wreckage of the Key Bridge. Many that are in use are sub-standard compared to the rest of the world. The Army Corp of Engineers is still using dredges built in the 1930s, for example, while a recent study from Tulane University found that "the combined capacity of the U.S. [hopper dredge] fleet is less than a single EU [European Union] dredging vessel."
Being shielded from competition means American dredge-building companies haven't needed to keep up with developments made elsewhere in the world. Clearing away the debris and reopening the Port of Baltimore is likely to depend on outdated equipment, and will therefore likely take longer than it otherwise might.
Waiving the Foreign Dredge Act now might help in some small way—perhaps better dredges can be brought in from Canada or somewhere else nearby—but the collapse of the Key Bridge is a great reminder that we shouldn't wait until there's a crisis to start undoing bad laws. It would have been better to repeal the Foreign Dredge Act five or 10 or 50 years ago, so that America would already have access to the best dredging technology in the world.
When there's not a crisis, the Foreign Dredge Act is still a problem. It is one of the main reasons why American ports generally have smaller shipping channels and lower capacity than ports in other parts of the world. Those marginal costs might be easy for policymakers to ignore during normal times, but the closure of the Port of Baltimore should throw this problem into stark relief.
What happens next will be telling. Will the Biden administration follow through on its promise to sweep aside policies that will slow the recovery in Baltimore, or will it choose counterproductive protectionism over the interests of the East Coast's economy and 15,000 blue-collar workers?
How would better dredges help remove the wreckage?
Translation: The Democrat Party is eager to violate the law and waste enormous amounts of taxpayer funds in order to use this crisis to give the Party more power.
If anybody believes this mess will get cleaned up before next year, I have a slightly broken bridge to sell you.
While I disagree with these types of laws, the idea that they will slow efforts is silly.
First, they need to remove wreckage from the channel. Then they *may* need to dredge a portion of the channel. But I guarantee there are already dredges throughout the Bay.
It seems odd to me that someone would entertain writing this article, let alone publishing it.
The Jones Act and Foreign Dredge Act were established as national defense measures. The national security exposure the U.S. would face with foreign vessels and foreign crews operating in the country’s domestic waterways is obvious, and anyone in the media who doesn’t recognize this is either a moron or has a globalist agenda.
I would point out that these laws were passed before the U.S. had any states outside the contiguous area now defined as the Lower 48 states. I have long advocated some changes to these laws to provide exemptions for vessels that make port calls in states and territories that are separated from the U.S. mainland by open seas, but that’s the extent of what I’d be willing to change.
Cost just doubled or quadrupled
The "bad laws" at operation here are the regulations that make ship-building in the United States uneconomic.
Since there’s a question of Francis Scott Key having owned slaves, the bridge will likely be renamed.
I see “The George Floyd Bridge” in the running. Maybe Joe Biden, since he’d actually taken a train over it?
Before any rash actions are taken in the port, of course the first priority would be an extensive survey of the seabed floor to make sure no endangered species, including any possibly new species, would be impacted by recovery abd rebuilding operations. This process should only take a decade, at most. Concurrently, all entities planning to be with 10 miles of the port can file environmental, climate impact, and diversity/equity/inclusion statments detailing carbon emissions and how the white cisgender patriarchy is going to be dismantled by their activities.
All you have to do to see the financial effects is look at what BP had to do to compensate the Gulf Coast businesses and municipalities for their 2010 oil rig disaster. The insurance companies and shipping company will be paying out huge damages, not just for the bridge rebuild, but every business and worker affected by the incident........................................
Opening the port will harm the planet.
The debris will need to remain there forever.
lol
Buttboy is the wrong man like Scott for the cleaning of the bridge wreckage. This clown is more interested in racism and being woke, both of which will have no benefit for the city of Baltimore nor its people.
Because America has lost the knack for getting things done.
“How would better dredges help remove the wreckage?”
That was my first thought when I read this. I worked in a shipyard. We did a lot of work on dredges, Corps of Engineers and private. You ain’t gonna be sucking up bridge wreckage.
We put a man on the moon in 1969. Apparently that was our apex.
Sounds like a good law and the Republican Party should be filing Lawsuits as we speak to STOP the Rebuilding of this Bridge until and unless all Environmental Regulations are followed to the T, including a NEW Environmental Impact Report.
WHY?? Because that is what the Demonrats would do if the shoe was on the other foot.
The Republicans should sue to stop all commercial traffic on the river because some Indian tribe once used the river as a sacred place to pee.
Trump was working to onshore government purchases and doing a good job. Biden said that Trump was issuing too many waivers or excluding too many items, and that he could do it better. Biden only messed things up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.