There are probably few people in Delaware who are unfamiliar with the years' long saga over the proposal to deepen the navigation channel of the Delaware River from its maintained depth of 40' to a depth of 45'. Supporters believe the project will make the ports along the Delaware River more competitive with other ports up and down the Atlantic seaboard. Those opposed to the project say the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project threatens endangered and threatened species; risks the millions spent in oyster rehabilitation in the River and those who rely upon their harvest; threatens drinking water intakes; reintroduces toxins and heavy metals into the River; harms wetlands important for habitat as well as flood and storm protection; increases the risk and harm from catastrophic oil spills; and threatens to harm a wide variety of critical ecosystems and species that are ecologically, recreationally, and economically important to our State and region.
In the 1800s, the controlling depth of the Delaware River was 18'. During World War II, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) deepened it to 40'. In 1983, Congress directed the Corps to examine the feasibility of dredging the channel to 45', removing 33,000,000 cubic yards of sediments from the Delaware River. Although a 'Feasibility Report' by the COE in 1987 concluded that the project was environmentally sound and economically justified, questions where raised about the integrity of the numbers. In 2002 and 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted their own economic reviews and found the project "flawed" and
" that the Corps overstated the project's benefits by 200 percent (the GAO found at most $13.3 million annual benefits vs. the Corps' $40.1 million), that the Corps' benefit cost analysis was based on invalid assumptions and outdated information, and that the Corps could not explain its own analysis and instead blamed $4.7 million of the differential on a computer error. GAO concludes that the Corps' analysis is so flawed that it can not provide a reliable basis for deciding whether to proceed with the project, and makes numerous recommendations for improving the Corps' analysis "
In 1992 the COE published an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) in 1997. The 1997 Supplemental EIS is based in part on data from the 1980s. Since then there have been many substantive changes to the proposed project, but no follow-up assessment of environmental consequences. For example, the Supplemental EIS analysis of environmental impacts is based on virtually all dredge spoils being deposited at specific locations in New Jersey - while current discussions between the Governors of Pennsylvania and New Jersey appear to be heading toward an agreement that no dredge spoils will end up in New Jersey .
After years of arguing over whether or not it actually needed Delaware State permits including a Subaqueous Lands Permit, a Wetlands Permit, Water Quality Certification, and Coastal Zone Consistency, the COE submitted an application to DNREC on January 19, 2001. Because of the overwhelming public response to DNREC's public notice for the project, a public hearing was convened on the evenings of December 4 & 5, 2001. There were 132 exhibits introduced at the hearing and in December 2003, the independent Hearing Officer submitted his 156 page report to DNREC's Secretary recommending that the permit be denied. In spite of a recommendation that the permit be denied including a list of 56 application deficiencies and in spite of an internal DNREC report that listed 21 deficiencies in the application, DNREC made no decision.
In 2008, due to the lack of response from DNREC regarding the COE's permit, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Delaware Audubon Society, and Delaware Nature Society filed a 'Writ of Mandamus' lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court on December 12, 2008 requesting that the Court order DNREC to act on the permit application. Opening briefs and answering briefs were filed and a decision was pending when incoming Secretary of DNREC Collin O'Mara issued a Secretary's Order on July 23, 2009 denying the permit application. Secretary O'Mara stated in the Order that the permit was being denied because,
"the passage of time and the changed estuary conditions make the original application stale and inaccurate" and that, "the Project has substantially changed from what is represented in the pending application, and those changes occurred after public notice of the application occurred".
In September 2009, the COE claimed they did not need a State permit to conduct dredging and prepared to begin the project without the consent of Delaware and New Jersey. In November, the State of Delaware, State of New Jersey, and a group of five local, regional, and national environmental organizations led by Delaware Riverkeeper and including National Wildlife Federation, Clean Water Action (PA), the New Jersey Environmental Federation, and Delaware Nature Society sought initial court action intended to ensure state oversight of the project, to require review of the environmental process vs. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, and to provide a greater framework for mitigation in the event of environmental harm. The litigation is still pending.
The entities also asked the Delaware court to prevent the Corps from initiating deepening until the above court action was completed. On January 27, 2010, Judge Robinson ruled that deepening could proceed in Reach C, encompassing about half of the 25 river miles exclusively in Delaware waters - but not elsewhere until she ruled further. On February 8, 2010, the 5 environmental organizations filed an appeal to Judge Robinson's decision and are currently waiting a decision.
--------------------------
- 2006 NWF Corp Reform Analysis of Army of Engineers
- Deepening White Paper by Richard Fleming
