On March 1, New Jersey governor Chris Christie joined in with other New Jersey lawmakers, namely U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews and State Senate Pres. Stephen Sweeney in publicly opposing the Army Corps of Engineers plan to deepen the Delaware River's shipping channel.

 

The lawsuit challenging the project originated in New Jersey, but the Corps of Engineers successfully lobbied to have the suit transferred to U.S. District Court in Delaware. In January a federal judge gave approval to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to start the "deepening program that will eventually allow larger cargo ships to make their way into the port of Philadelphia."

 

The project has found enemies in both New Jersey and Delaware. In coming out to oppose the project publicly, Gov. Chris Christie stated "the Army Corps of Engineers expects South Jersey to bear the economic burden for a project that doesn't make economic sense." The project would stir up millions of tons of sediment, and Christie made it perfectly clear on March 1 that he believes the project will "wreak havoc on the river's ecosystem and expose South Jersey to contamination from 16 million tons of dredging 'spoils' to be dumped at seven federally owned depots in Salem and Gloucester counties." In addition, top environmental leaders standing with Christie raised the prospect of the potential for salt water seeping into drinking water supplies as a result of the project.

 

Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper spokesperson, says the Army Corps hasn't addressed their concerns. Steve Mars, a senior biologist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has joined in expressing some concern. "One concern is how the dredge might impact horseshoe crabs," crabs that are common along the Delaware coast and play an important role in the ecology of the Delaware Bay. Their eggs feed the recently threatened red knot shorebird.

 

Diane Kreeger, the science director for the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, worries that removing sediment could harm salt marshes and flood control. "We've learned lessons from the mouth of the Mississippi [River] from Katrina where the same sort of effect has happened. And that's been one of the major reasons why wetlands have been some catastrophic losses down there."

 

The Army Corps of Engineers has been providing a study it conducted about the ecological damage (or lack thereof) that the project would cause. However, many consider the information out-of-date and useless, because "the Army Corps, however, has not updated studies of the project's potential impacts on the river and its wetlands, fish and wildlife in more than a dozen years. It has also failed to provide alternatives to disposing sediments in South Jersey."

 

Lost in all of this legal controversy are the potential economic benefits to Philadelphia resulting from the project. Many in Philadelphia support the project, and according to Philadelphia Regional Port Authority Spokesman Bill McLaughlin the project is "great news for tens of thousands of families in the Philadelphia area whose livelihoods and future livelihoods will depend on our Delaware River ports."

 

This whole situation seems like it could be much more easily resolved if the Army Corps of Engineers agreed to perform another comprehensive study with new and better technological equipment. However, the fact that the Corps has not performed the study after years of hearing calls for it begs the ultimate question. Is the Army Corps of Engineers afraid of what a new study would find?