Harbor Deepening: Federal Studies and Construction Projects
link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1 
Updated February 15, 2017
Harbor Deepening: Federal Studies and Construction Projects
Deep-draft coastal harbors handle a large volume of U.S.
Authorized Projects and Studies
imports and exports. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps maintains multiple harbors with depths greater
(Corps) is responsible for improving and maintaining
than 50 ft in some commercial channels: Seattle, Oakland,
federal navigation channels. An issue for Congress is that
Los Angeles, and Long Beach on the West Coast, and some
demand for the Corps to deepen harbors outpaces what the
channels of the New York and New Jersey Harbor,
agency delivers at recent funding levels.
Baltimore, Norfolk, and Miami on the East Coast. Other
harbors are being studied for deepening (Table 1) or have
Demand for Deeper Harbors
been authorized for deepening (Table 2). Federal funding is
The potential for more goods to be transported by larger
being used in early FY2017 for the deepening of the
vessels has led many ports and communities on the East
Delaware River Main Channel to 45 ft and of Savannah
Coast and the Gulf of Mexico to pursue Corps harbor-
Harbor to 47 ft. Congress authorized eight other projects for
deepening projects. Several ports on the U.S. West Coast
depths of 45 ft or more in 2014 and in late 2016. Table 2
already have depths of more than 50 feet (ft). Some West
shows that the majority of these projects have yet to receive
Coast harbors are naturally deep; they typically require less
federal construction funds.
effort to create and maintain their channels than other
harbors. Following the opening of the expanded Panama
Table 1. Studies for Deepening to 45 Feet or More
Canal in 2016, larger vessels with deeper drafts (i.e., up to
Studied Change in
50 ft) are able to transit the canal under normal operating
Authorized Studies
Depth (feet)
conditions. The expanded canal provides a route for deeper-
Houston-Galveston System, TX
40 to 45
draft vessels to move between Asia and U.S. harbors on the
East Coast and Gulf of Mexico. Questions remain regarding
Manatee Harbor, FL
40 to 45
how U.S. trade responds to larger vessels, the Panama
Mobile Harbor, AL
45 to 55
Canal expansion, congestion at West Coast harbors, and the
Port of Beaumont, TX
40 to 48
dynamics of markets for shipped goods. Changes in
Mississippi R. Ship Channel, LA
45 to 50
shipping patterns and volumes remain difficult to predict.
For example, some ports handle specific types of
Norfolk Harbor, VA
50 to 55
commercial traffic (e.g., petroleum tankers). Also, shipping
San Juan Harbor, PR
35 to 50
patterns are shaped by the competitiveness of alternative
Seattle Harbor, WA
51 to 55
transportation means, such as transport by transcontinental
Source: CRS using Corps project data. Portions of the Houston-
railroad. These and other factors make it difficult to
Galveston System are already at 45 feet.
anticipate where and when the nation would most benefit
from deepening specific harbors.
Table 2. Authorized Corps Construction Projects for Harbor Deepening to 45 Feet or More
FY2016
FY2017
Existing to
Year of
Construction
Project Name
Work Plan
Request
Improved
Author-
Cost
Benefit-
& Location
(millions)
(millions)
Depth (feet)
ization
(millions)
Cost Ratio
Delaware River Main Channel,
$22
$3
40 to 45
2000
$389
1.3
NJ, PA, and DE
Savannah Harbor, GA
$45
$42
42 to 47
2014
$703
5.5
Freeport Harbor, TX
—
—
46 to 56
2014
$239
1.9
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX
—
—
45 to 54
2014
$353
2.6
Boston Harbor, MA
—
—
40 to 51
2014
$311
7.2
Sabine Neches Waterway, TX
—
—
40 to 48
2014
$1,114
1.3
Jacksonville Harbor, FL
—
—
40 to 47
2014
$601
2.7
Brazos Island Harbor, TX
—
—
44 to 52
2016
$210
1.5
Charleston Harbor
—
—
45 to 52
2016
$503
3.9
Port Everglades
—
—
42 to 48
2016
$337
2.9
Sources: CRS using P.L. 114-322, P.L. 113-121, Corps FY2016 Work Plan, Corps FY2017 Budget Request, and Corps project documents.
Notes: Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) shown was the ratio used for purposes of congressional construction authorization. For more on use of BCRs
in Corps planning and budgeting, see CRS Report R44594, Discount Rates in the Economic Evaluation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2
Harbor Deepening: Federal Studies and Construction Projects
Federal Funding
In 2014, Congress in the Water Resources Reform and
From FY2011 to FY2016, federal spending on all coastal
Development Act (WRRDA 2014, P.L. 113-121) expanded
navigation construction (including deepening) annually
opportunities for nonfederal construction and financing of
averaged $146 million. In FY2015 and FY2016, federal
navigation improvements. If the cost of the nonfederal work
funding for operation and maintenance (O&M) increased
or the nonfederal funding exceeds the required nonfederal
relative to earlier fiscal years (Figure 1). Recently, both
cost share, the Corps is authorized to credit the excess or to
federal harbor construction and O&M funding have
reimburse the nonfederal sponsor subject to the availability
followed a trend of being more concentrated on a few
of appropriations. WRRDA 2014 did not change the federal
activities, rather than smaller amounts distributed broadly.
financial commitment to construct; instead, it altered how
that commitment may be met. Some nonfederal sponsors of
Figure 1. Appropriations for Corps Coastal Navigation
deepening projects have used these authorities to expedite
Construction and Operations & Maintenance (O&M)
work on their projects. No publicly available documents
track nonfederal spending on navigation projects eligible
for federal reimbursement.
Congressional Considerations
Policymakers are faced with a fiscal context that makes for
an uncertain path forward for a number of deepening
projects. Categories of policy options include the following:
Status Quo. Maintain the status quo on authorizing
studies, construction, cost shares, reimbursements, and
federal appropriations.
Federal Funding Plan. Develop a federal spending
Source: CRS using data provided from Corps.
framework for the suite of deepening projects. The
framework may reduce uncertainty over how federal
Construction costs for harbor projects are split between the
construction appropriations are likely to be used.
federal government and nonfederal project sponsors. The
split depends on the depth of the harbor improvement
Increase Project Delivery. Options include increasing
recommended by the Corps (Table 3). Federal funds for
the federal funding available, decreasing the federal cost
construction come from the General Fund of the U.S.
share, and increasing the level of private investment
Treasury, whereas O&M is wholly or partially funded from
through public-private partnerships and alternative
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF; Table 3). The
financing.
HMTF is funded from tax revenues from waterborne cargo
imports and cruise ship passengers at federally maintained
Projects deepening beyond 45 ft involve many of the
ports. Congress appropriates the funds for both construction
nation’s largest ports. In contrast, ongoing discussions
and O&M, typically as discretionary spending through
about the future of the HMTF are not only about larger
annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts.
ports but also about maintenance of smaller, shallower, and
Table 3. Construction and O&M Cost Shares for
more remote harbors, which often are used for fishing and
Coastal Navigation Improvements
other local industry, commuting or other access, and
recreation. Another issue that may influence the level of
Max. Federal
support or opposition for specific harbor-deepening projects
Improvement Depth
Cost Share
is their impact on sensitive coastal ecosystems and the
(in feet)
(source of funds)
challenges of mitigating those impacts.
Const.
20-50
65% (GF)
Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Const.
Deeper than 50
40% (GF)
IF10455
O&M
Less than 50
100% (HMTF)
O&M
Deeper than 50
50% (HMTF)
Source: CRS using 33 U.S.C. §2211 and P.L. 114-322.
Notes: P.L. 114-322 increased the federal construction costs
between 45 ft and 50 ft from 40% to 65% inclusive of contracts
awarded after June 10, 2014. GF = General Fund of the U.S.
Treasury; HMTF = Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Harbor Deepening: Federal Studies and Construction Projects
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10455 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
Updated February 15, 2017
Harbor Deepening: Federal Studies and Construction Projects
Deep-draft coastal harbors handle a large volume of U.S.
Authorized Projects and Studies
imports and exports. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps maintains multiple harbors with depths greater
(Corps) is responsible for improving and maintaining
than 50 ft in some commercial channels: Seattle, Oakland,
federal navigation channels. An issue for Congress is that
Los Angeles, and Long Beach on the West Coast, and some
demand for the Corps to deepen harbors outpaces what the
channels of the New York and New Jersey Harbor,
agency delivers at recent funding levels.
Baltimore, Norfolk, and Miami on the East Coast. Other
harbors are being studied for deepening (Table 1) or have
Demand for Deeper Harbors
been authorized for deepening (Table 2). Federal funding is
The potential for more goods to be transported by larger
being used in early FY2017 for the deepening of the
vessels has led many ports and communities on the East
Delaware River Main Channel to 45 ft and of Savannah
Coast and the Gulf of Mexico to pursue Corps harbor-
Harbor to 47 ft. Congress authorized eight other projects for
deepening projects. Several ports on the U.S. West Coast
depths of 45 ft or more in 2014 and in late 2016. Table 2
already have depths of more than 50 feet (ft). Some West
shows that the majority of these projects have yet to receive
Coast harbors are naturally deep; they typically require less
federal construction funds.
effort to create and maintain their channels than other
harbors. Following the opening of the expanded Panama
Table 1. Studies for Deepening to 45 Feet or More
Canal in 2016, larger vessels with deeper drafts (i.e., up to
Studied Change in
50 ft) are able to transit the canal under normal operating
Authorized Studies
Depth (feet)
conditions. The expanded canal provides a route for deeper-
Houston-Galveston System, TX
40 to 45
draft vessels to move between Asia and U.S. harbors on the
East Coast and Gulf of Mexico. Questions remain regarding
Manatee Harbor, FL
40 to 45
how U.S. trade responds to larger vessels, the Panama
Mobile Harbor, AL
45 to 55
Canal expansion, congestion at West Coast harbors, and the
Port of Beaumont, TX
40 to 48
dynamics of markets for shipped goods. Changes in
Mississippi R. Ship Channel, LA
45 to 50
shipping patterns and volumes remain difficult to predict.
For example, some ports handle specific types of
Norfolk Harbor, VA
50 to 55
commercial traffic (e.g., petroleum tankers). Also, shipping
San Juan Harbor, PR
35 to 50
patterns are shaped by the competitiveness of alternative
Seattle Harbor, WA
51 to 55
transportation means, such as transport by transcontinental
Source: CRS using Corps project data. Portions of the Houston-
railroad. These and other factors make it difficult to
Galveston System are already at 45 feet.
anticipate where and when the nation would most benefit
from deepening specific harbors.
Table 2. Authorized Corps Construction Projects for Harbor Deepening to 45 Feet or More
FY2016
FY2017
Existing to
Year of
Construction
Project Name
Work Plan
Request
Improved
Author-
Cost
Benefit-
& Location
(millions)
(millions)
Depth (feet)
ization
(millions)
Cost Ratio
Delaware River Main Channel,
$22
$3
40 to 45
2000
$389
1.3
NJ, PA, and DE
Savannah Harbor, GA
$45
$42
42 to 47
2014
$703
5.5
Freeport Harbor, TX
—
—
46 to 56
2014
$239
1.9
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX
—
—
45 to 54
2014
$353
2.6
Boston Harbor, MA
—
—
40 to 51
2014
$311
7.2
Sabine Neches Waterway, TX
—
—
40 to 48
2014
$1,114
1.3
Jacksonville Harbor, FL
—
—
40 to 47
2014
$601
2.7
Brazos Island Harbor, TX
—
—
44 to 52
2016
$210
1.5
Charleston Harbor
—
—
45 to 52
2016
$503
3.9
Port Everglades
—
—
42 to 48
2016
$337
2.9
Sources: CRS using P.L. 114-322, P.L. 113-121, Corps FY2016 Work Plan, Corps FY2017 Budget Request, and Corps project documents.
Notes: Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) shown was the ratio used for purposes of congressional construction authorization. For more on use of BCRs
in Corps planning and budgeting, see CRS Report R44594, Discount Rates in the Economic Evaluation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2
Harbor Deepening: Federal Studies and Construction Projects
Federal Funding
In 2014, Congress in the Water Resources Reform and
From FY2011 to FY2016, federal spending on all coastal
Development Act (WRRDA 2014, P.L. 113-121) expanded
navigation construction (including deepening) annually
opportunities for nonfederal construction and financing of
averaged $146 million. In FY2015 and FY2016, federal
navigation improvements. If the cost of the nonfederal work
funding for operation and maintenance (O&M) increased
or the nonfederal funding exceeds the required nonfederal
relative to earlier fiscal years (Figure 1). Recently, both
cost share, the Corps is authorized to credit the excess or to
federal harbor construction and O&M funding have
reimburse the nonfederal sponsor subject to the availability
followed a trend of being more concentrated on a few
of appropriations. WRRDA 2014 did not change the federal
activities, rather than smaller amounts distributed broadly.
financial commitment to construct; instead, it altered how
that commitment may be met. Some nonfederal sponsors of
Figure 1. Appropriations for Corps Coastal Navigation
deepening projects have used these authorities to expedite
Construction and Operations & Maintenance (O&M)
work on their projects. No publicly available documents
track nonfederal spending on navigation projects eligible
for federal reimbursement.
Congressional Considerations
Policymakers are faced with a fiscal context that makes for
an uncertain path forward for a number of deepening
projects. Categories of policy options include the following:
Status Quo. Maintain the status quo on authorizing
studies, construction, cost shares, reimbursements, and
federal appropriations.
Federal Funding Plan. Develop a federal spending
Source: CRS using data provided from Corps.
framework for the suite of deepening projects. The
framework may reduce uncertainty over how federal
Construction costs for harbor projects are split between the
construction appropriations are likely to be used.
federal government and nonfederal project sponsors. The
split depends on the depth of the harbor improvement
Increase Project Delivery. Options include increasing
recommended by the Corps (Table 3). Federal funds for
the federal funding available, decreasing the federal cost
construction come from the General Fund of the U.S.
share, and increasing the level of private investment
Treasury, whereas O&M is wholly or partially funded from
through public-private partnerships and alternative
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF; Table 3). The
financing.
HMTF is funded from tax revenues from waterborne cargo
imports and cruise ship passengers at federally maintained
Projects deepening beyond 45 ft involve many of the
ports. Congress appropriates the funds for both construction
nation’s largest ports. In contrast, ongoing discussions
and O&M, typically as discretionary spending through
about the future of the HMTF are not only about larger
annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts.
ports but also about maintenance of smaller, shallower, and
Table 3. Construction and O&M Cost Shares for
more remote harbors, which often are used for fishing and
Coastal Navigation Improvements
other local industry, commuting or other access, and
recreation. Another issue that may influence the level of
Max. Federal
support or opposition for specific harbor-deepening projects
Improvement Depth
Cost Share
is their impact on sensitive coastal ecosystems and the
(in feet)
(source of funds)
challenges of mitigating those impacts.
Const.
20-50
65% (GF)
Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Const.
Deeper than 50
40% (GF)
IF10455
O&M
Less than 50
100% (HMTF)
O&M
Deeper than 50
50% (HMTF)
Source: CRS using 33 U.S.C. §2211 and P.L. 114-322.
Notes: P.L. 114-322 increased the federal construction costs
between 45 ft and 50 ft from 40% to 65% inclusive of contracts
awarded after June 10, 2014. GF = General Fund of the U.S.
Treasury; HMTF = Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Harbor Deepening: Federal Studies and Construction Projects
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10455 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED