The Future of Great Lakes Commerce is at hand

Will the Great Lakes navigation system continue to be a viable U.S. and Canadian trade artery 20 years from now. Forty years? Sixty?

Is the St. Lawrence Seaway still competitive as a conveyor of international commerce? If not, why not?

How significant are the lock sizes and channel depths? Is expansion feasible? To what size? At what cost?

Or, if the lakes and Seaway are still competitive, what needs to be done to keep them that way? What are the most important long-term maintenance issues?

In the past quarter century or so — as most of the world's general cargo has been captured by containers and as more and more bulk cargo has been carried by ever-bigger ships — a lot of unresolved questions have been raised about Great Lakes shipping.

The main squeeze The Canadian Laker Algocen transits the Eisenhower Lock in Massena, New York.

Until now, potential answers have been relegated to personal theories and back-of-the-envelope ideas that surface from time to time in conferences, seminars, board meetings and trade magazine editorials. Absent sophisticated analysis, they usually advance about as far as the nearest bar room or coffee shop.

An opportunity is at hand, however, that could finally generate a blueprint for the future of North America's only binational transportation system.

Provided the U.S. and Canadian governments reach agreement on cost-sharing, a five-year, $20 million Great Lakes Navigation Study could begin as early as next year to develop economic, environmental and engineering recommendations for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway locks, connecting channels and harbors.

Preliminary work was completed this year when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released the draft results of a two-year reconnaissance study that concluded there is merit in advancing to the in-depth, five-year feasibility analysis. The Corps' recommendations have been endorsed by the Great Lakes Commission, the International Association of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors, the Canadian-U.S. Chamber of Maritime Commerce, the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, the Lake Carriers' Association, the American Great Lakes Ports and others.

The most critical element awaiting resolution is a firm commitment by the Canadian government for cost-sharing. A 1986 U.S. law requires a 50 percent non-federal share for navigational improvement studies and, given that 13 of the 15 Seaway locks are owned and operated by Canada, the Canadians are considered full and essential partners in the endeavor.

"Without full Canadian participation in both the analysis and the funding, this would be a hollow exercise," said Duluth Port Director Davis Helberg. "It doesn't make sense to think there could be a meaningful examination of just one side of what is truly a binational waterway.

"We [the U.S. and Canada] certainly have parallel interests and objectives in providing the best possible transportation services to our nations' farmers, miners and manufacturers — to say nothing about the direct and spinoff jobs dependent on our ports and inland carriers."

The Walter J. McCarthy Jr. works her way through the Soo Locks.

Meanwhile, some environmental organizations have launched lobbying and letter-writing campaigns in opposition to the study, contending that Seaway commerce is passé and that the money should be spent instead on environmental projects.

"I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the effort to kill a feasibility study — a study, mind you — that's heavily geared toward environmental issues," Helberg said. "From Day One, virtually everyone involved has bent over backwards to be keenly sensitive to environmental considerations, and the size, scope and cost of the study are clear reflections of that reality. In fact, the Corps of Engineers has already held several meetings with environmental groups.

"Regrettably, some groups are employing all manner of distortion, deception and inaccuracy in their portrayal of both the navigation system and the study. The irony is that compared with highways and railroads, the waterborne carriage of goods is by far the most environmentally benign. Folks concerned about the environment should be supporting Great Lakes shipping, not trying to kill it.

"Maybe people haven't thought this through, but as North American and world economies expand, cargo will move — one way or another."

The 200-plus million tons of cargo now shipped through the Great Lakes are said to generate about $5 billion annually in economic impact, including $3.4 billion in the U.S. The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation says about $1.3 billion in U.S., state and local taxes was realized from lakes shipping last year along with some 150,000 U.S. jobs.

In a recent letter by the American Great Lakes Ports, the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force and the Lake Carriers' Association, Great Lakes Congressional representatives were reminded that "the federal government has a responsibility to manage taxpayer investment in infrastructure. Such management includes planning for future needs.

"The U.S. and Canadian governments (as well as the private sector) have invested billions of dollars in the existing Great Lakes navigation system," the letter continued. "Planning is expected of those who manage our highways, transit systems and airports. Why would we treat our navigation systems any different?"

At press time for this magazine, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water had approved $2 million for the first year of the study, but a Canadian commitment was still pending.