a 
\ 
Pa 
Today three general policy objectives provide 
broad direction to most Federal governmental activ- 
ities relating to the marine transportation infrastruc- 
ture. First, Federal programs are intended to foster 
the development and maintenance of a safe, efficient, 
and reliable marine transportation system that can 
satist(-U.S-Toreign and domestic trade requirements 
and meet marine transportation demands in time 
of war_or other national emergency, Second, Federal 
programs have been traditionally designed to mini- 
mize interference with private, State, and local water 
transporation prerogatives and to impact without 
regional _discrimination. Finally, the increasing con- 
cern for environmental protection has led to a variet 
vironmental pro is 1ec Co a variety 
Ports and Harbors ¢ eo, sale Da 
The Federal policy of nondiscrimination with re- 
spect to U.S. port development finds its origins in 
Article 1, Section eromihe Consien  e 
vides, in part, that: “No preference shall be given by 
any regulation of commerce on revenue to the ports 
ii gre SES OUST MaRS Senay OCT 
discrimination provision reflects two interrelated 
views which have dominated Federal port policy 
throughout our history. First, it arises from the 
underlying philosophy that Federal involvement_in 
‘\_waterwa development and re sulation should be kept 
— 
i 
to a minimum—a philosophy consistent with pre- 
vailing views in early America relating to the im- 
portance ofUmposing strict limits on the powers of 
Government in all areas. Second, this provision re- 
flects the related view that whenever it is found 
necegsary for the Federal Government to undertake 
sary for the Federal Government to under 
any developmental or regulatory activity affecting 
ports, the economic impact of that activity should be 
$< — 
geographically uniform so as not to provide one 
State or area with any economic advantage over 
another. As major determinants of Federal port pol- 
icy, these two perspectives have significantly influ- 
enced the nature of port and harbor development in 
the United States. 
The other major consideration which has shaped 
U.S. port policy has been a consistent recognition of 
the interrelationships between transportation, eco- 
nomic development, and national security. As noted 
in the Introduction, the importance of efficient trans- 
portation to economic well-being and security has 
long been recognized, and throughout our history 
the port and waterway programs administered by the 
Federal Government have been justified in terms of _ 
their contributions to economic development and 
6 Henry S. Marcus et al. Federal Port Policy in the United 
States, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Transportation, 
June 1977. Much of the material contained in this section was 
derived from this recently published source. This study, spon- 
sored by the Department of Transportation, presents a detailed 
and comprehensive assessment of current U.S. port,policy and 
its origins. 
v-3 no 
of initiatives designed to minimize the adverse impact 
given to competing demands for the use of ocean 
and coastal resources. 
It is evident, of course, that these three general 
objectives may frequently conflict, necessitating some 
form of equitable compromise. As a consequence, au 
overriding Federal function in this area today must 
be to resolve these conflicts fairly by assuring that 
all three objectives receive full and systematic con- 
sideration in the formulation and execution of ma- 
rine transportation policy. 
J 
national security. The security imperative is, of 
course, reflected in the early placement of trans- 
portation civil works responsibilities in the Depart- 
ment of the Army. 2 
On the one hand, then, considerations of economic) 
develo S i i he majo 
justifications for Federal participation in port and 
waterway development, while the general policy of 
nondiscrimination and the philosophy of minimal 
Federal_interfe t er_and 
limit the scope of this Federal activity. It is within 
this philosophical environment that the current port 
policy system has emerged. 
For the most_part, Federal developmental activ- 
ities have been confined to dredging and general 
harbor and waterway improvement projects designed 
to expand and improve the overall navigability of the 
U.S. port and waterway system. Individual projects 
have been evaluated, using fairly consistent criteria 
established by the Congress and applied on a_case- 
by-case basis. Proposed projects have been required 
to be found economically feasible before final au- 
thorization. Traditionally, the Corps of Engineers 
has engaged in approved channel and harbor dredg- 
ing projects without cost to port and waterway inter- 
ests. 
With respect to shoreside port development, the 
philosophy of minimal Federal involvement has pre- 
vailed. Although some Federal planning and devel 
opmental assistance is provided and although certain 
Federal regulatory functions are performed, opera- 
tion and development of shoreside facilities, such as 
docks and warehouses, are activities which, by and 
large, have been left to private, State, and local 
interests. 
The net effect of this division of port development 
responsibility has been the evolution of a port sys- 
tem responsive primarily to local economic impera- 
tives rather than aggregate regional or national plan- 
ning considerations and physically characterized by 
fairly uniform vessel draft constraints. Sup orters of 
- 5 NG Eye 
wags ras 20) ox 
>y\e4,ar* 
weer pele 
co C 
\ncdt 
