Op co’ 
ORY 
I 
| 
Abs 
¥ . 
Smrieh requirements with emerging social objectives 
such as environmental protection and marine re- 
source use planning will continue to be a central 
national concern. While this process is likely to in- 
crease the controversy surrounding many marine 
transportation infrastructure initiatives, it, will also 
assure that the anticipated social and economic costs 
and benefits of these programs receive full consider- 
ation before action is taken. Although there is no 
guarantee that all consequences can be accurately 
predicted, and while valuation of many of the antic- 
ipated consequences will remain elusive, the identi- 
fication of as many of these consequences as possi- 
ble will increase the likelihood of sound decisions. 
-; A related although more specific issue will center 
On the continuing controversy surrounding the selec- 
tion of an appropriate discount rate for evaluating 
the economic—costs—and—benefits of future Federal 
’ water development projects. If proponents of a gen-~ 
D =~ 
Y 
erally higher discount rate prevail, the economic 
justification of many federal water transportation 
projects, which characteristically yield benefits well 
in the future, will become more difficult. Peeoru(U) 
ately, the discount rate problem is not simply a 
technical issue and political considerations will con- 
Bape tg ean the positions taken on this issue. 
o Probleths relating to infrastructure financing will 
continue to be issues of major concern at | at both the 
ue to de Issues Cl major concern at both t 
Federal and local levels. At the Federal level the u 
charge issue is likely to continue as a prominent 
A the water-competitive portions of the rail and 
‘yck industries as well. 
the local level, the problem of port financing 
( t 
OA te in the face of the increasing capital 
‘a 
intensity of many port facilities) will continue to be 
a dominant issue. As a consequence, pressures will 
no doubt mount for addition ial 
assistance to help defray the cost of certain port 
development and operation activities. These efforts 
can be expected to focus, in the near term, on secur- 
ing Federal funding to help pay for various man- 
dated Federal requirements in th S_of por 
security, environmental protection, and safety. Es- 
sentially this issue, which has already been raised by 
port interests,°’ will elicit considerations similar to 
those associatéd with the user charge issue. The 
fundamental question raised by this issue is again 
who should pay for these programs—the general | 
public who benefits from them or those who make 
them necessary.?® 
Finally, the controversy surrounding ne anprons Cb 
ateness of agg-2gate U.S. port capacity in light of 
broad regional and national trade requirements _is_ 
likely to become an increasingly important issue and 
will Present a major chailen; e to the ae 
Fede 
Rising port development costs will costs will impose faee 
pressures to carefully husband limited resources, and 
the economies of scale inherent in bulk and general . o 
will focus on arguments as to who the beneficiaries ‘p cargo_handling procedures will tend to encourage a AY 
of Federal waterway activities are and who should . ) greater_concentration of port capacity in fewer port’ ~ 
pay for these programs. Opponents of user chargeé}) | areas. Specific issues to be confronted in this area e 
will continue to press the position that Federal water- \ | will include the need to develop a limited number of 
way programs lead to general economic expansion, \\ deepwater ports to accommodate bulk commodities 
thé benefits of which accrue to all citizens, and more efficiently and further consideration of the pos- 
should therefore continue to be funded primarily } sible e problem of aggregate inefficiency due to excess 
) _from eneral yevenues. Proponents of user charges, 
) taine ling capacity. 
eo ‘on the cther hand, will argue that water carriers ae 
point of controversy in this area. Basically, this issue | 
container 
From the Federal perspective, the issue of con- 
~ users of water transportation services are the bene 
ficiaries and should pay for these Federal services. \ 
tainer handling capacity is most likely to manifest 
itself in the area of economic regulation, as ports 
In turn, opponents can be expected to cite the regres- \ which lose traditional_cargoes to _new intermodal _ 
sive effect of user taxes, which, at least in part, wil) | co 
be passed through to the ultimate consumers of ] 
titors (such as “landbridge” operations) seek 
Federal regulatory relief. In the next major section 
goods transported by water. Proponents will point to / this issue will again be addressed as attention is di- 
an alleged misallocation of resources usallocation of resources encouraged by@® rected to the overall Federal role in the economic 
providi ling one transport mode with government_ad- regulation of the U.S. marine transportation system. 
vantages unavailable to _other_modes. The recent 
Congressional compromise on this issue embodied in 
H.R. 8309 is probably just a lull in what promises to 
be a complex and protracted battle which will be 
waged at both theoretical and political levels. The 
resolution of this issue can be expected to affect not 
only the outlook for U.S. water transportation, but 
27U.S. Congress, House Merchant Marine Subcommittee of 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Statement by 
_ Alfred M. Eschbach, President, American Association of Port 
Authorities, Inc., Washington, D.C., June 30, 1976, p. 8. 
28 The Maritime Administration will soon release the results 
of a survey that quantifies the costs imposed on public ports by 
various mandated Federal requirements in areas of environmental 
protection, employee health and safety, and cargo security. 
V-16 
