Another “River vs. Revenue” Battle on the St. Johns

Jacksonville will have another potential “River vs. Revenue” showdown in the next few years, when the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) decides whether dredging the St. Johns River is justified. The pros of a decision to dredge include expanding Jacksonville’s capacity to accommodate larger Asian container ships traveling through an enlarged Panama Canal beginning in 2014. Although the benefits of this expansion are not definite and certainly debatable, they potentially include tripling the amount of cargo traveling through Jacksonville, adding thousands of jobs and billions in economic impact to the city. The primary cons of a decision to dredge, of course, are environmentally based (another con is the likely cost of between $500 million and $1 billion). Preliminary talks indicate dredging the channel from its current depth of 40 feet to 45 feet is required. Although five feet initially sounds like no big deal, the environmental consequences could be severe. Early findings from a St. Johns River Water Management District study show that deepening the St. Johns could raise salt levels in parts of the river by about one-fifth. The greatest total change in salinity would happen near the Talleyrand area, about 18 miles from the river’s mouth. However, some effects would be felt much farther south, including all the way to Palatka where shrimp go to lay their eggs and later migrate towards the mouth of the river as they mature. The ironic thing here is that the city has strongly criticized the idea of utilities in Central Florida withdrawing large amounts of fresh surface water from the St. Johns River to meet their growing water demands. The main argument against this idea is the environmental impacts that would be felt in the Jacksonville area due to the increased salinity from surface withdrawals. However, the early findings mentioned above estimate that the dredging would have a far greater impact on the river in Jacksonville than the surface withdrawals. The question then becomes how powerful the lure of money will be on the dredging decision in Jacksonville. And that of course tends to give the environment a back seat, since valuing the benefits of a clean environment and healthy ecosystem is difficult to do in simple economic terms. As many fans of the environment know, it doesn’t lend itself to easy cost vs. benefit decision-making analysis. Therefore, the “River” in the “River vs. Revenue” scenario is the underdog. As a result, the most powerful weapon against a decision to dredge is public sentiment. Therefore, if you are a supporter of the St. Johns River and want to see it protected, I urge you to follow this upcoming battle and voice your opinion against dredging the St. Johns River. Sean McDermott Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute of Florida, Extern