South Carolina lawmakers weren’t able to secure more money to deepen the Charleston Harbor — their state’s top state infrastructure priority — in the $1.3 trillion government spending bill Congress must pass this week.
Now the delegation has to engage in a new fight, which will represent an even steeper hurdle: Convincing federal officials to change how harbor deepening funds are allocated.
To win this battle, they’ll have to sway both the Army Corps of Engineers and White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, who until last year was a South Carolina Republican congressman with a history of supporting the project.
Not getting any money for the harbor deepening might have been a disappointment, but hardly presents a lethal blow. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., whose district includes the port, said the project was in good shape at the moment.
Earlier in the week, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he was optimistic things would go the delegation’s way in the spending bill released Wednesday night. Last month, a White House budget office spokesperson hinted it was possible the project would get some more money in the legislation.
For the ambitious undertaking to stay on track, a steady funding flow is critical. The state has pitched in $300 million of its own money into the effort and now awaits $223 million in federal funds to finish the job.
What South Carolina lawmakers say they need perhaps more than anything right now is for federal officials to permanently change the very system that awards funds to all the port deepening initiatives around the country fighting for resources from the same, finite pot of money.
A bill known as the Water Resources Development Act presents the most promising opportunity.
“We’re going to change the formula, that’s my ultimate goal,” Graham told McClatchy.
“It’s a food fight for money to be distributed by the Army Corps,” added Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., who represents the district that’s home to the port. “We might have a forceful shot in the (water) bill.”
Whether the delegation is successful could determine just how quickly the Charleston Harbor deepening project can progress.
New water bills are typically passed every two years, and lawmakers expect to advance an updated version of the 2016 bill by the end of this year. A House Republican aide said preparations were being made to pass a new bill out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee before the summer, with GOP leaders hopeful the full chamber will vote on the measure before the August recess.
Among other things, the legislation would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to fund a variety of water infrastructure projects, with the Charleston Harbor dredging project one such option.
Currently, when the Army Corps is doling out funding for any harbor dredging project, it uses what’s known as a “benefit/cost ratio” analysis to determine how much money the undertaking to should receive. Once the Army Corps determines an appropriate allocation using this analysis, the Office of Management and Budget, headed by Mulvaney, performs its own analysis of that number to determine the final allocation.
Last year, the Army Corps gave South Carolina $17.5 million and formal permission to begin the Charleston project. The benefit/cost ratio analysis jointly performed by the Army Corps and the OMB, however, concluded the Charleston Harbor project did not meet the necessary requirements to receive any additional money in the immediate future. This conclusion was reflected in President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget request unveiled last month.
State officials cried foul, saying the “one-size-fits-all” philosophy of the benefit/cost ratio analysis ignored several unique factors about Charleston, specifically that South Carolina has invested so much of its own money.
Because the water bill deals specifically with the Army Corps budget, lawmakers see an opportunity to appeal directly to the agency for a more objective method of allocating resources to the project, and then potentially codifying a new method into law through the bill text. A formula that takes into account the Charleston project’s idiosyncrasies, advocates argue, could bring them more money more quickly, particularly in the future when funding may be tougher to obtain.
As South Carolina officials push for their priorities in the water bill, they will also be lobbying the OMB. Gov. Henry McMaster has already started targeting Mulvaney: He visited the budget director in Washington last month specifically to discuss port funding and the existing formula.
As a member of the state’s congressional delegation, Mulvaney was a strong supporter of increased government funding for the harbor deepening project in Charleston, at times even meeting personally with House GOP leaders to discuss the issue. But as OMB chief, Mulvaney has taken great pains to appear neutral and not play favorites with his home state.
Sanford, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also said he would be appealing to Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., for assistance. Last fall, Sanford hosted Shuster for a tour of the Charleston Harbor.