FOR $1/2 MILLION: GBIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A FEARLESS PROGNOSTICATOR OF PAST EVENTS

By Juan Montoya
With the release of the $9 million channel-deepening study at the Port of Brownsville by the U.S. Corps of engineers, the section dealing with that issue in the $454,000 study drafted by Robin McCaffrey of Needham, McCaffrey and Associates  has become obsolete.
You remember the plan, it goes by the fancy name of Brownsville Strategic Infrastructure and Land Management Plan and was paid by the Port of Brownsville, the Greater Brownsville Incentives Corporation and the Brownsville Public Utility Board.
The main recommendation for the port in the management plan is that the channel be dredged and deepened to its authorized 42-foot depth. The study also recommends that a turning basin be enlarged to accommodate cargo ships turning without having to hinder other ships from coming into the channel.
Well, wouldn't you know that the United States Army Corps of Engineers had been studying the issue for the past seven years and that the government and the port had spent $9 million to put together the  “Brazos Island Harbor Channel Improvement Project Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment.”

So why did the port pay good money to be told what it – and the Corps of Engineers – already knew?
In fact, it the so-called "master plan," its writers allude to the ongoing Corps study as supportive of their recommendations. So why the study?
Could it be that the $454,000 was paid to Robin McCaffrey because he is the same person who worked on the City of Kyle Comprehensive Master Plan, under the name of Mesa?
 McCaffrey was hired when Mayor Mike/Miguel Gonzalez was still in office in Kyle. Gonzalez is now the executive director of United Brownsville.
In the "comprehensive plan," the narrative put together by Cambridge Systematics states that "In 2010, the Port and the U.S. Corps of Engineers also completed maintenance dredging to return the Brownsville Ship Channel to its authorized depth of 42 feet. Moreover, the Port is currently engaged in feasibility studies to assess the possibility of deepening the channel to 50 feet and widening it to 350 feet (from its current width of 250 feet)."
Well, not quite.
In fact, according to a report in the Brownsville Herald, the Port-U.S. Corps of Engineers study actually was meant "to determine whether dredging the 17-mile-long channel to an “authorized depth” of 52 feet (from 42 feet currently) is justified."
There are a lot more hurdles to go, according to what Port Director Eddie Campirano told the daily.
He said that the board of port commissioners will forward the report to state agencies for review and wit for the 30-day comment period for state agencies to voice any objections to the project. The  project will not require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) since it involves an existing channel.
Then there's the little matter of acquiring funding.
After the Chief of Engineers issues a report sometime in September, it is up to Congress to loosen the purse strings and dish out the cash.
 “Once that’s done that puts you in a position for federal authorization,” Campirano told the Herald. “You can’t get there if you don’t go through this process.” Actual work on the ship channel is probably another five to seven years away, he said.
And what does the port-dredging section of the McCaffrey plan has to say are the chances of getting the cash from Congress? We're sure that what Cambridge Systematics analysis on that matter is not what United Brownsville or Mr. Campirano wanted to hear. But here goes.
"The U.S. Army Cops of Engineers carries out dredging typically every 2- years to maintain the depths; however, funding for dredging remains a major issue for ports across the country. If funding levels decrease, it may not be possible to adequately maintain desired depths, which may result in draft restriction."
In Section 3.8 of the Cambridge report, the planners state that "Transportation needs nearly always outstrip available funds, and this is especially true now as the federal government grapples with long-term problems associated with financial crisis and recession. Transportation funding is tighter than ever, which may necessitate the use of alternate funding (can you pronounce local bond issues?) to accommodate infrastructure needs in the Brownsville region...
"Most channel and harbor maintenance/deepening projects are coordinated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, with the financial and planning participation by one or more local partners. However, the Corps has historically lacked sufficient funding to maintain existing water infrastructure, let alone expand it. A recent report published by the National Research Council found that inadequate funding has kept the Corps from maintaining much of the nation's marine infrastructure at an acceptable level of service...

"Also complicating matters is the over-reliance on funding from the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which relies on periodic reauthorization by Congress. Also complicating matters is the fact that not all of the Harbor Maintenance Tax (a charge levied on imported cargo that is intended to fund dredging projects) actually goes to port projects. Approximately $700 million is diverted annually...and used for other purposes, mainly deficit reduction...Industry observers say the ports' needs would be covered if all the funds taken into the HMT Fund were spent on ports. Collectively, these factors make many projects subject to the vagaries of the political cycle, which in turn makes it difficult for local sponsors to plan projects since there is no certainty that a given project will receive funding."
The sources quoted by the McCaffery report date back to 2012 and undoubtedly included the port's own past research. It also cites the U.S. Corps of Engineers studies. Was the $454,000 spent on this rehashed and warmed-over info really necessary other than to name United Brownsville as the favored coordinating entity for its implementation?