There’s a new twist in Augusta’s battle with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the future of the Savannah River and its role in downtown redevelopment on both banks of the border between Georgia and South Carolina.
First some background: Leaders in Augusta and its South Carolina neighbor North Augusta warn that the Corps’ plan to demolish a deteriorating lock and dam built in the 1930s and replace it with a rock weir will lower the river level so much that it will ruin their efforts over the past three decades. The Corps says they’re overreacting.
Now enter the Georgia Ports Authority.
The GPA has just filed a motion to intervene in litigation challenging plans to demolish the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam in order to protect the authority’s interests in the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. (South Carolina was the lead plaintiff in suing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over its intentions to dismantle the lock and dam. Augusta joined the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in South Carolina earlier this month.)
The Augusta Chronicle reports that both parties argue that the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act requires the Corps maintain the river level at 114.5 feet above sea level, which was the level when the Act was passed that the Corps has maintained for decades. Other arguments are that the Corps is skirting environmental regulations as it moves forward.
The GPA filed its intervention motion in the South Carolina-Augusta litigation last Monday, The Chronicle reported, citing its ownership and oversight of the harbor project.
Any delays in construction could impair the authority’s economic investment in current and future port operations, and if the Corps’ mitigation alternative is modified — which is what South Carolina and Augusta want — the authority “could be required to bear the increased costs beyond its designated cost share,” the court motion says.
A final angle: U.S. Rep. Rick Allen, R-Augusta, hopes President Donald Trump will intervene on the Georgia’s city’s behalf in his role as commander-in-chief over the Army. So far, no response from the White House.
