Port Maintenance Aff Classic bt file completed by the following hard working students

Federal authority’s key to coordination – aff solves only weak link – funding disbursements.

There is minimal dispute over the need for investment in port- related infrastructure and development. Instead, the debate focuses on how to best generate new funding mechanisms for this investment. The shipping industry has voiced two primary concerns: (1) who will absorb short-term costs and (2) which regulatory authority will administrate the funding mechanism—federal, state, or local? As to the first concern, regardless of whether port users incur immediate costs associated with general infrastructure and development fees, costs will ultimately pass through to the consumer. In Baton Rouge Marine Contractors, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission, the court noted: One can make the economic argument that there is no difference in the long run whether the cost of the grain elevator is charged to the stevedore rather than the vessel, because the charges will be passed on to the party, usually the vessel, employing the stevedore to load and trim the vessel. In the long run, the stevedore’s charge will be borne by the ultimate beneficiary of the services, the consumer, regardless of whether the stevedore is employed by and paid in the first instance by the vessel or shipper. But at least in the short run, different consequences will attach to differences in the immediate incidence of the charges. Industry actors could argue that, regardless of whether the consumer will ultimately shoulder rising costs, short-term costs may be sufficiently onerous to price out struggling Port Users—particularly in a protracted economic recession. Further, short-term costs tied to charges assessed by port authorities are subject to the Shipping Act’s prohibition on unreasonable or discriminatory practices. The problem with these arguments is that strict deregulatory measures have adversely affected Port Users by impeding modernization of new infrastructure and development. As to the second concern, industry actors want assurance that new fees will provide equivalent benefits, without additional onerous administrative requirements. A federal authority may be best equipped to ensure a uniform administration; however, members of Congress have in the past raised significant funds for port-related maintenance and development and subsequently failed to disburse them. As one example, Congress created the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (“HMTF”) for the purposes of generating revenues for harbor dredging projects. In the last six years the HMTF has accumulated a surplus in excess of $5 billion. Meanwhile, many harbor deepening projects have stalled without funding. Local port authorities, alternatively, compete for the business of MTOs and shippers who process and transport discretionary cargo (i.e., goods that are unloaded from ships and transported to locations more than 260 miles from the port). In a market with high elasticity, such as with discretionary cargo, the business flows to the most efficient bidder.