Can a federal judge save Charleston from becoming Venice?
In the nick of time, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel tossed the permit for the SPA’s (SC State Port’s Authority) planned $35 million cruise terminal in Charleston. The judge ruled that the US Army Corps of Engineers did not adequately review the project’s impacts on the area, accused the Crops of “doing an end run,” and chastised the Corps’ attorneys: “You gave this permit the bum’s rush.”(1)
Noting the problems the large cruise terminal could create for the environment and the city’s historic district, among the several critical impacts that should have been carefully studied, but weren’t, Judge Gergel told the Corps’ attorneys, “You have an obligation to look at the entire project. You haven’t done what the law requires you to do by reducing a 108,000 square-foot project to 41-square feet of pilings. The process got distorted by limiting it to five piers.”
The judge noted that within the 1,200 pages of documents that there is evidence “that the terminal is being designed for larger ships than now call and could more than triple the number of cruise passengers visiting the city,” according to Bruce Smith’s Associated Press report.(2) The judge said, “Somehow the Corps has reduced a major project to something that is less than 1 percent of the project. I feel like I’m a nanny here trying to get you to do what Congress intends.” The judge did not say, but we will, that the existing pier at Union Pier is 1800′, easily long enough to accommodate any of the largest ships afloat!
The SPA’s relentless “hurry up” rush to build a new cruise terminal at Union Pier near downtown was, temporarily, at least, placed “in irons” by the decision. The judge’s formal ruling could come at any time and will likely be issued within the next 30 days. And what happens next will likely depend on Judge Gergel’s written order.
(photo credit: Protesters leapt into Venice’s Giudecca Canal to block cruise ships inside the port last week They and 1,000 supporters say that the cruise ships tower over the historic rooftops and drown the city in tourism. Photo: Getty Images (3))
We’re “not sure if that [order] will require SPA to ‘reapply’ but it will presumably require the Corps to reexamine SPA’s application by looking not just at the pilings needed for a new cruise terminal, but the cruise terminal itself,” Blan Holman, managing attorney of the Charleston office for the Southern Environmental Law Center informed this blog. “That is, the Corps would need to consider the impacts of building a new cruise terminal, and, as well, options for reducing or avoiding those impacts. Shore power, satellite parking, limits on ship size and number, alternative [terminal] locations — these come to mind,” adding, “And it’s possible that the Corps and the SPA will appeal that ruling…” Holman noted that there are two other lawsuits pending, “One is a challenge to DHEC’s approvals for the terminal; that matter is currently pending before the SC Administrative Law Court (ALC).” And “The third piece of litigation is the lawsuit filed by several neighborhood associations, the Preservation Society, and the Conservation League against Carnival for violating zoning ordinances, permitting requirements and creating a nuisance.”
The importance of the judge’s written order can’t be overstated. The impacts of cruise tourism, as the severely damaged city of Venice has found out, are varied and immense. Last Saturday, when this Venice picture was snapped, unusual circumstances had allowed 12 cruise ships to head past St. Mark’s Square in one day! The main problem in Venice, as a speaker informed the Preservation Society’s cruise conference last year, is that ships are permitted to dock adjacent to the historic city, are creating incredible, irreversible impacts to the city’s historic foundations, culture, civil structure, and local populace–over half of whom have left the city in the past three decades. The only solution now, said the expert, is to move the port across to the mainland, away from the city; that would dramatically reduce the impacts. That could be a solution in Charleston, too, as the Corps was required to study alternate locations for the terminal–and never did.
Judge Gergel’s decision is good news for Charleston. “We welcome this ruling because it clarifies the obligation the SPA has to protect the environment and the historic character of the city. We hope this will open the door for more productive discussions about how to best deal with cruise traffic in Charleston,” Dana Beach, executive director of the Coastal Conservation League, told this blog.
We welcome it, too. And we hope it forces the SPA and the city to look beyond their immediate interests and agendas and into the future. Because that future will be crammed with ever-growing numbers of ever-larger cruise ships carrying millions more passengers every single year.(4) Once upon a time, cruise ships weren’t a problem in Venice. Now they are, and any solution will cost hundreds of billions–and come too late to save Venice.
–Jay, 24 Sept 13
# # #
1) Judge docks Charleston Cruise Terminal Study – Post and Courier
2) Judge tosses federal permit for SC cruise terminal – Bruce Smith/AP
3) Protesters dive into Venice canal to protest cruise ships – The Telegraph (UK)
4) Growth of the Cruise line industry – Cruise Market Watch
Written by jwilliams
The Charleston Cruise Control Blog, written by Jay Williams, Jr. and published periodically since May, 2011, consists of opinions and commentary about cruise ship tourism. Although Jay is a C4 Advisory Board member and a board member of the Charlestowne Neighborhood Assn., the opinions he expresses are his alone; they are not intended to represent C4 or any other organization or any member of any organization. Mr. Williams is an independent blogger/writer. These blogs provide C4 website visitors an additional information source regarding the cruise terminal debates and discussions in Charleston.