Great Lakes Lawmakers Seek More Security Funding For Ports

Rochester Democrat & Chronicle

By Erin Kelly

WASHINGTON, DC – A coalition of lawmakers from the Great Lakes states is protesting the fact that most Great Lakes ports – including the Port of Rochester – were left out of the running for federal grants to strengthen security against terrorists.

In a July 1 letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, members of the congressional Great Lakes Task Force said they believe federal officials are underestimating the security risks to the Great Lakes, which share a 2,300-mile border with Canada and provide drinking water to millions of people.

In May, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would give out nearly $141 million in port security grants for 2005.

However, it also specified that just 66 ports would be eligible to apply for the grants. Only one—Milwaukee—is on a Great Lake.

The grants can be used to buy surveillance equipment to detect possible terrorist activities at ports and ferry terminals, said Marc Short, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. Rochester recently re-launched its fast ferry service that carries people and vehicles across Lake Ontario to Toronto.

“From Day One, the Department of Homeland Security has said that ferries were a huge priority for security grants,” said Steven Fisher, executive director of the American Great Lakes Ports Association. “And here there is a new ferry in Rochester, and the city is not even eligible to apply.”

Great Lakes lawmakers are especially appalled that neither Detroit nor Chicago is eligible to apply, Fisher said. But he said smaller ports such as Rochester also should be eligible because they often need the money more than wealthier ports such as those in Los Angeles and New York City.

“We understand that the department is focusing on ‘high-risk’ ports and port facilities. However, we question the department’s criteria for determining risk,” says the letter to Chertoff signed by 22 senators and House members.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, said she didn’t get the chance to see the letter before it was sent to Chertoff. But she has just been named a co-chair of the task force and wants to look into the funding criteria.

“I haven’t been pleased with much of anything that’s come out of the Department of Homeland Security,” Slaughter said. “If they’re starting to look at funding based on risk, I think that’s fine. But I want to make sure that they’re doing it correctly.”

Short said the department used three main criteria in determining which ports would be eligible for the grants: consequence, vulnerability and threat.

“Consequence means answering questions like: What’s the population surrounding the port?” Short said. “What would be the economic consequence if it were attacked? Are there national security considerations such as the presence of petroleum plants, hazardous materials facilities or the presence of tankers that would be carrying hazardous or flammable materials?”

The department consulted with Coast Guard and intelligence officials to assess the vulnerability of various ports and the potential threat against them, Short said.

Among the 66 ports deemed eligible for security grants this year were Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Honolulu, Houston, Miami, New Orleans, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Louis and Wilmington, Del.

All are considered major ports based on the amount of cargo that comes through them. Rochester is not a major shipping port and does not appear on the list of the 150 biggest U.S. ports by cargo, according to the American Association of Port Authorities.

Last year, the 10 local port agencies that received the most money were: the New York City Department of Transportation, the Washington State Ferries, the Port of Seattle, the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas, the Tampa Port Authority, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Port of Beaumont Navigation District in Texas, the Port of Galveston in Texas, the Port of Houston Authority and the Virginia Port Authority.

“The department is continuing to try to allocate all our resources based on risk, knowing that there’s a limited amount of resources available,” Short said.

Just because most of the Great Lakes ports didn’t make the cut this year doesn’t mean they won’t in the future, he said.

“The risk is not static. The threat is always changing,” Short said.

But there are no guarantees that the Port of Rochester will ever qualify for a grant, despite its fast ferry terminal.