Copyright 2002 Commonwealth Business Media  
Journal of Commerce - JoC Week
September 23, 2002, Monday
SECTION: SPECIAL REPORT1; Pg. 24

LENGTH: 919 words

HEADLINE: New challenges for AAPA;
Infrastructure funding, port security could test unity of port association

BYLINE: BY R.G. EDMONSON

BODY:
For the first 75 of its 90 years, the American Association of Port Authorities didn't cut much of a wake in Washington. That began to change in the mid-1980s, just as the organization faced its biggest crisis -- a proposed harbor maintenance tax to pay for the Army Corps of Engineers' maintenance dredging. "The harbor maintenance tax debate split the organization," said Jean Godwin, the AAPA's executive vice president and general counsel. Ports that collected more HMT than they needed to dredge their channels didn't want the government to apportion their revenues to competitors who needed it. Ports divided into large- and small-port factions, "donor ports" vs. "recipient ports," even container ports vs. bulk ports.

It was a difficult period, but the AAPA survived. Its leaders today say that there is a remarkable level of comity within the organization. "We have had more consensus positions than I ever imagined," Godwin said. "It's amazing that these ports with competing interests can come together. They try their hardest to move forward, but it must be consensus."

The one exception is harbor dredging -- still. AAPA members have found common ground on subjects ranging from world trade to environmental protection, but no issue has caused as much rancor as HMT. Today, port security and maritime infrastructure funding may test the AAPA's mettle again.

The AAPA's diverse membership, which encompasses more than 140 ports throughout the U.S. as well as in Canada and Latin America, often makes consensus more difficult than it is for more homogenous organizations, such as the American Trucking Associations and Association of American Railroads, which take strong positions and work them hard.The AAPA's diverse membership, which encompasses more than 140 ports throughout the U.S. as well as in Canada and Latin America, often makes consensus more difficult than it is for more homogenous organizations, such as the American

That's not to say the AAPA lacks influence. Only a handful of senators and representatives take a close interest in port issues, so the organization can focus its resources. Members of Congress who have ports in their home districts recognize what potent economic forces they are, and the AAPA staff's efforts are supplemented by lobbyists representing individual ports.

Richard D. Steinke, the AAPA's chairman and executive director for the Port of Long Beach, said the organization's consensus positions don't reflect the lowest common denominator, but "represent the whole for the greater good of the organization."

Long Beach has derived value for its investment in the AAPA, Steinke said. He cited the AAPA's current effort to convince the Coast Guard to create standard rules for handling ballast water, an environmental issue intended to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic species.

"We have a patchwork of state laws. We're advocating the Coast Guard mandate regulations on a national basis," Steinke said. "It would simplify things if a captain can apply the same rules to each port." Otherwise, ballast water discharge can become a competitive issue among ports -- ports with less-stringent standards could lure traffic from ports with stiffer environmental rules.

Port security is another current issue. The AAPA successfully resisted Congress' first proposal for port security -- a proposal by Sen. Ernest Hol-lings, D-S.C., that initially called for the Transportation Department to set uniform security standards for all ports. AAPA officials, aided by other industry groups, fought what they called a "one-size-fits-all" approach to port security.

The AAPA steadfastly supports the idea that port security should be a federal responsibility: Keeping the homeland secure is the same as supporting the military for national defense. It is an idea that does not resonate in Congress, and it's likely that the government will collect a port-security "user fee," but right now shippers and importers are likely to bear the burden.

Planners in Congress and industry also are considering user fees to fund maritime infrastructure maintenance and improvement. Congressional committees already have started taking testimony to prepare for reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).

Steinke said the AAPA has promoted freight interests in the TEA-21 debate. He said ports now realize that maintaining or improving the maritime infrastructure can no longer rely on general revenues. There must be a dedicated source of federal money, similar to trust funds Congress established for surface transportation and aviation.

User fees for port infrastructure improvements may touch off the same competitive issues that HMT did in the mid-1980s. Erik Stromberg, a former AAPA president who now is executive director of the North Carolina Ports Authority, said members' differences over dredging must be put into context. "It's misleading that a single issue is used to characterize the overall effectiveness of AAPA," he said. "We're talking about one specific issue within the set of dredging issues."

Stromberg said AAPA members have learned that working together is important and that consensus is needed. "We've changed. Everybody's talking to one another," he said. "Positions are fairly arrived-at, it's not an exclusive clique. To have a stronger association, you have to have more honest and open expressions of differences. It's a stronger organization, but it's more difficult to manage."

LOAD-DATE: September 23, 2002