Federal ports policy

In contrast to the centralized port-planning framework that is utilized in some industrialized countries, the US relies on a complex and fragmented framework in which responsibility for the planning, development and operation of landside maritime infrastructure rests with State and local governments. It has been argued that the separation of the federal government from port policy was rooted in the port preference clause of the Constitution. This paper is an effort to determine whether the current decentralized port policy in fact stems from the Constitution and, to that end, reviews how over the years the US Supreme Court has construed the port preference clause in the Constitution. It was found that there is no evidence to support the assertion that the port preference clause has restricted the development of Federal port policy. Moreover, the decentralized and fragmented decision-making process that is evident today does not imply the absence of federal impact. Rather, it reflects federal involvement through multiple agencies and regulatory processes and is a conscious effort, consistent with other areas of transport infrastructure development, to retain local decision-making for infrastructure investments. It is concluded by raising the issue whether current federal involvement in ports (that is, existing federal port policy), through dredging, landside transportation improvements or subsidized capital, among other things, needs to be reappraised before a new round of capital intensive investment begins.