State ports study presents opportunities for sustainability

(Part 4 in a Series)

 In 2023, the conservative John Locke Foundation in Raleigh released a report titled “Gateway to the World: A Dive into North Carolina’s Ports.”

 

It was compiled by Jay Derr, a transportation policy analyst at the Reason Foundation of Los Angeles, Calif. It opens the door for a discussion on port sustainability.

 

 

Derr observed that the two North Carolina state ports are “geographically close” – separated by only 105 nautical miles – but they “serve different purposes.”

The larger port at Wilmington is equipped to handle on- and off-load containerized cargo.

 

Morehead City, on the other hand, only handles general cargo, Derr wrote.

 

 Typically, “general cargo” refers to goods that are packed, bundled or loaded individually – such as in crates, bags, cartons or on pallets – rather than in bulk. Frequently, the term used is “breakbulk.”

Financially, the Wilmington port contributes some $14.8 billion in “annual economic impact” to North Carolina, while Morehead City’s share is about $1.3 billion.

Combined, the North Carolina State Ports Authority operations support more than 88,200 direct, indirect and induced jobs and generate approximately $660 million in state and local tax revenue annually.

Derr commented that North Carolina’s two ports have a longstanding track record of significance as “critical gateways for U.S. goods to enter the global market.”

Furthermore, the Ports Authority “has managed its seaport assets well overall to accommodate increased economic output for North Carolina,” he said.

 

Brian E. Clark, executive director of the N.C. State Ports Authority

 

Generally, volumes are up, but it must be noted that a financial review from the N.C. State Auditor concluded that during the fiscal year ending July 1, 2025, the Ports Authority recorded a $6.3 million operating loss, compared to a loss of $4.4 million the year before.

 

But to keep positive trade flows, given the projected rising demands, expanding the capacities of the state ports will be necessary, Derr said. The challenges and obstacles in doing so are befuddling, at best.

“Dredging is especially relevant for North Carolina,” Derr remarked. “The two ports are not naturally deep enough.”

 

“The need for maintenance dredging is relatively constant for both Morehead City and Wilmington.” 

He said the Wilmington port needs to be deepened from 42 feet to 47 feet to accommodate the new Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCVs), and “Morehead City could still use a deeper draft to help accommodate larger breakbulk cargo ships.”

 

Dredging activities always stir up enormously complex environmental concerns, but there’s also the “painful expense” associated with repeated dredging. 

All this is compounded by restraints associated with the existing, ancient federal dredging law, Derr said.

The Heritage Foundation, a pro-free enterprise think tank based in Washington, D.C., agrees. It reports: “The Foreign Dredge Act of 1906 prohibits any foreign-built or chartered ships from dredging in the United States. The result is to exclude the world’s largest dredging companies that could provide better and cheaper service.”

 

This needs fixing. The United States, with the largest economy in the world, has “subpar shipping ports because of this 120-year-old law that prevents their ability to expand,” according to the Heritage Foundation. 

“A lack of maintenance on dredging has left U.S. harbors functioning at full-channel depth and width only 35% of the time.”

The Heritage Foundation stated: “At times, port authorities say they have asked for bids on dredging projects, but no American dredgers can respond because they are operating at full capacity. Foreign competitors have demonstrated the ability to complete projects in less time at lower costs.”

Derr recommends that North Carolina lawmakers get fully engaged and lobby to change the federal dredging statutes.

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has championed four bills to repeal the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906 and remedy the “nation’s supply chain difficulties.”

 

“Dredging is a fundamental tool to maintain American economic competitiveness,” Sen. Lee said. “Our protectionist laws have hamstrung our shipping and port infrastructure. “These bills would allow us to expand ports, help secure our supply chain and move our economy into the future.”

Looking forward, Derr said the nation’s ports will need to explore innovative funding solutions that can harness the private sector’s resources and expertise to deliver major infrastructure projects on time and on budget.”

He said that public-private partnerships “can help alleviate or solve outright many of the capital funding concerns with major, costly projects such as port and harbor infrastructure expansion.”

 

 

These contractual agreements…can take various shapes and sizes, Derr commented. The key is opening access to private capital, instead of relying solely “on the politicized appropriations process within the North Carolina state legislature.”

“While the North Carolina Ports Authority is effectively run as a business, because of its reliance on state appropriations, it can be slower to adopt cost-saving techniques and technologies, since it will likely be funded at a certain level anyway,” Derr said. 

“Private firms can be incentivized to bring innovative solutions to the table.”

Wilmington port project encounters ‘some turbulence’

(Part 3 in a Series)

Is it worth it?

In 2020, the North Carolina State Ports Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began exploring a plan to deepen and widen the Cape Fear River to attract larger cargo ships to the Port of Wilmington.

 

One of the groups that has been closely monitoring the proceedings is Clean Cape Fear, a grassroots organization that is concerned about public health and cleanliness of the river water.

 

Clean Cape Fear’s leadership criticized the USACE for “ignoring the region’s most urgent threat: PFAS contamination.”

The group asserts that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) “contains no PFAS analysis at all, despite years of documented upstream pollution and clear science showing that dredging can release buried contaminants.”

Here are the members of the Clean Cape Fear leadership team, from left: Emily Donovan, Lacey Brown, Rebecca Trammel, Jessica Cannon and Harper Peterson.

“The Corps studied turbidity and fish habitat but skipped the very chemicals driving enforcement actions in this watershed,” commented a Clean Cape Fear spokesperson.

“Even more troubling, no agency, university or nonprofit has tested PFAS sediment levels in the precise stretch of river targeted for excavation. Without baseline data, the public cannot know whether dredging will disturb concentrated ‘hotspots.’”

The Clean Cape Fear organization also stated: “We believe moving forward with dredging without PFAS sediment testing is reckless. It exposes the region to environmental, legal and economic risks that far outweigh any promised port benefits.”

“Clean Cape Fear urges the Corps to pause the project until comprehensive PFAS testing is completed and fully integrated into the environmental review. As it stands, the DEIS isn’t just incomplete—it’s unsafe.”

Maddie Burakoff, an associate editor at Audubon magazine, explained that PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are also known as “forever chemicals,” because they “are infamously long-lasting” and “increasingly linked with health risks in both wildlife and people.”

 

She said PFAS have been regularly discharged into the Cape Fear River by Fayetteville area manufacturers for nearly 50 years. The river has been a source for drinking water for half a million people and key habitat for nesting birds.

 

Journalist Patrick Sisson, writing for Scientific America magazine, said the Ports Authority rationalizes that the Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvement Project is necessary to enable the Wilmington port to serve ever larger Post-Panamax ships (also known as Ultra-Large Container Vessels or ULCVs) “to keep the local maritime industry competitive in a global supply chain obsessed with efficiency.”

 The $1.35 billion dredging project is intended to deepen the Wilmington Navigational Harbor from 42 to 47 feet, allowing Wilmington to accommodate the larger, deep-draft container vessels.

“Nearby harbors in Charleston, S.C., and Savannah, Ga., have already been dredged to depths of 52 and 47 feet, respectively,” Sisson reported.

Presently, the Port of Wilmington contributes approximately $14.8 billion annually to North Carolina’s economy. 

USACE estimates that a deeper harbor would produce a 3% economic increase for the port.

 

In late February 2026, the North Carolina’s Division of Coastal Management (DCM), a unit of the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, issued a 15-page letter, objecting to the Corps’ proposed deepening of Wilmington’s Harbor, citing a lack of information about the project’s potential environmental impacts.

Emma Dill of the Greater Wilmington Business Journal reported that this decision did not sit too well with officials at USACE’s Wilmington Division office. Jed Cayton, a public affairs specialist with USACE, called the objection from the DCM “disappointing.”

“According to Cayton, the USACE has been working with state and federal partners on the project for the past three-and-a-half years,” Dill said.

“Given all the integration and engagement throughout this process,” Cayton stated, “the objection provided at this late stage in the process is disconcerting.”

Dill reported that the DCM was critical of the DEIS for not addressing public concerns related to the presence of PFAS in the dredging zone and how these materials would be handled.

The health of humans and wildlife, water quality impacts and long-term effects to the environment and ecosystems “must be considered,” the DCM insisted.

 

Furthermore, Dill reported that “the DCM states that the USACE assessed the impacts of the channel deepening and sea level rise largely in isolation, thus potentially underestimating how the project could accelerate tidal flooding and storm surge.”

Other concerns mentioned by the DCM included “the loss of fish and freshwater wetland habitats, shoreline and wetland erosion and economic uncertainties surrounding the project, such as changing global shipping patterns and supply chains,” Dill said.

The DCM continued: “These economic unknowns, when paired with the environmental and community risks identified…led (the agency) to conclude that the economic rationale for the proposed project remains insufficiently substantiated and fails to demonstrate that the purported benefits outweigh foreseeable costs to North Carolina’s coastal economy and public welfare.”

In response, Col. Brad A. Morgan, commanding officer of the Wilmington District of the Army Corps of Engineers, told Connor Smith of WECT News in Wilmington that his team “stands behind the work done so far, but will review the state’s concerns and continue working…to clarify information.”

 

Smith reported that USACE will continue executing its assignments of finishing the Environmental Impact Statement by October 2026.

“We remain committed to working with our state partners to find a way to deliver this project,” Col. Morgan said. “It’s got a significant amount of economic impact to the state, so obviously we’ll work by, with and through them in all that we do to try and progress forward.”

 

“We acknowledge a lot of their concerns,” Col. Morgan added. “We had been working over the last 3.5 years, we thought in collaboration and conjunction with them.”

There’s an obvious sense of tension just beneath the surface of carefully crafted wordsmithing.

D. Reid Wilson, North Carolina’s Secretary of Environmental Quality, stated: “If the Army Corps of Engineers can make changes to its proposal to protect people’s health and the environment, we are at the table to continue this conversation.”

 

He made it quite clear that the DCM – and the executive branch of North Carolina’s state government under Democrat Gov. Josh Stein – fully intends to “protect public health from ‘forever chemicals’ like PFAS and preserve treasured coastal resources in the lower Cape Fear River Basin.”

 

The Wilmington Chamber of Commerce continues to advocate moving forward on the harbor deepening project.

In a statement issued March 9, Megan Mullins, the chamber’s chief communications and public affairs officer, said: “Wilmington’s long-term competitiveness depends on maintaining the infrastructure that supports our economy. The port is not just a local asset. It is a statewide engine of commerce and opportunity, and getting this right matters to all of us.”

 

“We are disappointed that significant objections were raised at this late stage after years of collaboration,” Mullins commented. “When major infrastructure projects encounter uncertainty late in the process, it can slow investment and complicate long-term planning.”

“Environmental protection and economic vitality are not mutually exclusive,” she said. “North Carolina has demonstrated that it can balance growth with responsible coastal management. The chamber supports continued good faith collaboration among the Corps, the Division of Coastal Management and the North Carolina State Ports Authority to resolve outstanding questions quickly.”

A journalist who has been following the Wilmington port deepening story is Lisa Sorg of Durham, the North Carolina reporter for Inside Climate News, a nonprofit newsroom headquartered in Brooklyn N.Y.

 

Sorg interviewed Kerri Allen, coastal management program director with the North Carolina Coastal Federation, who said: “Seeing DCM take a close look at the potential impacts to our water quality, fisheries and wetlands – and thoughtfully weigh those resource concerns in this decision – is a powerful reminder of what responsible stewardship looks like.”

 

“Our coast is more than projects and infrastructure; it’s the natural systems and livelihoods that depend on them. When those impacts are carefully considered and public voices are heard, we’re making progress toward protecting what makes our coast so special.”

Expect the USACE and the Ports Authority to carefully weigh their options moving forward. Possible courses of action involve mediation and participation in formal dispute resolution mechanisms that are available through federal law.

There’s a lot at stake, Sorg pointed out. The U.S. Congress has earmarked more than $1 billion for the Wilmington dredging project (75% of the total cost), but it won’t release the funding until the problems with the proposal are addressed by the Corps, she said.

North Carolina’s share is about $339 million, money that still needs to be written into the state budget. Legislators may be influenced by their constituents on this issue.

What’s more, the North Carolina State Ports Authority doesn’t have an exactly squeaky-clean reputation when it comes to transparency.

State agency balks on Wilmington dredging project

(Part 2 in a Series)

Opposition to the proposed $1.35 billion Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvement Project seemed to swell about a month ago when an agency of the North Carolina state government issued a formal objection to dredging plans set forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Port City Daily, an online newspaper based in Wilmington, was among the first news media outlets to report on Feb. 26, 2026, that the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management (DCM) had expressed “serious concerns” about USACE’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

 

Specifically, Tancred Miller, DCM director, said his unit declines to support the project because the DEIS contained “insufficient information regarding the exacerbation of PFAS contamination in the river,” according to Port City Daily.

 

Many of the concerns about deepening the channel in the Cape Fear River and the Port of Wilmington appear to focus on the PFAS issue.

 

“PFAS present serious environmental and public health threats,” say Dr. Vasilis Vasiliou (shown above) and Dr. Robert Bilott (shown below), both of Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

 

PFAS are synthetic chemicals widely utilized in consumer and industrial products since World War II, and “are now linked to alarming levels of contamination in drinking water supplies,” they said.

Dr. Bilott commented: “PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are a completely man-made family of chemicals, formed by artificially connecting carbon and fluorine. PFAS are known for their strength, stain resistance, grease protection and water resistance. They are used in a wide variety of products, and there are estimates that as many as 14,000 different PFAS compounds now exist.”

Dr. Vasiliou added: “PFAS are often called ‘forever chemicals’ because they contain an exceptionally strong bond, which makes them highly resistant to breakdown. As a result, they persist in the environment for decades or longer – in water, soil and even living organisms. Their environmental and biological persistence means they can accumulate over time, raising long-term concerns for ecosystems and public health.”

Dr. Jamie Alan, a researcher at Michigan State University in East Lansing, said: “Unfortunately, PFAS can easily get into the air, food, soil and water. Once you’re exposed to PFAS, they can accumulate in your body…where they can settle in the liver, kidney and blood.”

 

She mentioned that PFAS have been linked to a slew of diseases like obesity, hormone suppression and infertility, liver and thyroid diseases…in addition to a variety of cancers.

Local environmentalists assert that the Corps’ DEIS is seriously flawed, because USACE “has resisted conducting sediment testing for PFAS.”

“The Corps didn’t even mention PFAS in its entire DEIS,” reported science writer Patrick Sisson in a recent article for Scientific American magazine.

 

Folks like Kemp Burdette of the Cape Fear River Watch organization have expressed alarm, citing the long history of PFAS poisoning in the Cape Fear River.

 

In 2017, it was revealed that for several decades toxic contaminants were routinely discharged into the river by manufacturers located in the Fayetteville vicinity. It all flows downriver.

To drive the point home, Sisson referenced comments by Emily Donovan (shown below), a leader within the Clean Cape Fear grassroots community action group, who once proclaimed: “Churches in Brunswick County baptize their babies in PFAS-contaminated tap water.”

 

Kerri Allen of the North Carolina Coastal Federation told Sisson: “The Cape Fear River has a long and storied history of just being horribly abused and mistreated. The science is clear that PFAS are present in Cape Fear River sediments, and dredging has the potential to mobilize that contamination,” Allen said.

 

The proposed project, which would unearth 35 million cubic yards of soil and sand, could really stir up an environmental nightmare, unsettling the contaminated sediments, thereby worsening the region’s substantial PFAS problem. Some fear it’s an “environmental train wreck” waiting to happen.

Sisson said: “What’s unfolding on the Cape Fear is a preview of a much larger regulatory ‘blind spot’ in USACE’s national mission and the broader maritime economy.”

He said: “As scientists race to better understand the interplay of PFAS, salinity and sediment, there’s no effort by the Corps to factor the risk of these chemicals into its key mission of maintaining about 12,000 miles of inland and intracoastal waterways, 13,000 miles of coastal waterways, and 400 ports, harbors and turning basins.”

Burdette commented: “PFAS is a pretty big deal. This area has been contaminated for roughly 50 years. You should really do a lot of modeling and sampling.”

“Deepening a channel can allow tides and storm surges to push farther upriver, bringing salt water with them,” Sisson wrote. “Unearthing the sides of the Cape Fear will not only disturb ecosystems, it will likely also drive the salt-water intrusion even farther upriver.”

The likely result would be an expansion of the “‘ghost forests’ – clusters of native bald cypress trees that have been weakened, warped and ruined by salinity,” he said.

Brayton Willis of Leland, N.C., a retired senior project manager with USACE, now heads up the North Carolina Gullah Geechee Heritage Trail, which traverses both sides of the Cape Fear River between Wilmington and Southport.

He’s so passionate about protecting the environment that he’s written a poem, “Ghost Trees of the Cape Fear River,” published in 2023. You can access it at CoastalReview.org.

 

As a guest columnist for the Coastal Review, a news service provided by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, Willis offered comments about the Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvement Project:

“It is our river, yet it has been treated as a stepchild compared to other, less critical economic priorities. Standard economic models often overlook the real financial value of natural resources and ecological systems like those on the lower Cape Fear River.”

“Since nature’s ‘goods and services,’ such as clean air, fresh water and fully functioning floodplains and wetlands, are often considered free, they are becoming overused and undervalued,” Willis wrote.

“…The degradation of our environment directly affects our citizens, taxpayers and the species that depend on healthy ecosystems. As the Corps prepares its final EIS, it is essential to find more sustainable alternatives than digging us into a deeper hole” from which we can’t escape.

“If not for us, then how about our kids, grandchildren and their grandchildren?”

Ramona McGee of the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill believes “enough is enough.”

 

She said: “The Lower Cape Fear is already threatened by sea level rise and industrial pollution. We shouldn’t be further damaging this special place with an unnecessary and costly project.”

“We are grateful that the Division of Coastal Management is standing up for North Carolina’s coastal resources and communities,” McGee said.