Letters to the Editor

What You Say

MORE TO THE STORY

I am writing in response to your cover story on Maya van Rossum and the critical deepening of the Delaware River ["The Riverkeeper," Cover Story, Samantha Drake, May 20]. While I certainly respect Ms. van Rossum's desire to protect the river — no one is more concerned about the future of the river than us, of course — there is a great deal more to the story than "protect the environment" or "deepen the river."

The decision to deepen the river — it is dredged every year to maintain its depth and to ensure safe passage, so the debate is over whether to deepen it to 45 feet — has been one of the most studied decisions in years. There have literally been dozens of studies conducted over more than two decades. All of them, including the environmental study conducted just a year ago, found that the deepening will have minimal environmental impact. The process continues to be monitored and, to date, there has been no adverse impact. It's also important to remember what exactly the material being removed is — sand, silt and clay, primarily. Those materials will be used to replenish a beach in Delaware and build a habitat.

All of that said, we should not lose sight of what else is important here: If we are going to ensure the future economic viability of our ports in the region, we need to deepen the Delaware channel to 45 feet. It is undeniable that ships are growing ever bigger and that other ports are able to accept them while ours cannot (both New York's and Baltimore's ports have been deepened recently). If we do not deepen the passageway, the ports along the Delaware are destined to become "niche" ports, costing thousands of good jobs. If we deepen the channel, we'll create thousands of jobs.

Since we can both protect and grow jobs and protect the environment, the opposition to the project is unfounded.

In closing, I'd like to take the opportunity to defend the professionalism of the experts who have been studying and reviewing this project. While their work and motives are often impugned by opponents, they are professionals who do not stand to gain from a decision about the project one way or the other. They are just doing their job and calling it like they see it. That's why federal judges, not once, but twice, have ruled the project can go forward.