Fralin: Yes, Mr. Will, there is a Virginia

It was with considerable interest that I read George Will's Jan. 15 column, "Running Competitiveness Aground," arguing that trade coming to the East Coast would be slowed if the shipping channels leading to and from the Port of Charleston aren't dredged to 50 feet deep.

Will makes his case for Charleston based on increased trade coming to the U.S. East Coast through the Panama Canal, which will open a new, wider set of locks in 2014. This wider canal will accommodate a larger class of cargo vessels that can operate only in deep water ports — 50 feet being the magic number. The author's insinuation that this new development is a game changer for United States commerce is quite correct.

Further, there can be but little argument that our public processes have become increasingly "sluggish," forcing America to play by different rules compared to much of the world. There is also more than a hint of truth to his statement that America has changed "from a nation that celebrated getting things done to a nation that celebrates people and groups who prevent things from being done."

However, Will misses the point with his conclusion that the southeastern ports need to be dredged to 50 feet and that Charleston would be the cheapest to deepen. Yes, Mr. Will, there is a Virginia. It lies 309 nautical miles north of Charleston and the water here is 50 feet deep. In fact, the shipping channels at The Port of Virginia have been 50 feet deep since 2007 and this port has the federal authorization to dredge to 55 feet if necessary.

The Port of Virginia was the only East Coast port that realized the need for deep water early on and took the necessary steps to prepare for a wider Panama Canal and a new class of vessels. In fact, Virginia's port is the sixth largest in the nation, third largest on the East Coast (ranking ahead of Charleston) and, last time I checked, located in the Southeast.

Unlike many of its East Coast competitors, Virginia is not hamstrung by shallow water or overhead obstructions (bridges). Further, The Port of Virginia is home to the most technologically advanced container terminal in the Americas, has both of the East's Class I railroads on dock and is within a day's drive of two-thirds of the nation's population.

The idea that the Port of Charleston may be out of the game without deeper water is a stretch. The Southeast continues to be the East's fastest growing region and forecasts show that trend continuing. Given those truths, container ships will continue to serve the Southeast. The most likely scenario is a change in port rotations. Virginia would become the logical first East Coast stop because huge ships could come here fully laden without concern for depth, and then move on to Charleston with a lighter load that doesn't require as much depth.

I would have expected Will, as a fiscal conservative, to have addressed one final issue: How many deep-draft ports does the U.S. East Coast need and what should be the federal government's financial obligation? Presently, the ports of Miami, Savannah, Charleston and New York/New Jersey are all seeking a 50-foot channel. The collective price tag eclipses the $1 billion mark and there would be the prerequisite state/federal government cost share.

Clearly, the bureaucracy needed to add five extra feet of depth to a shipping channel is numbing and a burden on the industry. But would the ports of Charleston and Savannah — separated by roughly 130 miles — both need 50 feet of water to serve much of what is largely a shared market? Should this money be spent with Virginia waiting just a little further up the road?