The dredging dilemma: Economic development and environmental protection in Oakland Harbor

Abstract

Seaport expansion often generates tensions between the national interest in efficient transport and local interests in water quality and habitat preservation. The governing American permitting system, however, establishes an extraordinarily cumbersome, legalistic, and costly method for balancing environmental and economic considerations. A case study of the Port of Oakland illustrates the tendency. For four years, plans to find an environmentally acceptable site for dredged material have been stymied by a sequence of inconclusive regulatory and judicial proceedings. Meanwhile, large container ships can enter and leave Oakland harbor only at high tide, and not fully loaded. Despite the absence of any authoritative determination concerning environmental risks, the port was compelled to accede to progressively more expensive disposal methods. Such “adversarial legalism”; is not unique to the Oakland harbor case, but recurs in other policy spheres. It stems from a governmental structure that fragments decision‐making power among many agencies, that constrains regulatory discretion with legal demands for scientific certainty, and that by allowing agency decisions to be challenged readily in court, encourages legalistic defensiveness and extortion rather than compromise. The article concludes with a discussion of the conditions under which regional planning bodies might overcome these centrifugal tendencies.