Sen. Casey calls for action on Ohio River lock and dam projects |

Sen. Casey calls for action on Ohio River lock and dam projects

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Scranton, renewed a call this week for the federal government to make needed repairs and upgrades to locks and dams on the Upper Ohio River, saying failure to do so could be “catastrophic” for the river structures and the 200,000 jobs that rely on their operation.

Casey urged Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to speed up the process, saying the government has been ordering studies on the estimated $2.7 billion project for 15 years.

“It’s time for the budget director to understand what we’re up against here in Southwestern Pennsylvania. I don’t want to hear some Washington, D.C. talk about how we have to cut back on priorities for Southwestern Pennsylvania,” Casey told reporters Monday in North Braddock.

Concrete is deteriorated in the Emsworth, Dashields and Montgomery Locks and Dams, which have been in operation for six to eight decades, and the structures are too small to accommodate the largest towboats used on the Ohio River, according to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study.

Temporary repairs in the 1980s and 1990s were meant to extend the structures’ lives 25 years. The 25-year-stretch ended for each structure between 2010 and 2015.

The federal Office of Management and Budget is re-evaluating the benefits from the proposed updates to the locks and dams, incorporating declines in the coal industry and trends in natural gas development in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations, said Lenna Hawkins, the Corps of Engineers deputy district engineer. The study is scheduled to be finished in May of next year, Hawkins said.

Under the last estimates, repairing the three structures would add about $240 million per year in economic benefits to the existing $110 million per year in benefits that come from the operational locks and dams, according to the Corps. It could be finished in eight years, under a best-case scenario, according to Corps estimates.

The economic benefits measurement is a complex calculation of the impacts the infrastructure has on prices of consumer goods and services (like electricity) that depend on the transportation of raw materials by river.

The locks and dams accommodate movement of around 40 million tons per year of coal, petroleum products, sand, gravel and other aggregate materials. About 26,000 tons of that is electricity-generating coal that travels downstream to coal-fired plants.

Shipping by water is cheaper than over land, and the loss of the river would add a massive amount of traffic to roads and rail lines, Hawkins said.

One jumbo barge carries the equivalent of 58 tractor-trailer loads, she said. A towboat can push 15 barges, the equivalent of 870 truck-loads, she said, or 225 jumbo rail cars. That comes out to roughly 4,300 truckloads per day moving on the river, she said.

The Corps is also continuing work on the Lower Monongahela Locks and Dams, with a recent infusion of $98 million in federal money. The project, authorized in 1992 with a cost estimate of $750 million and a scheduled finish in 2004, is now scheduled to be finished in 2023 at a cost of $1.23 billion. That estimate includes deferring work on one of the locks indefinitely.

The Lower Mon project, which includes removing the Elizabeth Lock and Dam south of Clairton, would bring $200 million in new economic benefits, according to Corps estimates.

Wes Venteicher is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Wes at 412-380-5676, [email protected] or via Twitter @wesventeicher.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.