Fourth largest port in U.S. deemed last in line for security funding by Homeland Security
By Guy Span
Published: November, 2006
There are four levels (tiers) of ports rated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), from Tier 1 ports carrying the greatest risk (and earning the most DHS dollars) to low-risk Tier 4 ports like Albany, NY or Mount Vernon, IN. So what Tier do you suppose DHS has applied to the fourth busiest container port in America, namely Oakland? It may take several guesses before one comes up with the current rating.
For reasons known only to DHS, Oakland is rated as a Tier 4 port and shares that with a whole host of less significant ports except for its companion in woe, the Port of Miami. The result means less federal dollars for Oakland to improve its security.
According to Deputy Director of External Affairs of the Port of Oakland, Harold P. Jones, the Port was surprised that its fiscal year 2006 funding request was ignored ($0 granted) and dismayed that the Port of Oakland has been ranked Fourth Tier. He said it’s difficult to understand the rationale and begs the question: How does the fourth busiest container port in the country achieve such a low ranking? However, Jones also said that the Port was comfortable with its immediate baseline security measures, including fencing and cameras. He notes that Oakland had one of the first radiation detectors and that each container leaving the port is checked, but important programs such as transportation worker identification, and others, were left unfunded.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said in a press release to zero out the security funding request for the fourth largest port in the United States, at a time when we face intensified terrorist threats due to the war in Iraq, is tantamount to gross negligence and dereliction of duty by the Bush Administration. Late in September, Lee joined other members of the California Congressional Delegation to write to Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, to express her shock and astonishment.
There is a rationale for assessing risk and a methodology for Homeland Security. First, there is Geographic Risk (worth up to 50 points), and it is composed of the following three components as provided by the department: Vulnerability, Consequence and known Threat.
The second area is also worth up to 50 points and it is called Asset Risk. Asset Risk (according to DHS) is the sum of two independent, but complimentary, assessments of port asset risk, including port, private infrastructure and vessel risk.
While it is difficult to apply the criteria, as almost each one is an analyst’s assessment of risk, it is known that the Port of Oakland is accessed through defined and dredged shipping channels with the bulk of the business being containers. A shut down of even part of the port would have vast impacts on West Coast Shipping (and employment), as containers would have to diverted to other, already crowded ports.
The key impact of being ranked as a Fourth Tier port is, primarily, lost financial aid to improve security. The big boys in ports are all in Tier 1 and include LA/Long Beach-as the busiest container port on the West Coast, and New York/New Jersey-as the busiest East Coast port. Now, we have to be careful with the term busy.
Container ports are rated by how many TEUs they process in a year. A TEU is industry parlance for a twenty-foot equivalent unit or a twenty-foot container. Thus a forty-foot container would be the equivalent of two TEUs. By that ranking, LA/Long Beach towers over Oakland (with over 14 million TEUs), and New York/New Jersey Comes in Second (with 4.7 million TEUs). However, Oakland is nothing to sneeze at, as by DHS’ definition, it is the third largest container port in America, handling some 2.3 million TEUs. By example, Seattle and Tacoma each handle around 2 million TEUs.
When we look at the money being applied to the various ports, again we find that the big boys get the big bucks, with LA/Long Beach at $91.8 million and New York/New Jersey at $77.1 million. DHS reports that Oakland has received some $14.4 million, but Jones says the number actually received is closer to $11 million.
The other possible way to rank ports is by tons rather than TEUs. This raises the ranking for ports that do not handle much in the way of containers. Thus Seattle garnered nearly $40 million in DHS funding, and its TEUs are lower than Oakland but its tonnage is higher. Miami has less tonnage and less TEU yet was granted $28 million (and a place in the Fourth Tier). Third in the top three big boys in Tier 1 is Houston, which shows no TEUs but handles 202 million tons — the second busiest in the nation. Oddly enough, the number one ranked port in tons is South Louisiana, handling some 224 million tons. It is ranked in Tier 3.
On Oct., 17, President Bush signed the SAFE Port Act, designed to improve port security and noted at the time, Protecting our Homeland also requires protecting our seaports… Our ports could also be a target of terrorist attack, and we’re determined to protect them.
This bill would double the funding available for port security. But there is no guarantee that Oakland would receive any of the money. Some observers suggest that Port of Oakland’s low ranking and denial of its funding request are perhaps a dash of politics — payback, if you will, for Barbara Lee’s stand-alone vote against the war in Iraq.
