The June 2018 issue of The American Legion Magazine carried an article "River Tenders," on the Coast Guard's role in keeping rivers safe for navigation. These means checking the condition of 15,000 buoys (floting aids to navigation) and thousands of shore markers and lighthouses. Sunken buoys, often resulting from tree trunks or trash like shopping carts, refrigoraters, becoming entangled with the anchof chain. Brush must be cut back to preserve visibilty. The inland waterways require 18 River Tenders, and each has a normal crew of 19.
About 630,000,000 tons of freight are shipped on the rivers each year. Does this traffic pay any taxes to suppor the Coast Guard's effort?
Interesting question.
Bouy maintenance, etc, for the section of the St Lawrence Seaway between Lake Ontario and Montreal is done by the Seaway Authority, not the USGC or Canadian CG, although both have a presence and roles on the river.
The Erie Canal (NYS Barge Canal) is maintained by the Canal Authority, now part of the Thruway Authority. I don't even know if USCG has a presence on the canal.
There are minimal user fees for the canal - a season pass for vessels 39' and over is $100. Much of the cost of maintaining the canal comes from Thruway tolls.
The St Lawrence Seaway has an involved set of tolls, chiefly for those locking through. The base charge is something like 11 cents per metric ton of the ship, then varying fees for various cargos.
I suspect pilot fees are extra. I could find out, but doubt it's important for this discussion.
Aside from the locks and pilots, I'm pretty sure the St Lawrence River and Lake Ontario are a free-for-all. If you want to launch your boat and play on the river for the day, your only cost might be at the boat launch (fuel, insurance, etc is a given).
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
The Army Corps of Engineers would also have an interest in any such fees since they actually maintain the channels and locks.
I don't know anything about the funding, but growing up on the Columbia River, The Army Corp of Engineers Dredge Essayons, and the USCG Buoy Tender Bluebell were common sights.
Both are Home Ported in Portland, OR, and I still see them frequently on the Columbia and Willamette Rivers.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Quickest way to bone-up on the US coast guard would be at the Wikipedia page for them...lots of interesting stuff. They are unique in being recognized as both a law enforcement agency as well as a branch of the armed forces.
They were originally called the "Revenue Marine" and their primary duties were to collect customs duties at ports. All the life saving, and ice breaking, and contraband seizing duties came later.
The Coast Guard is funded through appropriation, example annual fiscal report for the USCG http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09810t.pdf
Convicted One Quickest way to bone-up on the US coast guard would be at the Wikipedia page for them...lots of interesting stuff. They are unique in being recognized as both a law enforcement agency as well as a branch of the armed forces. They were originally called the "Revenue Marine" and their primary duties were to collect customs duties at ports. All the life saving, and ice breaking, and contraband seizing duties came later.
If someone wants a real headach on the USCG and its sphere of responsibility in areas other than directly on vessels on navigable waterways, here is a linked site that will can give a clue as to their scope of authority: See linked @ https://etesting.uscg.mil/mstrefs/33_CFR_125-199.pdf
"Title 33—Navigation and Navigable Waters"
When I was working in the trucking business; our company suffered a couple of instances of diesel fuel spills; spills that were adjacent to but not on navigable water.
My first instance was when we were called by a State Tropper to notify us [dispatch] that a company vehicle was involved in a potential spill, and that the State Emergency management Agency was going to be involved. The Coast Guard was part of that Group. The road ditch that our vehicle was in flowed into a river or creek that flowed into Lake Michigan. I fielded calls from the EMA all night and ito the next morning.. Costs for the 'clean-up' rose exponentially over that period of time due to the theart to navigable waterways polution.
The second incident was in another state. Similar situation, until they found out there would be no danger to navigable waterways. That one was caused by a suicidal racoon, that was crossing a lane of Interstate Hwy., and took out the fuel crossover line on one of our units. Apparently, the driver was oblivious to the damage until his truck died for lack of fuel in a truck Stop lot which he had been circling around looking for a parking spot. Net result was our company and its insurance wound up paving one half of the southbound lanes of that Interstate. Which amounted to approximately seven miles of one lane of Interstate surface being ground up and relaid.
Our inland waterways have been a contentious subject for a long, long time.
Currently the commercial operators (barges) pay an excise tax on their fuel that I last heard was $0.20/gallon. This covers about half of the cost of maintaining and operating their "right of way". The other half is a gift from the taxpayers. It's corporate welfare at its worst. It's a subsidy to corporations such as Cargill and ADM that operate their own river fleets.
Even getting that $0.20/gallon (which hasn't changed in decades) was a fight. It was instituted circa 1980. Before that the taxpayers footed the entire bill.
Below St. Louis the Mississippi is a very efficient method of transporting freight such as coal and grain. Above that point, and on other rivers, not so much. Locks, dams, and dredging are required. These things are quite costly. The only economically sound way to do it is to make the barges pay for the locks, dams and dredging, etc. though tolls. But that messes with the subsidies and gets in to politics. So we are where we are.
One of the most infamous cases that helped destroy any credibility railroad rate regulation had was the "Ingot Molds Case." Not only did the damn government subsidize the barges, it used its regulatory authority to hold rail rates high so as to divert potential rail business to barges. As one example, there was a movement of aluminum ingots from Pennsylvania to Kentucky by barge. The railroads tried to establish a competitive rate which matched the barge rate. The barge company, which was not rate regulated, filed a protest with the ICC. That government agency used its regulatory powers to disallow lower rail rate. This prevented the logistics channel from configuring to its most efficient form and harmed the US economy.
greyhoundsCurrently the commercial operators (barges) pay an excise tax on their fuel that I last heard was $0.20/gallon. This covers about half of the cost of maintaining and operating their "right of way". The other half is a gift from the taxpayers.
In addition to the fuel tax, barge operators, irrespective of whether they are common carriers or dedicated carries, pay corporate income taxes (federal and state), inventory taxes, property taxes, etc. These monies find their way into the federal and the state general funds. Ultimately some of them are used to help improve and/or maintain the nation's waterways.
In Galveston, in addition to the fuel taxes, the cruise lines pay a fee for every passenger disembarking at the port. Carnival told me that it is $15 per passenger. I understand that it varies from port to port, but I have not checked it out.
Like the highways and airways, the nation's waterways are used by commercial entities as well as pleasure boat operators, etc. So, the question is not whether the commercial operators pay for the use of the waterways and port facilities; it is whether the pay their fair share. The probability of resolving this argument is about as high as the probably of getting agreement on whether the truckers and the airlines pay their fair share of the common facilities that they use.
Is it correct to assume that any fees per passenger are already collected when the passemger pays their fare? I suggest it is and therefore passengers, not the operators, contribute the amount that the operators send to the government.
JPS1In addition to the fuel tax, barge operators, irrespective of whether they are common carriers or dedicated carries, pay corporate income taxes (federal and state), inventory taxes, property taxes, etc. These monies find their way into the federal and the state general funds. Ultimately some of them are used to help improve and/or maintain the nation's waterways
Yes, all the same taxes the railroads pay (property taxes orders of magnitude greater). So it seems the railroads are helping subsidize their modal competition.
diningcar Is it correct to assume that any fees per passenger are already collected when the passemger pays their fare? I suggest it is and therefore passengers, not the operators, contribute the amount that the operators send to the government.
The port taxes, fees, etc., paid by the cruise ship operators, etc. are embedded in the cost of the cruise. They are paid by the passengers. The same is true for all business taxes.
Corporations don't pay taxes. In most instances they are passed through to the people who buy their goods and services. The are embedded in the price the consumer or shipper pays.
cx500 Yes, all the same taxes the railroads pay (property taxes orders of magnitude greater). So it seems the railroads are helping subsidize their modal competition.
Without specifics it is impossible to test you assertion.
Another point to consider is what part of the work that the ACoE does helps commercial shipping and how much (levees, dams, etc) helps to prevent flooding and ruining cities and towns.
cx500So it seems the railroads are helping subsidize their modal competition.
The NYS canal system is subsidized by the Thruway - so, to an extent, by the trucking industry.
Likely the average tax per carload is not too bad for a high density line. For a lightly used branch line it starts getting punitive. An example from Saskatchewan (a province with particularly high property tax rate on railways), the 18 mile branch was charged approximately C$10,000 annually. One year, with drought affecting grain production, it generated just over 200 car loads. So each carload had to cover $50.00 as its share. That was just for the 18 mile portion to reach the main line; unfortunately I have no idea how much its share would be for the remaining 1,000 miles to export. Heavy traffic lines were taxed at a higher rate. Later years saw the farmers shipping more traffic, probably 2 or three times as much. (I did not include the empty movements.)
Just as different provinces have different property tax rates, I believe some of the states are worse than others.
tree68subsidized by the Thruway - so, to an extent, by the trucking industry
Did you see in that annual report I linked to where the Coast Guard is paying to refurbish 3 or 4 railroad bridges? E,J,&E being one of them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.