Unreasonable demands on Port activity would be detrimental to L.A.

FOR many months now, leaders of the Port of Los Angeles, the maritime industry, and various labor, community and environmental organizations have been working to identify ways to operate one of the world's greatest seaports in ways that have less impact on surrounding communities.

In a good faith effort to be constructive, our industry association, which represents the major ocean carriers and terminal operators on the West Coast, has been participating in these discussions. We recognize the need to operate the ports in ways that impact communities less.

Sadly, the mayor's task force chose to put local politics ahead of smart planning and effective pollution control. By ignoring the input of the goods movement industry, the task force proceeded to send outgoing Mayor James Hahn an extraordinarily costly set of regulations, many of which will have highly questionable air quality benefits. The report relies on a long string of assumptions and speculations and creates a wholly unrealistic sense of accomplishment while making it harder for the Port of Los Angeles to remain competitive in the global marketplace.

The proposed regulations carry a staggering price tag of tens of billions of dollars for a list of pollution-reduction measures that may or may not actually reduce pollution. Everyone involved in the long and difficult process of evaluating these measures was aware that many were highly speculative, poorly researched and woefully lacking in documentation.

If the 68 pollution-control recommendations contained in the task force report become mandatory regulations, the nation's busiest seaport could quickly find itself priced out of the market. And it will certainly find itself mired in endless litigation and court challenges because the legal basis for many of the proposals is shaky at best.

In today's global economy, cargo is like water: it seeks and finds the path of least resistance. Already, we are seeing cargo volumes decline at the Port of Los Angeles while they continue to grow at other West Coast ports. In May of this year, the total volume of cargo at the port declined by 7.6 percent compared with the like period a year earlier.

By urging policies and regulations that will dramatically increase the costs of shipping cargo through the Port of Los Angeles, the task force is encouraging the international trade community to find alternative gateways for the products Americans demand. Once the no-growth agenda is clear, there will be little incentive for ocean carders and terminal operators to invest in new facilities, upgrade the port's infrastructure or buy newer, cleaner equipment.

There may be some who welcome the prospect of less activity at the port. But reducing or eliminating the amount of cargo coming through the port won't reduce pollution, won't reduce consumer demand, won't temper Southern California's population growth and certainly won't address the region's mounting infrastructure needs. Cargo that finds its way to the U.S. through alternative ports will make its way into the Los Angeles Basin on trucks or trains instead of ships. Both are far more polluting on a per-ton basis than are ships and ocean-borne transport.

When first initiated, the task force was a worthy experiment that identified some promising strategies for improving air quality. Unfortunately, it has sacrificed science and consensus for political expediency.

The Port of Los Angeles would be better served by working with its tenants and customers to support proven, cost-effective air quality initiatives that are making air quality better today and will continue to improve air quality tomorrow. We need to use realistic growth projections, sound science and the best and latest research available.

Michele Grubbs, vice president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, was a member of the No Net Increase Task Force.