Is it time to repeal the Jones Act... 1

[JohnRBaker]

I know this may not exactly fit this forum, but I wanted to post this where Tug could respond since he's probably best informed when it comes to ships or at least subjects where maritime subjects are discussed.

Note that this issue with the Jones Act came-up after Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico, where it made it difficult to move relief supplies to the island from the mainland. And now it's being suggested that it's contributing to problems with traffic and safety along the I-95 corridor on the East coast.

How a century-old law contributes to CT traffic

https://www.ctpost.com/connecticut/...-connecticut-95-17762153.php?src=rdctpdensecp

So what is the Jones Act?

The Jones Act was passed in 1920 after the first World War so as to boost the nation's shipping industry. It requires that any cargo traveling by sea between two American port cities, that it must be carried on American-owned ships which were built in the United States and which are majority crewed by American citizens.

This presented problems when they tried to get food and medical supplies to Puerto Rico after Maria. For example, if you had 10 containers full of food and other emergency supplies sitting in Miami, you had to find a ship which had been built in the US, which was owned by an American company and where the ship's compliment was mostly American citizens, or else those containers would just sit there. Or they had to be unloaded and the material loaded on planes and flown to the island at an order of magnitude or higher cost difference.

Now a question that Tug might be able to answer...

Does this mean that if a foreign ship were to deliver a load of containers to say San Francisco, but they also had a number of containers that need to be delivered to the Port of Long Beach, that the Jones Act prevents this ship from offloading all of their containers except those earmarked for SoCal, and then deliver those containers to Long Beach before they returned to their overseas home port? In other words, how many trucks are we seeing on the road moving containers from one part of the country to another simply because the Jones Act provided no practical way of moving them via the sea lanes, even if that would've been the more economical option?

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[IRstuff]

Seems pretty clear that its intent is only for moving stuff originating in one US port to another, as claimed by

https://news.usni.org/2019/06/04/keeping-up-with-the-jones-act[/URL]]The Jones Act only applies to domestic U.S. trade. It has no impact on vessels transporting cargo to or from another country.

http://huelladigital.univisionnoticias.com/cruceros-vacaciones-en-aguas-de-nadie/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Jones_Act_1920.pdf[/URL]]SEC. 27. JONES ACT - TRANSPORTATION OF MERCHANDISE BETWEEN POINTS IN UNITED
STATES IN OTHER THAN DOMESTIC BUILT OR REBUILT AND DOCUMENTED VESSELS;
INCINERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AT SEA (46 App. U.S.C. 883 (2002)).6 No merchandise, including merchandise owned by the United States Government, a State (as defined in section 2101 of title 46, United States Code), or a subdivision of a State, shall be transported by water, or by land and water, on penalty of forfeiture of the merchandise (or a monetary amount up to the value thereof as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, or the actual cost of the transportation, whichever is greater, to be recovered from any consignor, seller, owner, importer, consignee, agent, or other person or persons so transporting or causing said merchandise to be transported), between points in the United States, including Districts, Territories, and possessions thereof embraced within the coastwise laws, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation, in any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States,7 or vessels to which the privilege of engaging in the coastwise trade is extended by sections 18 or 22 of this Act

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[SSCon]

The issue is the foreign ship can't pick up containers in SF and offload them in SoCal. So containers will never be moved by ship between those locations, only by road or rail.

There's no prospect of the act going away, the cost is distributed amongst everyone and there's a strong lobby in is favour. The most significant organisation that is opposed to it is the CATO institute.

 

[Milliontown]

The issue is the foreign ship can't pick up containers in SF and offload them in SoCal. So containers will never be moved by ship between those locations, only by road or rail.

That is true, following the law. In reality there are American Barges that can transfer containers from Oakland to POLA/POLB, and from other ports along the California coast. I'm sure some containers still come by truck and train regardless.

Another wrinkle from the Jones Act is the cruiseline industry. People cannot be moved between US ports if they aren't on a Jones Act vessel. I recall a story where a family missed their ship in New Jersey. They wanted to catch it in Florida before leaving from the Carribean, but because of the Jones Act they couldn't, or would have to pay an exorbitant fee, now about $778/person. If the vessel doesn't meet the Jones Act requirement, it can only pick up people and drop them off at the same US port.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

its international shipping law... Absolutely cock all you can do about it ....

 

[Milliontown]

its international shipping law... Absolutely cock all you can do about it ....

No. This is purely a United States law applying to the United States. It is not an international shipping law. That is why it is being discussed here, because the US can do something about it.

 

[SSCon]

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear#

 

[Milliontown]

is it a USA reg tub? which i very much doubt because you don't build ships unless for the local market and they are whore of expensive and crap.

I don't understand your question but it is a US regulation.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://uscode.house.gov/[/url]

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

ok which is the reason why nobody builds ships in the USA Apart from A to A in US waters,

 

[hokie66]

Perhaps some Federal money which is intended for the interstate highway and/or rail transport systems can be diverted to help the interstate shipping system. If it is a net benefit, and the money is going to be spent anyway, why not?

 

[FacEngrPE]

The Jones act is a purely American problem. Sal has talked about it several times, and specifically mentions two hurricane impacts to Porto Rico.
Waiving the Jones Act to Bring LNG to New England | Liquified Natural Gas | Better Call Sal!
Lack of Refinery Capacity | The Jones Act | Oil Company Profits & Russian Sanctions
Hurricanes, Puerto Rico, Ships & the Jones Act | MV GH Parks Off Southern Coast of Puerto Rico
Jones Act | Hurricane Fiona Strikes Puerto Rico | Biden Admin Mulls Waiver | Sea-based Aid Needed

The Jones Act is even getting in the way of building windfarms at sea,
May 19, 2021 10:47AM; The Jones Act Continues to Hamper the Development of Offshore Wind Energy
In one case the Jones Act met it's goal Dominion Energy will allow Ørsted to use its Jones Act-qualified offshore install vessel on additional projects

The Charybdis, the first Jones Act-qualified offshore wind turbine installation vessel in the United States. The vessel is being constructed in Brownsville TX for Dominion Energy, so that Dominion can construct the 2.6-GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project off the coast of Virginia Beach.

 

[TugboatEng]

Jones Act used to be simple, any ship sailing from US port to US port needed to be built and crewed US. Here on the West Coast containerships calling multiple ports would hit Ensenada in between.

The enforcement has been slowly eroding. Now there are many Jones Act ships that are foreign built but have US crews. Remember the Maersk Alabama? I don't see ships making the run to Ensenada anymore. The US yards can't build ships large enough to work in modern terminals.

There are no coastal container barges. There was an attempt to run containers unloaded in Oakland to Stockton by barge to alleviate freeway traffic but the costs were too high.

There is a coastal ship run operated by a few container companies called the Pineapple Triangle. It consists primarily of dilapidated old APL ships from the 1960's built with MARAD funding, operating on waiver after waiver. They run Long Beach/Oakland/Tacoma/Hawaii.

 

[spsalso]

"Jones Act used to be simple, any ship sailing from US port to US port needed to be built and crewed US. Here on the West Coast containerships calling multiple ports would hit Ensenada in between."

I think that would only apply if the ship was carrying containers between US ports. Which is certainly not the majority of container traffic on the west coast.


spsalso

 

[IRstuff]

Here on the West Coast containerships calling multiple ports would hit Ensenada in between.

either directly or via a foreign port,

So, that practice was technically illegal.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[SSCon]

Maersk Alabama was US flagged for a time but was never Jones Act eligible.

There's a program to subsidise bringing private ships under the US flag so they're available for sealift (effectively an admission that the Jones Act failed in its purpose). But the Jones Act restrictions are still in force.