U.S. Dredging Policy: Jones Act Waiver(s), Outdated Environmental Restrictions Hamper an Industry

U.S. Dredging Policy: Jones Act Waiver(s), Outdated Environmental Restrictions Hamper an Industry The American maritime industry depends on policy that supports economic growth and investment and protects national security; however, recent policy decisions have too often relied on broad administrative actions and outdated assumptions rather than modern, data-driven approaches. The extension of the Jones Act waiver and the continued use of rigid seasonal dredging windows illustrate this trend. Though distinct issues, both carry significant consequences for maritime investment, operational efficiency, and the long-term strength of the maritime industry. A Brief Discussion on the Jones Act Waiver The Jones Act (Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act) of 1920 mandates that all vessels transporting goods between ports in the United States be built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, registered under the U.S. flag, and crewed by American mariners. This law has successfully protected the domestic maritime industry from foreign interference in our national and economic security. It supports national security interests by maintaining a reliable supply of trained mariners who are needed during national emergencies and overseas conflicts. It also fosters an American manufacturing base by requiring that the ships be built in America and owned by U.S. companies. In response to Iran’s blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, on March 17, 2026, the Trump Administration issued a national defense interest waiver of the Jones Act. Originally set for 60 days, the waiver has been extended by an additional 90 days, pushing the end date through August 16, 2026. The waiver was predicated primarily on the need to lower gasoline prices in the United States. Reporting now indicates that the waiver has had only a marginal impact on fuel prices, if at all. It has contributed to tighter vessel markets and higher freight rates globally, given the increased demand on foreign vessels amid the circumstances of the war in Iran–the very circumstances that the waiver was implemented to supposedly alleviate. Aside from taking jobs directly from American workers, the waiver raises significant national security concerns. According to the Shipbuilders Council of America, roughly one-third of all completed waiver voyages have involved vessels with ties to the People’s Republic of China, whether through ownership, operation, joint-venture arrangements, or Chinese-built hulls. For example, the Chinese-flagged vessel MV Jin Zhou Wan transported asphalt between Harvey, Louisiana, and New Haven, Connecticut. The vessel is operated by COSCO, which has been designated by the Department of Defense as a Chinese military-affiliated company. Transporting asphalt in U.S. domestic trade on a Chinese-built, Chinese-owned, and Chinese-crewed vessel can hardly be considered in the interest of national defense. This is especially true when American-built, American-owned, and American-crewed vessels, such as those operated by Kirby Corporation, remain readily available. Congressional leaders are taking notice. When Congressman Salud Carbajal (D-CA) sought information from foreign flagged ship operators regarding their compliance with American laws and security standards, an alarming number of them gave either vague justifications similar to statements like “Because of the waiver,” or just stating “Not Applicable.” Such responses provide insufficient assurance that foreign operators are meeting the compliance and security expectations typically associated with domestic commerce. In addition, maritime tax professionals are increasingly raising concerns that the waiver is opening the door to what appears to be a tax avoidance structure. These foreign flag vessel operators are also avoiding the safety and environmental oversight with which the domestic maritime industry must comply. Therefore, the U.S. government is granting preference to foreign flag operators over its own domestic fleet. Concerns about the waiver’s impact on American jobs and national security are being raised in hearings on Capitol Hill. During the March 18, 2026 congressional hearing, Waiving the Jones Act to Fix Trump’s Economic Crisis, U.S. Representative Hillary Scholten (D-MI) put it plainly: “If the waiver continues, we will become quickly reliant on foreign-flag ships for domestic commerce.” At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on U.S. Transportation Command, Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) took the argument a step further, warning that if “war breaks out, Chinese ships aren’t going to be available to us.” The waiver is putting a direct strain on economic investment. The Federal Reserve’s May 2026 Beige Book has indicated that “A water transportation company noted having paused domestic shipping investment due to Jones Act waivers.” This is significant as it appears to be the first time the Fed’s Beige Book cited the waiver as a causal factor in diminishing economic investment. Similar concerns are being raised throughout the maritime industrial base. On June 15, 2026, the Shipbuilders Council of America warned that the waiver places more than $2.6 billion in active shipyard contracts and planned expansion projects at risk. Industry leaders argue that the longer the waiver remains in effect, the greater the uncertainty for investors, shipbuilders, vessel operators, and mariners. As Clayton Heil, Vice President of Government Relations at Crowley Maritime, testified before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee during the hearing The Blue Economy: Advancing American Fisheries, Maritime Strength, and Coastal Economies, for the waiver “to be extended again would be another sign to the investment community and to companies like ours and to mariners that the Jones Act is unstable, and investment will flee.” The debate surrounding the Jones Act waiver reflects a broader challenge facing maritime policy. Too often, policymakers respond to modern problems with blunt administrative actions rather than targeted, evidence-based solutions. As of this writing the cease fire in the Persian Gulf just came into effect, but the Jones Act waiver still remains in place. Outdated Environmental Restrictions While the Jones Act waiver relaxes long-standing protections despite questionable benefits, other areas of maritime policy remain constrained by regulations built around assumptions and scientific limitations from decades ago. The issue of dredging windows provides a useful example. During the 2026 National Dredging Meeting in Norfolk, Virginia, nearly 200 attendees from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), private sector dredging companies and associations discussed a major industry issue. That issue focused on how rigid regulatory dredging windows place a financial burden on both the dredging industry and the American taxpayer. Keynote speaker, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, Major General Jason Kelly acknowledged the regulatory concerns and highlighted a need to expand dredging windows. He assured attendees that the Trump Administration is working on ways to expand the number of days that can be dredged each year in various Army Corps districts. In an attempt to mitigate the environmental impact of dredging projects, current seasonal dredging windows operate under set, arbitrary calendars founded on outdated and extremely minimal scientific evidence. These outdated windows directly raise costs for the American taxpayer by increasing the risk of emergency shoaling conditions and extending some dredging projects over multiple seasons. The windows create financial risk for the dredge owners and operators when they have to idle their vessels. They run the risk of laying off or losing crew members. Given that the windows push projects away from warmer periods and into the colder months of the year, there are also costs associated with the safety risks to crewmembers who must complete work in sub-optimal and sometimes extreme winter conditions. Furthermore, each protected species operates on a distinct biological clock (though often not set to a specific schedule like the compulsory windows suggest) which often collide or overlap with each other, further restricting the ability to complete essential projects. These windows make it difficult to meet contractual delivery schedules, often resulting in delays and potential monetary penalties. The associated costs including vessel idling, crew retention, and reduced operational efficiency can be substantial, ultimately increasing project costs borne by both contractors and taxpayers. Today’s dredging windows are based on overly conservative information from the 1970s and 1980s when dredge operators and regulators simply did not have the technology required to determine exactly where protected species resided at any point in time. Technology has advanced exponentially in recent decades. Through Risk-Informed Decision Frameworks (RIDFs) that incorporate real-time data such as water temperature, turbidity, salinity, and historical ecological information, dredging operators now have the tools to effectively reduce environmental risks while completing necessary projects within reasonable timeframes. Other RIDF mechanisms include deterrents designed to encourage endangered species already present in the area to move elsewhere. One method uses electric and magnetic pulses to discourage animals from remaining in the vicinity. While effective, these pulses can, in some cases, disrupt certain biological electroreception processes. As a result, the USACE also exploring non-invasive visual silhouette deterrents that project shadows resembling large sharks and other predators, signaling that the area is not safe for these species to remain. Another USACE-suggested technique is the use of Turtle Tickler Chains (TTCs), which discourage turtles, sturgeon, and other benthic organisms from remaining in the area. TTCs employ hanging arrays of chains that maintain consistent contact with the bottom, gently deterring protected species through painless physical contact. The Dredging Contractors of America and other organizations are working with the Administration and Congress to increase the number of dredging days per year. As discussed at the National Dredge Meeting, this year is being described as a very important year to start the process of expanding dredging work windows. Although the Jones Act waiver and dredging windows involve different policy areas, both demonstrate the importance of grounding maritime policy in long-term interests and modern evidence rather than short-term political responses and outdated assumptions. In one case, administrative actions have set aside a foundational maritime law despite limited evidence that doing so achieves its stated purpose. In the other, regulators continue to rely on rigid seasonal restrictions developed when today's monitoring technologies did not exist. A durable maritime strategy should do neither. It should strengthen America’s national and economic security while embracing modern tools that improve efficiency and environmental stewardship simultaneously.