Posted on April 9, 2025
One of the routine activities required to keep Michigan’s harbors open and running smoothly could be at risk amid Trump administration funding cuts and a new state environmental testing requirement.
Each year, nearly 70 harbors, channels, canals and river mouths in Michigan must compete for federal dredging funds so the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Operation and Maintenance division can remove sediment buildup known as shoaling from the waterways to ensure sufficient depths for commercial and recreational vessel navigation.
Shoaling occurs over time through natural processes, including the currents of rivers and streams carrying sediment to harbors, as well as through coastal erosion caused by waves, tides and storms. Human activities like dredging and vessel traffic can add to the buildup, as excavators and propellers redistribute bottom sediments.
A period of lower Great Lakes water levels like the one occurring now also can contribute to the need for dredging, because as the water recedes, exposed lake- and riverbeds become more susceptible to sediment buildup and the formation of shallow areas.
West Michigan’s three commercial harbors in Grand Haven, Holland and Muskegon — which together ship and receive nearly 4 million tons of aggregate materials annually for Michigan infrastructure and construction projects — are all scheduled for maintenance dredging this year. That’s according to Esther Johnson, deputy chief of operations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Detroit District.
“All of all the harbors along the Great Lakes have to compete for funding based on need, and then also criteria that the Corps of Engineers develops … based off of tonnage and use,” Johnson said. “Commercial harbors will always compete better than recreational harbors.”
Dredging in Grand Have.
Holland Harbor is tentatively scheduled for dredging in May, Grand Haven is expected to be dredged in June, and Muskegon is on the schedule for August. That’s provided there are no delays because of weather, contractor schedules or budget changes, according to Army Corps of Engineers spokesperson Brandon Hubbard.
However, this year’s dredging funding remains uncertain, as Congressional Republicans’ continuing resolution to fund the government through September — which President Donald Trump signed into law on March 17 — included a $1.4 billion, or 44%, cut to the Army Corps’ construction budget that includes civil works projects like dredging.
The short-term spending bill gives the Trump administration broad discretion about which projects to fund. As a result, the Army Corps could be forced to delay dredging certain harbors, though Johnson said it’s not yet clear which ones.
U.S. Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Grand Rapids, who represents Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District that covers parts of Kent, Muskegon and Ottawa counties, said the 44% funding cut is a “huge, huge problem.”
“We already needed to increase, not decrease, the overall budget” for dredging and other infrastructure projects, Scholten said.
Johnson said based on what’s emerging from the 2026 federal budget talks, funding for next year could also be in jeopardy.
“What we’re potentially seeing is decreases in the president’s budget,” she said, though she stressed the final funding picture will become clearer when Congress passes its version of the 2026 budget during the coming months.
Part of a broader trend
The federal dredging funding pie has been anything but secure over the years.
Dredging funds for the Army Corps come through congressional appropriations to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, financed by the Harbor Maintenance Tax, an excise tax on the value of waterborne cargo moved on the Great Lakes that was established under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
However, over time, the federal government began diverting some of the Harbor Maintenance Tax funds to other priorities, including balancing the federal budget, while also allowing a multibillion-dollar surplus to build up in the trust fund.
In 2020, Oregon House Democrat and House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio led a push to reform the Water Resources Development Act so that excise tax collections are fully spent on the needs of the ports that generate the funds. New guidelines spelled out cost-sharing breakdowns and required 13% of annual collections to be distributed to maintenance of the Great Lakes navigation system.
The 2020 amendment also removed funds appropriated for maintenance dredging from counting toward annual discretionary spending limits. Johnson said as far as she’s aware, the White House has not signaled an intention to ask Congress to amend the legislation again.
“What we anticipate is maybe in future years, the President’s budget (for the Army Corps) will get smaller … but the total appropriation that then goes through review of the House and the Senate will still have to have sustained funding for harbor dredging,” Johnson said.
Dredging in Muskegon.
A wrinkle at the state level
On top of the federal funding concerns, Scholten and U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Holland, also expressed concern about what they described as a new layer of state regulation that could disrupt dredging schedules.
Last fall, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy told the Army Corps of Engineers that 17 of the 69 navigational channels in Michigan that are on the list for regular dredging are located on or near waterways with high concentrations of PFAS. EGLE said it would like the Army Corps of Engineers to perform PFAS testing before dredging to ensure the cancer-causing forever chemicals don’t spread into the Great Lakes or other waterways.
However, Huizenga and Scholten both said the state of Michigan has not yet developed a standard that defines acceptable levels of PFAS in sediment or given guidance on disposal requirements.
Huizenga, whose district includes affected harbors, said in an April 1 statement that having a testing requirement without standards “is the equivalent of writing a speeding ticket when there is no posted speed limit.”
He cited guidance from the Army Corps last November that estimated the PFAS testing requirement would raise the cost of dredging the 24 harbors on the schedule for 2025 from the budgeted $71 million to between $488 million and $793 million. He said this would mean the Army Corps would have to cut back dredging to three to five harbors per year instead of 24.
Johnson cautioned that those estimates were “worst-case scenario” projections that are still being refined, though new estimates were not given.
Scholten said the downstream financial effects of not dredging harbors would be dire, if they came to pass. The city of Grand Haven, which is located in her district, provided her an estimate that if the harbor isn’t dredged this year, commercial freighters would have to “light load” their vessels by reducing cargo weights, which would add more trips, thereby increasing fuel and shipping costs by 25% to 30%, or about $3 million to $5 million annually.
Johnson said the Army Corps does have emergency funding it could tap, if for some reason dredging gets delayed or more expensive, so hopefully light loading would not be necessary.
Scholten told Crain’s that a planned April 9 meeting will include representatives from Congress, the Army Corps, EGLE and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office to hash out a testing standard.
“We are committed to keeping this dredging cycle on time,” Scholten said. “We will be continuing to bring our stakeholders to the table to make sure that we can meet the economic needs of the region while also protecting our Great Lakes from harmful PFAS chemicals that might be present when they dredge.”
EGLE spokesperson Scott Dean provided a letter to Crain’s that the department sent to Huizenga’s office on April 7. In the letter, EGLE assured Huizenga that testing standards and sediment removal guidance will be shared with the Army Corps “later this month.”
EGLE “recognizes the value the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides in maintaining productive and navigable harbors supporting both recreation and commerce,” Dean said in a statement.
“We work closely with the U.S. Army Corps to ensure their important work can continue while also remaining in compliance with Michigan laws protecting the environment and public health,” Dean said.
