South Carolina Built the Solution. Then Chose Not to Use It.
This accountability problem has real-world consequences
South Carolina has invested nearly $2 billion in port infrastructure, spent $580 million deepening a harbor, and appropriated over $521 million in recurring state support — while container volumes remained flat, terminal utilization remained uneven, and the agency's primary documented competency shifted from port operations to political appropriations. This site documents the decisions, the costs, and the alternatives— using the Authority’s own records and the statutes that govern it.
Wando → I-526 → the $6–$7B bill
Why a rail-deficient terminal turns port success into permanent highway congestion—and why taxpayers fund the fix.
See the geography and the costs →Leatherman + NBIF: the underused solution
A rail-served system exists. When it’s underused, the public still pays.
Read the stranded-asset case →The $822,000 payout — and what the record shows
A direct test of statutory governance—and how major decisions move without transparent public process.
Read the case file →