The cost and supply of chemical fertilizers used by farmers has been an issue of interest to certain Members in the 119th Congress. Several bills have been introduced to either address fertilizer prices or seek to promote more domestic fertilizer production. The Trump Administration has taken a number of actions to try to ease the flow of goods domestically, including fertilizer. This includes a five-month waiver of the Jones Act, a law requiring vessels transporting cargo between U.S. points to be U.S. built, and waivers for certain regulations on truck drivers delivering fertilizer. The Secretary of Agriculture has stated a desire to reshore fertilizer production and has announced funding for this effort. Thus, a review of how fertilizer is transported to and within the United States and what federal policies impact its transportation may be timely. The three main types of fertilizer are nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium and can be transported in solid form (prill), liquid form, or as a compressed gas. Trucks are typically used to transport fertilizers over short distances, such as less than 500 miles, and to agriculture retail facilities and farms. Railroads are often used to transport fertilizers longer distances, such as from one region of the country to another, and to carry fertilizer raw material inputs in large quantities from mines or manufacturing facilities and to and from ports or land border crossings. River barges, such as those carrying cargo on the Mississippi River system and Columbia-Snake system, are a competitive alternative to rail. Oceangoing ships are primarily used to import and export fertilizers but are often not price competitive for moving fertilizers domestically along U.S. coastlines. A 1,700-mile pipeline transports anhydrous ammonia (a nitrogen-based fertilizer) north from terminals along the Mississippi River in Louisiana to Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska. Issues with rail service and domestic coastal shipping may limit the efficacy of increasing domestic production for domestic users of fertilizers. In the case of shipping anhydrous ammonia (which is toxic-by-inhalation (TIH)), railroads and ammonia shippers have disputed liability in train accidents. Several accidents over the past 25 years suggest that liability in cases of hazardous materials transported by train has increased substantially. Anhydrous ammonia shippers have stated that rail rates for carrying the product are exceedingly high to cover the cost of the necessary insurance. These shippers have reported that railroads have required them to increase their general liability coverage from $10 million to $100 million. Railroads claim that this increase is necessary because an incident involving a TIH release could result in financial liability that compromises their ability to continue serving all of their customers. In part because U.S.-built and crewed oceangoing ships are much more expensive than foreign-built and crewed ships, and the type of ship needed to transport certain kinds of fertilizer is not available in the U.S.-built fleet, the importation and exportation of fertilizer is much more prevalent than its domestic inter and intracoastal transport. For instance, at least one domestic phosphate fertilizer manufacturer has found it more cost-effective to import phosphate rock mined in Peru to supply a fertilizer manufacturing plant in Louisiana rather than shipping in supplies from its phosphate mines in Florida. California’s Port of Stockton is the fertilizer import hub for the Central Valley and rice patties near Sacramento. Although the port could receive ammonia fertilizers from Houston or New Orleans if a U.S.-built LPG tanker were available, it imports these commodities on foreign-built ships from the major ammonia fertilizer exporting countries of Trinidad and Tobago, Norway, and Russia.
Full content not yet available.