Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Maritime Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over pilotage reform in District 3: proponents cite competition, opponents warn of safety risks
Summary
Supporters of Senate Bill 641 told lawmakers the bill would remove a de facto monopoly on pilot assignments in District 3 and allow New Bedford and other ports to attract large offshore‑wind and commercial transits; pilots and maritime safety experts warned the change would weaken compulsory pilotage, reduce training standards, and raise safety risks in constrained channels such as the New Bedford hurricane barrier.
Proponents and opponents offered sharply contrasting views at a lengthy hearing on Senate Bill 641, a bill that would change how pilots are appointed or selected for District 3 waters (the coastal area that includes the Cape, islands and parts of southeastern Massachusetts).
Andrew Saunders, president of the New Bedford Foss Marine Terminal, and Carol Oldham of FOSS Offshore Wind said the change is needed to allow Massachusetts ports—particularly New Bedford—to handle large foreign vessels and expand offshore wind work. They described recent investments in deep‑water berths in New Bedford and said the current arrangement, which leaves appointment and selection practices effectively tied to a Northeast Marine Pilots Association affiliate, can prevent timely access to state‑required pilots for large transits. Joel Whitman and other industry witnesses said Foss and affiliated companies have invested heavily (testimony cited more than $85 million to date with future phases pushing total private investment above $280 million) and that port competitiveness depends on predictable pilot access.
Opponents, including experienced state‑commissioned pilots and maritime safety lawyers, said SB641 would undermine the compulsory, state‑commission pilot system that exists in Massachusetts and in other U.S. coastal states. Captain Michael Peddle (Boston Harbor Pilot Association), Captain Richard Astles (Northeast Marine Pilots), Captain Clint Walker and others testified the state pilot system ensures independent judgment and rigorous training. They contrasted federal Coast Guard licensing—citations in testimony noted a federal license can be earned with as few as a dozen round trips—with state apprenticeship and training in Massachusetts, which witnesses said requires many more bridge transits and supervisory evaluation (testimony described state apprentices gaining hundreds of training transits). Pilots argued competition for assignments could create economic pressure to accept riskier transits, eroding the safety standard that state pilots are charged to uphold.
Several pilots and maritime safety witnesses pointed specifically to New Bedford’s hurricane barrier and narrow approaches as places where simulations and years of operational experience determine safe size limits and acceptable operating parameters. They said the proposed structure could allow ship owners to “shop” for pilots rather than rely on locally commissioned pilots who have the historical knowledge, simulation experience and state‑specific training.
The hearing included technical testimony on training, historical pilotage practice in Massachusetts, case examples where ports declined work because a pilot would not authorize a transit, and statements that changing the law carries statewide implications for pilotage practice.
Ending: The committee heard extensive testimony both for and against SB641 and did not vote; proponents said the legislature should address what they called an outdated regulatory practice, while opponents urged preservation of the state‑commissioned pilot system for safety reasons.
