Update:

D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) says she will introduce legislation to block a proposed security perimeter that would restrict public access to Washington Channel. Norton asked the secretary of defense to withdraw the proposal, after a public hearing where local officials and residents overwhelmingly opposed the idea.

“This rule is arbitrary, capricious and unnecessarily restricts recreational and commercial access to the Channel without providing any benefits to Fort McNair,” Norton wrote in a letter to Secretary Lloyd Austin, who was appointed by President Biden in January.

Army officials have argued a security perimeter is needed along the waterfront of Fort McNair, next to the Wharf. But in her letter, Norton questioned their rationale.

“During the public meeting, Fort McNair officials cited threats to military assets as the reason to restrict access to the Channel, but did not address whether any less restrictive measures could provide the same security. The Washington Navy Yard and Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, which also have access to D.C. rivers, do not have restricted zones on their shorelines. D.C. residents and officials are particularly concerned that the proposed restrictions could cause injury by forcing kayaks and other recreational boats into the same space as water taxis and cruise ships,” Norton wrote.

Norton requested a written response to her letter by March 2.

Original:

Since the opening of The Wharf development on the Washington Channel in 2017, there has been an explosion of activity on and around the water. Now, many residents and officials worry a security proposal at the neighboring Fort McNair Army base would curtail that activity, cutting down on public access to the channel and the Potomac River.

According to the Army, there have been “credible and specific threats” to personnel stationed on the base. At a public hearing this week, Major General Omar Jones said the Washington Channel was the weakest point in security on the base, which occupies a peninsula between the channel and the Anacostia River.

The proposal would create a 300 ft. perimeter in the channel along the shore of Fort McNair, where anchoring or otherwise loitering would be prohibited. The area would be marked off by buoys, but boats would be allowed to pass through the zone without stopping.

“We’ve had attempted breaches of the base from the channel just in the past couple of months,” said Jones, explaining the need for the perimeter.

But when pressed for details on those breaches by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), who convened the hearing, Jones recounted an incident that didn’t sound all that threatening.

“The most recent one, shortly before the holidays, was actually a swimmer,” said Jones.

Norton did not seem impressed.

“When it comes to swimmers, I’m sure that must be rare. Did he know where he was?” Norton asked.

“He may very well have been lost,” conceded Jones.

Asked whether there had been any examples of breaches by boat, Jones said, “Ma’am, we actually do not.”

D.C. Councilmember Charles Allen, who represents the area, was at the meeting to speak against the security perimeter. In an interview afterwards, he said the hearing made him even more opposed.

“The answers that we got from from the Army around their rationales didn’t make any sense. They really kind of stretched believability,” Allen said. He pointed out the proposed buoy perimeter would likely do nothing to cut down on the threat posed by errant swimmers.

“It’s going to put our boaters, the people who are on the water — whether they’re in a canoe, whether they’re fishing, whether they’re sailing on a paddle board — they’re going to put more people into a smaller area of water. It’s going to create conflict and it’ll create a more dangerous situation,” Allen said.

Fort McNair was founded in 1791 — the third-oldest Army installation in the nation. It currently houses the National Defense University and serves as the headquarters for the Army’s Military District of Washington. The waterfront of the base is open to the channel, with no wall or fence.

Allen and others suggested that a physical barrier would be a better solution — both more secure and less obtrusive — than a security perimeter.

“Let’s call it what it is. This is a taking of public water, our water, our river, and that ultimately won’t make the fort any safer,” Allen said.

Potomac riverkeeper Dean Naujoks offered a similar sentiment: “It really needs to be understood that the Potomac River and the Washington Channel belong to the public, not the Army,” Naujoks said. “The public owns this river and this water body.”

Naujoks said the security perimeter would set a dangerous precedent. “We have military bases all up and down the river. Every military base could say, well, we want to start blocking off parts of the river because we feel safer that way.”

The proposal is now being reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

It is the Army’s second draft — an initial proposal, released in April 2019, would have prohibited nearly all public access in the security zone, including passing boats. The Army revised the proposal after outcry.

But some at the meeting said the exemption for boats in transit wasn’t realistic. “Every captain, every boat owner, is going to stay out of there and that’s going to put them into the main channel,” said Guy Shields, a former D.C. water taxi captain and retired Army colonel, speaking at the hearing.

“Putting floating signs out there is going to keep boaters away, but it’s not going to stop anybody that wants to do bad things,” Shields said. “It’s not going to stop them, not stop them all.”