Rep. Rob Andrews, D-N.J., says a proposed $311 million Delaware River dredging project looks "half-baked." We're glad he noticed.

And we think he should ask the General Accounting Office for a review of this project. If that group can find economic justification for spending hundreds of millions of public dollars to dredge the Delaware, so be it. If not, Congress shouldn't fund the plan.

With the support of area oil refineries, the plan was suspect at best. Now that only one of the five refineries has said definitely it will make use of the deeper channel, there's no way this project makes sense.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Delaware River Port Authority are on the verge of signing off on the project, which will lower the 106-mile shipping channel from 40 to 45 feet. Supporters say the move is essential to protect local jobs and keep the port viable. They believe the refineries eventually will deepen their own docking berths to make use of the deeper channel. They insist a deeper channel is essential to the region's economy.

Unfortunately, the facts don't add up - don't come anywhere close to adding up - to an endorsement of the project.

Of primary concern are the refineries, which are considered primary beneficiaries of the dredging project. A deeper channel would allow bigger ships to travel the Delaware without first off-loading oil onto barges. The Corps estimates that $32 million a year would be saved, thereby lowering costs to oil companies and resulting in cheaper gas.

But first, the refineries must agree to take advantage of the lower channel. That means deepening their own berths. And, only one company, Valero, the smallest refinery of the bunch, has committed to spending the millions of dollars necessary to deepen its berths and use larger vessels. Coastal has no plans to deepen. Sun, the largest refiner on the river with two plants, says it would have to do a detailed analysis. TOSCO also says it would have to do studies, and says it might deepen the berths if the project moves along.

But if the refineries aren't enthused about dredging the Delaware, who is? Experts in the field disagree about the benefits of a deeper Delaware, but critics of the project have valid points. For example, why would owners of big ships take their product up the Delaware when there are closer ports, such as Norfolk, Va., and New York, that can be used? Time is money in the shipping business. Wouldn't it be more economical for these companies to use closer ports?

The 45-foot depth also raises questions. It's not deep enough for the huge cargo ships of the future. Is this just the first step toward taking the river to a 50-foot channel - or even deeper?

When environmental concerns and worries that most of the river muck will be dumped in South Jersey are added to the mix, this project is at best, as Andrews said, "half-baked."

Last month, the National Wildlife Federation and Taxpayers for Common Sense ranked the project high on their list of what they describe as wasteful Corps projects.

Absolutely, there should be a GAO study before another dime is spent on this project, and Andrews should continue to lead the way in looking out for South Jersey's interests when it comes to deepening the Delaware.