However, it does not follow to say that owners and operators in ports have no role in port security --- in fact, they have critical roles.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583295/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583134/posts
In fact, owners and operators have such critical roles that we taxpayers are actually giving them grant money to implement these roles.
One word describes your post. EXCELLENCE!
Reading through both, it seems to me the Coast Guard will be the final and absolute source of security. The references you mention do describe a cooperative effort between port operators and the Coast Guard, however they do not state implicitly, or even vaguely imply (IMO) that the port operators will have sole discretion over port security. In fact, in this post, quite the opposite is stated,
In the short term, these challenges are formidable, because the Coast Guard expects to handle the added July-December inspection load mainly by using reservists with widely varying degrees of training and experience. In the longer term, when the Coast Guard plans to conduct annual compliance inspections for the approximately 12,300 facilities and vessels, it faces the challenge of ensuring that owners and operators continue implementing their plans. In this regard, our work has shown that there are options the Coast Guard could consider beyond regularly scheduled visits, such as unscheduled, unannounced visits and covert testing to help ensure owners and operators do not mask security problems in ways that do not represent the normal course of business.
As far as financial assistance for taking part (not in charge of but taking part) in their own security, IMO that's a bit of a waste of taxpayer dollars, but in of itself, that doesn't prove anything more than corporate welfare (something I'm opposed to, yes, but not something that proves free reign over their own security).