Great Lakes remain a political battleground

EPA: The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is the largest investment in the Great Lakes in two decades.

The Environmental Protection Agency says the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is the largest investment in the Great Lakes in two decades.

Despite Congress approving a five-year extension of the program last year that would extend funding through 2021, the GLRI sits in the middle of a political battle between the White House and lawmakers in Great Lakes states.

In March, President Donald Trump revealed his Fiscal Year 2018 budget plans. Those plans outlined deep cuts to the EPA, including zeroing the federal funding to the GLRI.

Ohio’s U.S. Senators and Representatives along Lake Erie were quick to criticize the proposal.

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown said “taking an ax to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative will cost Ohio jobs and jeopardize public health by putting the well-being of Lake Erie at risk.”

“As a kid, I remember seeing how polluted Lake Erie was, and we can’t put an end to our cleanup efforts when we’ve made such progress. My colleagues in the Ohio delegation and I will not stand for a budget that zeroes out this critical program.”

Brown’s Republican counterpart in the Senate Rob Portman called the Great Lakes an invaluable resource, adding the GLRI has been “a successful public-private partnership that helps protect both our environment and our economy.”

Portman cited a recent study that found the GRLI’s work generates a total of more than $80 billion in benefits in health, tourism, fishing and recreation.

That study also states that GRLI saves local communities like Toledo $50 million in costs, and increases property values across the region by a total of $12 billion, Portman said.

Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Russell Township, said the elimination of a program that “protects drinking water for more than 30 million people is hard to comprehend.”

“However, like we have done in the past, we will work with all the members from the Great Lakes region and beyond to restore funding for this vital program.”

The program has received about $300 million in funding annually, but fighting for the full-funding for the GLRI is nothing new. Great Lakes lawmakers had to push for that under the Obama administration too, though the total federal funding for program was never in jeopardy then.

For Fiscal Year 2016, Obama suggested cutting the funding by $50 million, but lawmakers successfully fought to give the program its full allotment.

“More than a century of environmental damage has taken a significant toll on the Great Lakes,” a group of Representatives—including Joyce— wrote in 2015 arguing against the Obama’s administration’s proposed cuts. “Since the GLRI was launched in 2010, it has made significant progress in addressing the longstanding environmental challenges confronting the Great Lakes.“

What does GLRI do?

GLRI was started to “accelerate efforts to protect and restore the largest system of fresh surface water in the world — to provide additional resources to make progress toward the most critical long-term goals for this important ecosystem,” an action plan for the project states. Since the program was started, more than $2 billion has been spent to remove toxic wastes from industrial harbors, fighting invasive species such as Asian carp, restoring wildlife habitat and supporting efforts to prevent harmful algal blooms.

Long-term goals for the Great Lakes ecosystem include ensuring: • Fish are safe to eat • Water is safe for recreation

• There is a safe source of drinking water

• All areas of concern are delisted

• Harmful/nuisance algal blooms are eliminated

• There are no new selfsustaining invasive species

• Existing invasive species are controlled

• Native habits are protected and restored to sustain native species.

Examples of projects

In 2015, Lorain County received $634,889 in funding to implement a project to control at least 30 acres of invasive plant species (particularly phragmites) and to restore habitats in the Black River Watershed and two smaller tributaries to Lake Erie.

Phragmites, also known as the common reed, are usually found in dense thickets growing in or near shallow water, according to the Invasive Species Atlas. “These thickets displace native wetlands plants, alter hydrology and block sunlight to the aquatic community,” the atlas states.

Also in 2015, the Chagrin River Watershed Partners, Inc. received $178,479 partnering with the city of Wickliffe and Cleveland Metroparks on a project to restore 640 feet of streams and wetlands in the Deer Creek/ Gully Brook watershed. The project aimed to reduce soil erosion and the quantity of nutrients and streambed sediment entering the Chagrin River and Lake Erie.

The biggest Ohio project awarded that year went to the Ohio EPA, which was awarded nearly $3.7 million to retire 270 acres of cropland, restore six miles of streams, stabilize 1,000 feet of eroding stream banks and restore 70 acres of wetlands at eight locations in the Maumee River watershed to prevent phosphorus from entering Lake Erie.

That project was aimed at preventing algal blooms from forming and contaminating drinking water. In 2014, algal blooms made Toledo’s water undrinkable for several days.

Another fight

Lawmakers from several states are also fighting to keep the Region 5 EPA Office in Chicago open.

The office serves Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio.

Agency officials have dismissed the reports, but lawmakers in districts who would be affected by the potential closure are not taking any chances.

U.S. Representatives and Senators sent a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt following reports that the Trump administration is considering abolishing the office as a part of his 2018 budget.

The letter was spearhead by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Toledo, and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois. It was signed almost exclusively by Democrats. Portman is the lone Republican signee.

In the letter, the lawmakers argue the office critical to protecting the air, drinking water, and health of residents in the six states it serves. Closing it would make the EPA less efficient and effective in its efforts to protect human health and the environment.

“EPA’s Chicago office regularly works closely with state and local governments to effectively address the unique challenges and needs of the region, including protecting 90 percent of the nation’s fresh water supply and a significant portion of the Mississippi River watershed from invasive species, harmful algal blooms, and industrial pollution — preserving the source of drinking water for more than 30 million Americans,” they wrote. “Region 5 experts were among the first scientists to alert officials to the elevated lead levels in Flint, Michigan’s drinking water. Following the 2014 drinking water ban in Toledo, Ohio due to microcystin contamination from harmful algal blooms, Region 5 assisted Ohio and Michigan in upgrading drinking water treatment facilities to protect citizens in the region.”

They also state the Region 5 office is responsible for more Superfund sites than any other region and the Region 5 experts “play a vital role” in legacy waste clean-up and environmental justice initiatives.

“Region 5 does not duplicate enforcement or regulatory actions, rather Region 5 allows the EPA to better coordinate federal efforts with state and local governments,” they state in the letter. “In fact, state environmental agencies often rely on EPA Region 5 experts for technical assistance and financial support. More than half of EPA’s budget is sent directly to states to aid in clean-up and other environmental programs.”