Trump proposes 97 percent cut to Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

President Donald Trump’s proposed budget threatens to defund one of the most ambitious efforts to clean up and preserve the freshwater bodies between the U.S. and Canada.

The proposed cuts would bring the current $300 million of funding the Great Lakes Research Initiative’s funding down to $10 million, a cut of nearly 97 percent.

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds projects that combat algal blooms in the Great Lakes and invasive species like the Asian Carp, which is a highly adaptable fish that has overcome the native species of fish as they have expanded in numbers ever since their introduction to southern fish farms in the 1970’s.

Algal Blooms have reached record highs in recent years, especially in Lake Erie where record highs have been seen in recent years. Algal blooms can harm ecosystems, drinking water, and hurt both travel and tourism business.

Kent State geology professor and his graduate student, Dulcinea Avouris, receive funds to study harmful algal bloom in Lake Erie.

“Lake Erie is the most industrialized of the lakes [with] the largest population,” Avouris said. “There [are] major cities that surround it, like Cleveland, Detroit Toledo, and Toronto.”

“I think Lake Erie is one of the lakes in greatest danger from the defunding,” Ortiz said. “This would be devastating to many of the coastal communities in the area.”

A bipartisan consensus

In the political sphere, it is difficult to find any public representatives in Ohio that see a benefit to slashing the GLRI funding.

“It is beyond me how these reckless and draconian cuts could help the American people,” Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo told cleveland.com’s Sabrina Eaton. “This proposal won’t improve national security efforts, create jobs or ensure we have clean air and water …. I will be on the front lines to fight for programs that help provide security and stability to Ohio’s working families.”

Kaptur, along with Ohio Senators Sherrod Brown-D and Robert Portman-R, held a roundtable discussion with Port of Cleveland leadership addressing the importance of GLRI funding and its impact on the Great Lakes and surrounding communities.

Portman stated his opposition to the defunding of GLRI in a press release on March 16.

“I have long championed this program, and I’m committed to continuing to do everything I can to protect and preserve Lake Erie, including preserving this critical program and its funding,” said the statement from Portman.

Kaptur also joined Republican Rep. David Joyce of Twinsburg and 31 other members of congress in signing a bipartisan letter to President Trump asking that he include “robust support” for the GLRI and other EPA Geographic Programs in his 2017 fiscal budget.

“We know that you are strongly in favor of growing the economy, protecting clean water, and creating jobs,” the letter said. “The federal funding provided through the Geographic Programs does just that.”

The bipartisan letter also pointed out the positive impacts of GLRI in cleaning up water sources;

“The GLRI has accomplished four times more clean-up and restoration work in the last six years than was undertaken over the previous 22 years.”

A similar letter addressing the GLRI specifically was signed by Kaptur, Joyce and 61 other members of congress and sent to Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies chairman Ken Calvert and ranking member Betty McCollum.

“More than a century of environmental damage has taken a significant toll on the Great Lakes, which the GLRI is helping to correct,” the letter said. “Since the initiative was launched in 2010, GLRI funds have been used to support over 3,000 restoration projects to improve water quality, protect and restore native habitat, clean up environmentally-impaired Areas of Concern, fight invasive species, and prevent beach closings.”

This is not the first time that the GLRI has faced defunding. Large budget funds in the United States are typically seen as excessive and presidents will often try to make federal projects more conservative with the spending of the funds they receive from the government. In former President Obama’s 2016 budget proposal, a $50 million cut in the GLRI budget was proposed. Obama’s cut did not pass, but the impact it would have had on the GLRI pales in comparison to Trump’s near elimination its of government funding.

Congress will have the ultimate say on the fiscal budget. Based on the general reaction to the GLRI defunding proposal, this will be a point of contention for our state’s representatives in Congress.

Up close look at an affected project

In 1972, the United States and Canada established so-called Designated Areas of Concern via the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. As currently defined by the U.S. EPA, these are areas in which changes to the lakes’ chemistry or biology pose a threat to fish and wildlife. These problems are collectively known as Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI’s).

One of the Areas of Concern in Northeast Ohio is the Ashtabula River. First designated as such in 1987 under the GLWQA, this area includes the lower two miles of the river as it empties into Lake Erie.

Ashtabula, a city of nearly 20,000, is the area’s major population center.

Originally, the Ashtabula River had six BUIs present; however, after projects funded in the GLRI Action Plan I, three of these were removed in 2014.

These removals included restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption, ongoing degradation of fish of wildlife populations, and loss of habitats.

The Great Lakes Legacy Act followed in the early 2000’s and invested more than $330 million from the U.S. EPA to remove sediment in affected parts of the Great Lakes. On Lake Erie, these include the Black River, Maumee River, Ashtabula River, and Buffalo River.

The most recent iteration of these preservation efforts is the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Established in 2010, the GLRI is a consortium of more than a dozen non-federal agencies led by the U.S. EPA. While it’s still centered around areas of concern in the Great Lakes, the GLRI’s current efforts—as outlined in its action plan—extend to controlling invasive species, such as Asian Carp, and combating harmful algal blooms that result from industrial runoff.

 

Kent State academic reaction to proposed GLRI defunding

 

Too early to tell

The Ohio EPA is responsible for implementing federal environmental policy, including the GLRI, at the state level. As the threat of slashed funds for preservation looms, the agency is trying to be optimistic.

“Any time we talk about this, we try to caution that it is still very early in the process,” said Ohio EPA spokesman Heidi Griesmer. “[President Trump’s] budget has been proposed, but Congress has not even begun working on it. So we do expect changes [to the budget].”

Big dollars have gone to Great Lake states, including Ohio, through the GLRI.

“More than $200 million of GLRI funds have been used in Ohio since 2010, and that has supported about 300 restoration projects,” Griesmer said.

The Ohio EPA hopes the conversation around the Great Lakes’ preservation—and environmental issues in general—will make lawmakers and constituents think hard about whether clean water should be a priority.

“We do believe this debate is an important opportunity for Ohio to verify the benefits of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,” Griesmer said.

As implementers of U.S. EPA programs at the state level, the Ohio EPA argues it won’t be able to continue in that role without financial support from Washington.

“We agree with [Scott Pruitt’s] cooperative federalism model, but we are also telling him that if you want the states to be the boots on the ground, we need the funding to do that work,” Griesmer said.