Search Site   
Current News Stories
Indiana Soybean Alliance donates tires containing soybean oil for state FFA vehicle
Ohio Roth Scholar hopes to show young people the jobs available in ag
Kristen Eisenhauer took her love of farming to the classroom
UK study looks at impact of arthroscopic surgery on horses with knee chips
Controlled breeding, calving season can improve efficiency
Alto Ingredients hosts facility tour  and discusses year round E15
Horses on the Hill brings therapy, beauty to Cincinnati neighborhood
Farmers learning from farmers at Purdue-sponsored farm visit 
Iowa State: Relay cropping could help improve farm profitability, soil health, crop diversity
Field day at Purdue to focus on the benefits of drainage tile
Brazil’s farm economy outlook bleak; interest rates, commodity values cited
   
News Articles
Search News  
   
Great Lakes restoration funding asked for by an Ohio Congressman

 


By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) has reintroduced legislation that would provide funding to renew the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI).
H.R. 223, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2015, would authorize $300 million each year from 2016-20 to carry out various initiatives to improve the quality of Great Lakes waters. This is the successor bill to H.R. 5764, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2014, which passed the U.S. House on Dec. 9 by a voice vote, but then died in the Senate.
“This is a huge victory for the Great Lakes,” Joyce said Dec. 9. “The Great Lakes continue to be a treasure of the world, and there’s going to come a time when water is the new oil, so we have to make investments to secure this important resource.
“GLRI is the most significant restoration effort to date for the Great Lakes and it is crucial that it be authorized into law, so that these programs can continue. The passing of this legislation sends a clear message that the Great Lakes are worth protecting.
“This program allowed us to finish the cleanup of Ashtabula Harbor and remove decades of toxic sludge. Clearly these programs are working, and this success story in Ashtabula demonstrates why we must ensure that the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative receives the funding it needs,” he said.
According to Joyce, GLRI funds played a crucial role in the cleanup of 630,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment that contained 25,000 pounds of hazardous compounds from the Ashtabula River. Because of those efforts, water quality improved and the river channel was deepened, making the river once again suitable for maritime commerce, fishing and recreational boating.
Last September the Ashtabula was taken off the EPA’s list of Areas of Concern. GLRI money has helped delist five such areas in recent years. In the 25 years leading up to GLRI, Joyce said, only one such area had been cleaned up and taken off the list.
GLRI money has also been used to double the acreage enrolled in agricultural conservation programs in watersheds where phosphorus runoff contributes to harmful algal blooms in western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay and Green Bay. GLRI funds have been used to finance more than 2,000 projects.
President Barack Obama started the GLRI, which is similar to a program started by former President George W. Bush.
The program has been operating without standalone legislation for the past five years, said Matt Doss, policy director at the Great Lakes Commission. Although it can continue without standalone legislation, a bill such as Joyce’s would confer more legitimacy on the program, he said.
“You’re on a firmer foundation when you have explicit statutory authority for a program like this,” he said. “This is especially true when there’s a change in administrations.
“GLRI is highly important. It’s one of the most important things we’ve done for the Great Lakes in a generation. A lot of focus has been on reducing algal blooms that are caused by runoff from farms. There’s been quite a bit of resources being put into that.”
Although Joyce’s 2014 bill easily passed the House last year, there is no schedule yet for possible action on H.R. 223. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment on Jan. 9.
1/29/2015