Great Lakes Restoration Funding Is a "No Brainer" Investment in Our Future

The unfortunate truth these days is that there are few issues on which both Republicans and Democrats agree, especially when it comes to the environment.  Great Lakes restoration has been an exception; but now even Great Lakes restoration funding is at risk of becoming a casualty of political food-fighting in Washington, DC.

The Great Lakes are a uniquely vast freshwater ecosystem – representing 20% of the world’s fresh surface water, and providing drinking water to 40 million people – and across the region a remarkable consensus has developed around the need to restore and protect it.

Great Lakes restoration is not just an environmental issue, it’s an economic issue.  Recent studies by the Brookings Institution have found that federal investment in cleaning up and protecting the Lakes would provide a 2-to-1 return in economic development to the Great Lakes region.  The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative was originally conceived as a 5-year, $2 billion effort that would yield economic dividends to the region for generations to come.  Cleaner water and healthier, more resilient ecosystems mean nicer beaches and more productive fisheries.  Removing toxic hotspots creates opportunity for a new economy to grow on former brownfield sites.

Funding these important programs is like saving for retirement or educating our kids – it’s a no-brainer, the kind of investment that should be made no matter how tough the economic times.  But in the House of Representatives, and even (to a lesser extent) in the President’s budget, Great Lakes funding is on the chopping block.

President Obama released his FY 2012 budget yesterday, even as the House continues to debate funding for FY 2011 (which is now almost half over, without an agreed-upon budget).  House Republicans would provide Great Lakes funding at $225 million for FY 2011.  President Obama had requested $300 million for FY 2011, and yesterday he requested $350 million for FY 2012.

These may all seem like arbitrary numbers, but failure to fully fund Great Lakes restoration would have real consequences.  Fewer restoration dollars means fewer acres of wetlands restored, fewer beaches cleaned up, and less research funded on how to stem the tide of invasive species.  You wouldn’t want to only save half the money you need for retirement – and you wouldn’t want your kids to get only half of an education.  Why, then, should we only half-fund the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative?

I hope that our Great Lakes congressional Members, on both sides of the aisle, realize that restoration funding is an issue on which they need to stand together to stick up for the future of this region.