The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) held a hearing on Wednesday, April 15th, to discuss restoration efforts in the Great Lakes and the demonstrated successes of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in advancing environmental and economic development priorities across the region. Providing witness testimony were Mary Mertz, Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and former chair of the Great Lakes Commission; Dr. Christopher Winslow, Director of the Ohio Sea Grant Program and Ohio State University’s Stone Laboratory; and Dr. Holly Bamford, Chief Conservation Officer at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).
The Great Lakes support a $6 trillion regional economy, supply 90% of U.S. surface freshwater, and provide clean drinking water to more than 40 million people. Senator Jon Husted (R-OH) described them as a vital “environmental and economic asset,” providing 1.5 million jobs that generate $62 billion in wages annually. Central to preserving and enhancing the health of the Great Lakes is the Great Lakes Restoration Program (GLRI), a nonregulatory, bipartisan federal program that brings together federal and state leadership, scientific expertise, and local voices to deliver measurable results for the region’s environmental, public health, and economic development objectives. The GLRI addresses five priorities: toxic substances and areas of concern (AOCs), invasive species, non-point source pollution, wildlife habitat, and capacity building for future restoration efforts.
Senators and witnesses alike highlighted the central role of interagency collaboration in advancing Great Lakes restoration, particularly through the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, established by executive order in 2004. Chaired by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Task Force coordinates strategies and projects across sixteen federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). These agencies work closely with the eight Great Lakes states, 35 Great Lakes tribes, regional bodies, universities, local communities, Canadian federal and provincial partners, and other nonfederal project implementers to advance long-term management and restoration. According to Dr. Winslow, such partnership is essential to the initiative’s success: “GLRI works because it aligns people, resources, and expertise towards solutions” and leverages “truly multi-agency coordination, not siloed funding,” he remarked.
In her opening statement, Dr. Mertz shared how Ohio has leveraged federal GLRI dollars to amplify the impact of state investments aimed at addressing harmful algal blooms and invasive species. For example, $5.9 million in GLRI funding, combined with $8 million from the H2Ohio water quality initiative, enabled the ODNR, in partnership with the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, to restore two islands in the Maumee River—an effort that has measurably reduced phosphorus loading into Lake Erie. Phosphorus runoff in the Maumee River watershed is the largest contributor to harmful algal blooms in the Western Lake Erie Basin. Through H2Ohio, over 20,000 acres of wetlands have been created or restored, absorbing 60,000 pounds of phosphorus per year. ODNR has also utilized GLRI funding to proactively sever waterway connections through which invasive carp could enter the Great Lakes Basin, identified in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as to remove grass carp already in Lake Erie in collaboration with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and federal agencies like FWS and USGS.
Dr. Winslow further testified to the tangible benefits of restoration projects funded by the GLRI, especially those remediating environmentally-degraded sites in the Great Lakes Basin. He cited the delisting of eight out of 26 U.S. AOCs as the product of “years of coordination and collaboration between federal agencies, state agencies, tribal governments, researchers, and communities on the ground.” He emphasized the direct impact of this work in helping local economies thrive. “Waters are now fishable. Shorelines see increased recreation…and waterfronts are accessible. We see increased economic activity. The communities see vibrant growth…These are not symbolic wins, these are places the people can use again.”
In Toledo, GLRI-supported monitoring and forecasting of harmful algal blooms have better prepared resource managers to respond to drinking water threats. “This is what success looks like. It’s not just restoring ecosystems, but protecting people,” Dr. Winslow urged.
Responding to Chair Shelley Moore Capito’s concern about whether competing priorities interfere with state-federal agency partnerships or coordination among the Great Lakes states and Canada, Dr. Mertz assured that work is “far more collaborative than it’s ever competitive.” Sen. Husted affirmed this sentiment: “All the Great Lakes systems get along because we’re all connected.”
As the only member of the EPW Committee that represents a Great Lakes state, Sen. Husted underscored the necessarily-interconnected nature of restoration efforts. He highlighted, for example, the importance of USDA’s involvement, noting that “the interaction with agriculture in the Great Lakes basin is a huge issue.” Indeed, the majority of the nutrients driving harmful algal blooms originate from agricultural landscapes. Dr. Winslow likewise remarked how administering GLRI investments in non-point source pollution reduction through the USDA is critical to linking water-based and agricultural communities. “You need USDA to get that funding because they have that relationship with the farmers,” he stressed. The GLRI supports this systems-level approach, engaging affected communities, sea and land grant extension educators, farmers, and crop advisors in “collaborative planning and implementation and monitoring.”
Dr. Winslow also observed that the GLRI has “created a synergy and a relationship between agencies and academics that’s never happened before.” Collaboration between universities and agencies to monitor progress on investments ensures that “every wetland…and nature-based shoreline we do in the future will be better.” Dr. Mertz spoke to the practical importance of coordinating with applied researchers and water quality experts to determine whether natural infrastructure projects are generating their intended benefits. “I’ve got to prove to our state legislature and to [Congress] that we’ve got that ROI on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,” she stressed.
Dr. Bamford pointed to the GLRI as “one of the nation’s strongest examples of how sustained federal leadership can deliver measurable results at a regional scale” and urged the Committee to strengthen its funding. “Funding stability through GLRI allows partners to plan restoration efforts, coordinate across jurisdictions, and tackle conservation challenges at the watershed scale,” she stated. The NFWF has been a core implementing partner of the GLRI since its inception, awarding $140 million across 530 projects, resulting in the restoration of nearly 60,000 acres of wetlands and upland habitats and the reconnection of over 2,600 miles of streams for fish passage. The NFWF also works closely with NOAA and other federal agencies to administer the National Coastal Resilience Fund (NCRF), established in 2018 and championed by Ranking Member Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) to invest in nature-based solutions for reducing flooding and protecting communities, including those in the Great Lakes region. Dr. Bamford testified that the NCRF has received over $3.8 billion in funding requests from coastal communities across the country, yet has met less than 20% of that demand due to constrained funding resources. “The gap between what communities need and what is available is substantial and growing, and it reflects a national demand for exactly the kind of nature-based solutions that programs like GLRI and the National Coastal Resilience Fund make possible.”
She concluded by stating that, “through GLRI and the National Coastal Resilience Fund, NFWF’s partnership with EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA, we have a proven model: invest in natural systems that work, leverage federal dollars for greater impact, and hold ourselves accountable for measurable results.”
Find the full hearing here.
Reported by NEMWI Intern Samantha Malcolm, University of Michigan