×

Local groups respond to Great Lakes, EPA cuts

Over several weeks, The Mining Journal will take an in-depth look at President Trump’s proposed budget and how it could impact programs locally. Look for “Breaking down the Budget” on Sundays.

MARQUETTE — The 47th anniversary of the environmental movement known as Earth Day Saturday found environmental protection at a crossroads, as federal funding under the new administration sits on the chopping block, and potential impacts to the Great Lakes region strike close to home.

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative — which awards grant money to nonprofits, universities and municipalities for projects to clean up the Great Lakes — is receiving bipartisan support against a proposal to eradicate the $300 million program.

The program’s elimination is part President Donald Trump’s first budget proposal to the U.S. Congress, which prescribes stark cuts to environmental protections and other federal spending in exchange for a historic boost to defense.

The 53-page document released in March, called “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again,” would eliminate the GLRI as part of a $2.6 billion cut to the Environmental Protection Agency, a 31 percent decrease from the current year.

The reduction would result in the loss of 3,200 jobs through the agency, according to the budget blueprint, which promotes moving responsibility for funding environmental programs to state and local entities.

Carl Lindquist, Executive Director of the Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Trust, an environmental nonprofit organization based in Marquette, said the bipartisan opposition to GLRI cuts is encouraging.

“GLRI funding is crucial for continued momentum in protecting and restoring the Great Lakes,” Lindquist said.

Lindquist added that GLRI funding is a small portion of the SWP annual budget, and the SWP has actually seen an increase in non-GLRI funding opportunities.

Robert Kulisheck, chairman of the Marquette County Climate Adaptation Taskforce, also expressed optimism, saying the work of the CATF, which seeks to develop strategies to make the Upper Peninsula more resilient and effective in dealing with climate change, will continue.

“Our emphasis isn’t necessarily on convincing the federal government what it should do, (though) we may have opinions on that,” Kulisheck said. “When it comes down to local action, we’re focusing on the local area, and in a lot of respects, a lot of climate change is baked into the cake already.”

GLRI

Soft money from the seven-year-old GLRI works to prevent and control invasive species, promote near-shore health by protecting watersheds from polluted run-off, restore wetlands and other habitats to protect native species and clean up toxic areas of concern.

It has supported more than 3,000 restoration projects since 2010.

“In the Upper Peninsula GLRI funding has been used for numerous collaborative projects including; improving stormwater quality entering Lake Superior, coastal wetland restoration, fish and wildlife habitat restoration, tree planting, stream bank restoration, invasive species removal and more,” Lindquist said.

Northern Michigan University environmental policy professor Sarah Mittlefehldt said a number of local initiatives rely on soft money channeled through the GLRI, and they’ll have to look elsewhere should GLRI funding be discontinued.

While she said it’s unlikely the budget will be implemented as-is, if it were, it could be “pretty devastating for a lot of organizations,” Mittlefehldt said.

A letter signed March 30 by 63 members of Congress, including Congressman for the 1st District Jack Bergman, R-Watersmeet, asks that the “vital investment in the economic and environmental health of the Great Lakes” be protected.

Bergman elaborated in an interview with The Mining Journal, adding the caveat that “we always have to fine-tune” for the best use of federal dollars.

“We know that the $300 million that has been spent, that for the most part has been used to create more economic dollars by keeping our waters, our shorelines, anything involved in the Great Lakes in a healthy state,” Bergman said. “But like any program, no matter what the program, we have to be good stewards of those federal dollars. … We know that money is not unlimited, no matter what the program. … Everyone who is charged with the allocation and utilization of federal dollars needs to make sure they’re spending the money in the right place for the right reason.”

EPA and other cuts

The proposed EPA budget would eliminate more than 50 EPA programs for a savings of $350 million, including Targeted Airshed Grants, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program and infrastructure assistance to Alaska native villages and the Mexico border.

The budget would prioritize critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure, with a $4 million increase in state revolving funds for infrastructure investments and maintaining current spending levels on credit subsidies and loans to states and localities for infrastructure improvements.

It would discontinue funding for the Clean Power Plan, international climate change programs, climate change research and all related efforts.

It would cut the Hazardous Substance Superfund Account by 30 percent and streamline environmental protection by cutting categorical grants by 45 percent, placing greater responsibility on states for funding environmental programs, according to the budget blueprint.

The proposed budget still has many hurdles to jump before the final version takes effect Oct. 1.

Were the budget to pass as-is, the EPA’s downsize would coincide with cuts to the Departments of Education, 13 percent; Agriculture, 21 percent; Commerce, 16 percent; Health and Human Services, 18 percent; Labor, 21 percent; and most other federal administrations, along with elimination of dozens of independent agencies like the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Chemical Safety Board and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.

These cuts would be balanced with increases to defense, immigration enforcement, a wall on the southern border with Mexico and funding to address violent crime and opioid abuse, according to Trump’s budget introduction.

The Department of Defense would see a funding boost of 10 percent or $52 billion.

“This increase alone exceeds the entire defense budget of most countries, and would be one of the largest one-year DOD increases in American history,” the budget states.

History

EPA cuts with an emphasis on federal deregulation are not unprecedented, said Mittlefehldt, an environmental policy historian.

She pointed to President Ronald Reagan’s policies in the 1980s.

“A lot of Trump’s policies make Reagan seem very mild and moderate in comparison, but it’s a pattern historically I think we’ve seen, but just on a different scale,” Mittlefehldt said.

Formed in the wake of elevated concern about environmental pollution, President Richard Nixon established the EPA in 1970 to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities for environmental protection.

“Nixon is not noted for being a sort of green, lefty, liberal type,” Mittlefehldt pointed out.

But the public became galvanized around environmental protection after events like the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969, Mittlefehldt said, and the release of books like Rachel Carlson’s “Silent Spring,” which revealed the impact of industry and chemical pollution, not only on nature, but on the human body.

“Key laws like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the (EPA), those were passed through bipartisan agreement, Republicans and Democrats alike, really responding to public demand for environmental protection,” Mittlefehldt said.

Politics

A recurring theme throughout Trump’s proposed budget is a need to return to the federalist policy that states and localities be given greater authority and responsibility for funding and regulation.

Bergman said he ran on the platform of returning responsibility back to the states and minimizing the role of the federal government.

“Regardless of whether it’s budget, whether it’s regulation, whether it’s law or policy, that’s (going to) be a focus that I ask in every situation,” Bergman said. “‘Is this an issue that is best handled at the federal level or is it better handled at the state level?'”

Mittlefehldt said this issue has been a huge theme of her research.

“Historically, decentralization on some things is a good thing,” Mittlefehldt said. “But in terms of maintaining water quality standards and some of these bigger environmental issues that don’t abide by political jurisdictions, it’s important to have that federal oversight.”

When environmental protections are left to states, what can happen is sometimes called “the race to the bottom,” Mittlefehldt said, where states try to gain economic advantage over other states through deregulation, one-upping each other, “until you have this sort of ruinous environmental situation where everybody’s polluting their water for the sake of economic growth.”

Mittlefehldt, who described herself as a “radical moderate,” said she is interested in why environmental protection is a partisan issue.

“A lot of the key environmental laws, that are still some of the strongest federal laws that we have today, were passed under Republican administrations through bipartisan initiative, and one thing I am very curious about is how environmentalism and environmental regulation became kind of a liberal Democratic issue,” she said, adding that in the ’70s, the issue was less polarized.

CATF Coordinator Jenn Hill said traditionally, conservationism has been a conservative value — pointing out the words share the same Latin root.

She said the perceived conflict between economic development and environmental protection is complex, but it is increasingly possible to quantify and monetize the long-term environmental and health costs of deregulation.

She pointed to the Flint water crisis and the wind storm earlier this month that caused significant damage to much of western Marquette County — asking, if costs can be prevented, “Why pay more later?”

“That notion, that tension (between the economy and the environment) was always a little bit artificial,” Hill said. “It was always a little bit of, ‘I don’t want to change, I’m doing fine.’ Well, downstream or 25 years later, there are consequences.”

Mary Wardell can be reached at 906-228-2500, ext. 248. Her email address is mwardell@miningjournal.net.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today