The Great Lakes Commission – a compact made of the eight states and two Canadian provinces that border the Great Lakes – are calling on the federal government to invest over a billion dollars in the Great Lakes. In their recently released 2024 policy priorities, the commission called for programs that would address algae blooms, fund research, and keep the Great Lakes open for shipping and recreation.
WBFO’s Grant Ashley spoke with Great Lakes Commission Executive Director Erika Jensen about those proposals and their chances of passing Congress. You can read the full transcript of their conversation here:
Grant Ashley: I’m here with Erika Jensen of the Great Lakes Commission. Erica, thank you so much for taking the time today.
Erika Jensen: You’re welcome. It’s my pleasure.
Grant Ashley: So your organization just put out their policy priorities for this year, and that included $450 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Could you tell me a little bit about what that is and why it needs that funding?
Erika Jensen: Yes, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is a federal program that invests in the restoration and protection of Great Lakes resources. And that includes everything from improving water quality by addressing pollution and excess nutrient runoff to preventing the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species. It will help to support habitat restoration and fish and wildlife species; address significant areas of toxic contamination, often referred to as areas of concern across the Great Lakes region; and help to mitigate that contamination and restore those degraded areas so that the communities in these areas can benefit again from those resources.
Grant Ashley: Makes sense. You also mentioned a lot of pollutants there: algae blooms, manmade pollution. What’s the biggest threat to the Great Lakes in terms of pollutants?
Erika Jensen: That’s a great question, and it’s difficult to answer. The Great Lakes ecosystem (and our communities that rely on the benefits of the Great Lakes) is complex and interrelated, so different challenges create different obstacles for communities in their benefit and use of these resources. So, it’s a challenging one to answer because there are different threats that have different impacts to our resources. In Lake Erie, for example, we see the negative impacts of excess nutrient runoff and pollution in a very evident way with harmful algal blooms. We aren’t seeing that as much in other lakes, but we are starting to see those blooms increase in other parts of the lake. So, it varies, but there are a lot of opportunities to protect our resources and help prevent further detriment to water quality.
Grant Ashley: Out of sheer curiosity, why are those algae blooms so much more prominent in Lake Erie compared to the other lakes?
Erika Jensen: That’s something that we have been – and others have been – looking at. The Lake Erie ecosystem and the surrounding stressors, as well as it being so much shallower and warmer than the other lakes, can help contribute to a better environment for the development of harmful algae. When things are colder, the algae maybe doesn’t produce as much, but we do see them, like I said, in other areas of the lakes, like Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay over in Wisconsin. So, where you have these shallower, warmer areas that also have inputs of nutrients, that’s where we tend to see those algae blooms occurring.
Grant Ashley: Your policy priorities also mentioned keeping the Great Lakes clean for drinking water and improving navigation systems, kind of making those safe and fit for human use. What should we be doing to achieve each of those goals?
Erika Jensen: While the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative covers a lot of those threats, it doesn’t address things like our failing water and wastewater infrastructure, or where we need to make replacements to the pipes and infrastructure that takes water to homes and then takes wastewater away from homes and into those drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities. So, the clean water and state revolving loan funds are important programs that can help support the upgrade of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in communities. There’s also programs related to lead pipe replacement and opportunities to make those systems better for our communities.
On the Great Lakes navigation side, we are looking at increasing our icebreaking capacity in the Great Lakes. So, we are supporting the construction of a new heavy icebreaker that’s important to keep shipping lanes open in the winter so that goods can continue to move across the region. And we’re also looking at issues like dredging to make sure that both our large commercial harbors and our smaller recreational harbors are dredged adequately so that ships, recreational boats and other vessels can access those facilities. So that’s an example of a couple of the things that we’re looking at there. There’s also a federal program that looks at investing in port development, the port infrastructure development program. That’s a national program. We’d like to see additional funds coming to Great Lakes ports, so that they can continue to improve their facilities and provide high quality service across the region.
Grant Ashley: Obviously, Congress has to approve a lot of the funding for these initiatives in order for them to move forward. How optimistic are you that they’ll act this year?
Erika Jensen: Well, they are continuing to work on their funding bills for FY 24. We’ve seen an extension in those funds, so we’re hopeful that they get those wrapped up soon so that they can start work on time for the fiscal year 25 appropriations cycle. That should be starting up around this time, just as soon as Congress can wrap up their FY 24 negotiation. So, we’re hopeful, and we’ll continue to provide information to our congressional partners on where they can help support Great Lakes priorities in their funding decisions. But ultimately, it’s up to Congress when they get their work done.
Grant Ashley: Makes sense. That was all the questions I had for you. Is there anything else that people should know about your policy priorities or the Great Lakes?
Erika Jensen: I think the other thing that I would just mention is that we continue to look at federal programs and opportunities that will help the region make better decisions as it relates to planning for climate change. So federal forecasting and modeling for potential impacts to the Great Lakes region – that’s something that we want to continue to see our federal partners work on and make sure that the Great Lakes don’t get overlooked in our broader climate change initiatives for the nation.
Grant Ashley: All right, that was Erika Jensen, who’s the executive director of the Great Lakes Commission. Erika, thank you so much.
Erika Jensen: Thank you.