# Great Lakes federal funding



## GrandRiverBassman (Mar 26, 2016)

Keep an eye on the proposal to reduce federal funding by 90%. Could be disastrous, or it could force Great Lakes states to figure out a way to preserve their own resources. Either way it'll impact us all.


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

GrandRiverBassman said:


> Keep an eye on the proposal to reduce federal funding by 90%. Could be disastrous, or it could force Great Lakes states to figure out a way to preserve their own resources. Either way it'll impact us all.


so you are saying that federal funding will be 10% of current budget (of what budget)? can you be more specific or provide a pointer to a credible news article?


----------



## GrandRiverBassman (Mar 26, 2016)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...eat-lakes-ecological-cuts-20170305-story.html

Acting like the story isn't legitimate is crazy. Just pulled Chicago. Could have done cleveland, Toledo, whatever. 

Just saying to be mindful. It could be very impactful.


----------



## GrandRiverBassman (Mar 26, 2016)

The Great Lakes initiative budget is the one I'm referencing.


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

GrandRiverBassman said:


> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...eat-lakes-ecological-cuts-20170305-story.html
> 
> Acting like the story isn't legitimate is crazy. Just pulled Chicago. Could have done cleveland, Toledo, whatever.
> 
> Just saying to be mindful. It could be very impactful.


don't wear your emotions on your shoulder... I simply asked for a reference so that I could read it myself. your initial message was vague and I wanted to read further...


----------



## GrandRiverBassman (Mar 26, 2016)

Yea you're right. My bad.


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

Well, according to the article local governments are spending $15-billion per year. If the local governments keep up at that spending level, the $300-million in federal funding is not that significant. the article itself even says "...well beyond the federal governments' investment"

I wonder what programs that $300m targets. That would determine the actual impact of the loss of those funds.

so a concern yes, but not a panic call to arms yet...

btw: $15b to 300m is like saying $150 dollars is to $3 dollars, that is a 50-to-1 ratio. if local really cares, they should be able to make up that difference itself.

The difficulty is likely that federal programs can span multiple states (force cooperation) for an overall impact while local programs would require an agreed cooperation between states. That may be difficult...


----------



## TRIPLE-J (Sep 18, 2006)

no initial reports say that when the cuts take affect the spending will go down to 10% of what it currently is.. so if the federal funding was 100million dollars to begin with it will now be at 10 million....anyway you look at it that's a lot to loose after all the strides we have made to make or resources better in the last 50 years


----------



## TRIPLE-J (Sep 18, 2006)

no initial reports say that when the cuts take affect the spending will go down to 10% of what it currently is.. so if the federal funding was 100million dollars to begin with it will now be at 10 million....anyway you look at it that's a lot to loose after all the strides we have made to make or resources better in the last 50 years


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

see my above comments... a $90m loss is even less of a percentage of local spending. kind of like losing a nickel out of your pocket compared to the $15b (billion) in local spending.

somewhat related to this local vs federal spending... It is interesting to hear that donations are vastly up for various programs being cut by the Trump administration. This is the way it SHOULD work. Put your personal funds into programs you believe in. we (the collective "we") can't pay for everything that everyone wants (or even needs).


----------



## GrandRiverBassman (Mar 26, 2016)

The Feds are the single biggest contributor. Losing your largest single source of funding is impactful. 
The Great Lakes are also a national resource that deserves more than $10mil.
$10 million dollars to the greatest nation in the world is like losing a nickel out of your pocket when you've got $15billion in your wallet.


----------



## TRIPLE-J (Sep 18, 2006)

""WE"" don't need CLEAN water??????


----------



## Osmerus (Dec 5, 2012)

I think people dont realize how many problems still exist in the Great Lakes watershed. Tons of polluted sites from decades of loose environmental regulation to the current nutrient problem. The only way many of these problems can be fixed is with Fed. guidance and funds. Just too complicated and expensive for the states or nonprofit groups to tackle alone. From the Algae blooms to pollution and invasive species these are problems that we need Fed help on. I grew up on the lakes and i think we owe this region all we can give. We took and took for over a century its now time to give back.


----------



## ironfish (Jul 31, 2010)

privateer said:


> see my above comments... a $90m loss is even less of a percentage of local spending. kind of like losing a nickel out of your pocket compared to the $15b (billion) in local spending.
> 
> somewhat related to this local vs federal spending... It is interesting to hear that donations are vastly up for various programs being cut by the Trump administration. This is the way it SHOULD work. Put your personal funds into programs you believe in. we (the collective "we") can't pay for everything that everyone wants (or even needs).


----------



## ironfish (Jul 31, 2010)

"Can't pay for everything we want or even need"... I don't know we could have a debate on that...Largest GDP in the history of man...Largest military budget some say 14 times more then the next country...theres gotta be a couple of peso's laying around somewhere...


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

Genetic engineering fish that can adapt to this region and thrive is where the funding needs to go. A new blue pike species would be nice. And some bigger fish species like the musky and king salmon that can actually reproduce in our rivers for more sport fishing would go a long way. They say the manistee trout reproduce more efficiently but it gets boring in the winter just catching trout. Id like another cold water species invented for winter fishing.


----------



## GrandRiverBassman (Mar 26, 2016)

This is beyond fishing. This is about clean water.


----------



## queequeg (Nov 7, 2013)

The budget proposal was cut by 100%. Initial estimates were 90%. If the states want to clean the lakes, they'll have to pay all costs, which they in no way can.

http://michiganradio.org/post/real-...get-great-lakes-community-funding-heating-aid


----------



## hailtothethief (Jan 18, 2017)

Lake erie looks cleaner than ive ever seen it. Id be interested in knowing what parts of the lake are still dirty?


----------



## queequeg (Nov 7, 2013)

hailtothethief said:


> Lake erie looks cleaner than ive ever seen it. Id be interested in knowing what parts of the lake are still dirty?


Lake Erie has had annual massive algea blooms the past few years and Asian carp have been knocking on the door for years. Yes, the Great Lakes are cleaner than the 70s, but that's because we invested in cleaning them up. Hiring a cleaning service for one day to clean your house once won't keep it clean forever.


----------



## trekker (Feb 18, 2013)

Yes, if the farm runoff algae blooms are considered, Lake Erie is as dirty as ever.


----------

