What others say about cutting funding for the Great Lakes
'Not just an issue for environmentalists' "Defenders of the cuts say the government is spending too much on projects that are nice to have but aren't necessary. Sheer nonsense. This money isn't going to build water parks. It's being spent on clea...
'Not just an issue for environmentalists'
"Defenders of the cuts say the government is spending too much on projects that are nice to have but aren't necessary. Sheer nonsense. This money isn't going to build water parks. It's being spent on cleaning up toxic hot spots, on cleaning up beaches, on restoring waterways needed for flood control and for abating polluted runoff. These aren't nice projects. These are necessary projects for the health and well-being of the lakes and the people and businesses that rely on them."
"This is not just an issue for environmentalists. Thirty million people rely on the lakes for their drinking water, jobs, public health and way of life. Tourism and fishing industries need clean water, as do the thousands of communities that draw their water from the lakes."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
'Lakes ... a huge economic engine'
"The lakes are not only the world's largest fresh water supply but a huge economic engine. Sport fishing alone is estimated to generate $4 billion annually.
"Failure to maintain the lakes not only threatens this massive source of tourism dollars, recreational opportunities and drinking water, it degrades quality of life for the estimated 30 million-plus who live around its shores."
Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle
'Not even a realistic starting point'
"Somewhere in all the future give-and-take, a compromise likely will be reached.
"The trend is for reduced funding to most government programs, so expectations must be kept realistic.
"A mere $60 million for Great Lakes restoration, however (an 80 percent reduction from the $285 million that had been the annual allocation), is not even a realistic starting point."
Sheboygan (Wis.) Press