Advocates urge restoration of H2Ohio funding to sustain wetlands, nutrient-reduction work

Advocates for wetlands, water quality and farm conservation urged the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday to restore full funding for H2Ohio, the state program that pays for wetlands, tile‑drain and nutrient‑management practices meant to reduce the phosphorus and nitrogen that fuel harmful algal blooms.

H2Ohio sponsors and scientists told the panel that the program is producing measurable improvements but that the work is not yet mature enough to survive steep budget cuts.

"Water quality issues related to harmful algal blooms ... have ramped up considerably over the past few decades," said Dr. Steven Jackman, a professor of water quality at Wright State Lake Campus, who testified for the Grand Lake St. Mary's Restoration Commission. "Water quality can be improved and real benefits can be realized," he added, but only with continued investment.

Committee members heard a series of examples from county restoration leaders, university researchers and nonprofit conservation groups showing how H2Ohio funds are used: to build and monitor constructed wetlands that filter nutrients, to cost‑share conservation practices on farmland, to support dredging and wetland design, and to leverage federal grants and private donations.

"H2Ohio has been the first program to provide the most meaningful and consistent funding for the greatest variety of practices that improve water quality," said Theresa Dirkson, Mercer County agricultural and natural resources director and Grand Lake St. Mary's Restoration Commission facilitator. Dirkson asked lawmakers to restore the program to the governor's originally proposed $270,000,000.

Scientists who run the H2Ohio wetlands monitoring program said the science requires time and consistent funding. Dr. Lauren Kinsman Costello, who leads the H2Ohio wetland monitoring effort at Kent State and Ohio Sea Grant's Stone Laboratory, said recent reviews show new wetland projects need a minimum of three years of monitoring to judge nutrient removal performance because of year‑to‑year hydrology and biological development.

"A recent review showed that a bare minimum of three years, usually more, is necessary to adequately assess nutrient removal in wetlands," Kinsman Costello told the committee. She said some projects are still too young or have been affected by drought years, so the monitoring record is incomplete but already being used to prioritize high‑leverage projects.

Conservation practitioners emphasized the multiplier effect. Mark Dilley, a wetland consultant and former Ohio State lecturer, said H2Ohio funding has allowed private firms and local partners to build restoration capacity and attract matching funds for land protection and construction. "The H2Ohio program ... has been the best thing to happen to wetlands in our state since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972," Dilley said.

Several witnesses also warned that cuts in state support would roll back federal leverage. Jim Samuel, executive director of the Ohio Water Partnership, said the House version of the budget reduced H2Ohio by $120,000,000 from the executive proposal; he said that reduction would force agencies to scale back practices, delay wetland work, and risk losing momentum with landowners engaged in multi‑year plans.

Farm‑sector witnesses and local soil‑and‑water officials described the program as a key incentive structure that moves farmer behavior. Jeff Dooling, representing the Ohio Agricultural Conservation Initiative, said H2Ohio enrollment helped more farmers adopt cover crops and other practices; he warned that a funding reduction would shrink participation and acres enrolled.

Several speakers framed the issue as a long‑term investment rather than a short‑term expense. "This problem was not created in six years and it will take more than six years to address it," said Mary Troisi of The Nature Conservancy in Ohio, urging the Senate to retain both funding and the authority to acquire easements and lands where appropriate.

What advocacy groups asked the committee to do

- Restore H2Ohio funding to the executive request (witnesses cited the $270,000,000 figure). - Keep program flexibility that allows use of funds for wetland acquisition or easements where scientifically justified. - Maintain funding lines that enable the state to leverage federal grants (for example, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative) and private matching funds.

Why the witnesses said the cuts matter

Witnesses testified that H2Ohio projects are targeted at high‑phosphorus source areas, that restored wetlands act as "biogeochemical hotspots" that remove disproportionate amounts of nutrients, and that monitoring is needed to learn which designs and locations produce the best results. They also said program continuity matters to contractors, landowners and universities that have invested in planning and capacity.

What the committee did not decide

No formal vote or legislative action was taken in the hearing. Committee members heard testimony and questions; several senators asked for additional information about project scale, cost‑benefit analysis, and how wetlands tie to farm bill conservation dollars.

What to watch next

If the Senate restores funding or adjusts program language, agencies would keep contracts and monitoring on schedule and continue the multi‑year wetland assessments now underway. If funding is reduced, witnesses said projects would be delayed, federal matches at risk, and enrollment by farmers could decline.

Sources and evidence

This article summarizes testimony presented to the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee by Dr. Steven Jackman (Wright State Lake Campus), Theresa Dirkson (Mercer County), Dr. Lauren Kinsman Costello (Kent State/Stone Lab), Mark Dilley (Mad Scientist Associates), Jim Samuel (Ohio Water Partnership), Jeff Dooling (Ohio Agricultural Conservation Initiative), and others during the committee's informal hearing on the operating budget and HB 96.