Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the H2ohio Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation groups and soil-and-water districts back H2Ohio investments in HB 96
Summary
The Nature Conservancy, Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund and the Ohio Federation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts told the House Agriculture Committee they support funding in HB 96 for H2Ohio and related conservation work, and asked for sustained funding and adjustments to state matching for local districts.
Representatives of conservation organizations and Ohio’s soil-and-water districts urged the House Agriculture Committee to secure and sustain funding for H2Ohio and related conservation programs in the biennial operating budget.
Mary Terosi, director of policy and government relations for The Nature Conservancy in Ohio, praised Governor DeWine’s proposed investments in programs the organization said protect land and improve water quality. Terosi told the committee H2Ohio has enrolled more than 3,200 farmers and more than 2.1 million acres of farmland in the Western Lake Erie Basin in at least one practice to reduce nutrient runoff. “The science shows that addressing issues like nutrient runoff … requires sustained investment over time,” she said, and she urged lawmakers to support H2Ohio funding included in HB 96.
Pete Buscher, chief of staff at the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund, testified in support of the funding levels for ODA’s portion of H2Ohio and the Lake Erie Commission, calling sustained investment “a critical role in making those investments” that can reduce nutrient loading and toxic algal blooms.
Jeff Duelling, immediate past president of the Ohio Federation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts and a Putnam County farmer, described soil-and-water districts as “boots on the ground” that deliver conservation practices and technical assistance locally. Duelling said the districts rely on a mix of local and state match funding and requested consideration of an inflationary increase to help districts cover rising costs and maintain staffing. He noted state match funding for districts comes from multiple sources, including general revenue funds and various fees.
Committee members asked witnesses about program specifics, lead-service-line replacement funding and the local delivery of conservation practices. Witnesses said the programs are broad, that they are showing farmer uptake, and that continued state support would bolster conservation work at the local level. No committee action on the budget provisions occurred during the hearing.
