The Ohio General Assembly last year slashed Gov. Mike DeWine’s signature water-quality program.
It was created to address summer algal blooms that shut down Toledo’s water supply for three days in 2014 and have been more than a nuisance since. Now DeWine is working to put bonds to fund his H2Ohio program on the November ballot.
A panel of Ohio economists mostly agreed that the bonds would reduce the cost of water treatment and be good for public health. But they were much more mixed on whether they would boost recreation or the state economy.
The H2Ohio program is a multi-agency effort to improve water quality through measures such as wetland restoration and creating incentives for farmers to reduce runoff from their fields. Fertilizers and manure feed algae that bloom in the summer — particularly in Lake Erie’s shallow western basin.
DeWine requested $270 million for the 2026-2027 budget, but his fellow Republicans slashed that amount to $165 million. They also slashed requested funding for public schools as they gifted $600 million to the billionaire owners of the Cleveland Browns. And they implemented a “flat” tax that the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy called “massive tax cuts to the wealthy.”
When a panel of economists was surveyed last month, many were uncertain if the water-quality bonds DeWine wants would boost the Ohio economy. Of the 19 surveyed by Scioto Analysis, three disagreed that they would be a help, eight said they would be, and another eight were uncertain.
In the comment section of the survey, Kathryn Wilson of Kent State University said that it was hard to tell if the bonds would provide a measurable boost to a major-state economy. But she said they would provide other benefits.
“I am not as certain on whether it will grow Ohio’s economy, but I expect it to have other environmental and health benefits that will be beneficial to the state,” she wrote.
On the other hand, Will Georgic of Ohio Wesleyan University said the program would have clear benefits for the state economy.
“Improvements in outdoor recreational opportunities and public health have a number of downstream benefits in addition to the direct effects,” he wrote.
However, Albert Sumell of Youngstown State University disagreed, saying the effects would be miniscule in the context of the Ohio economy.
“I don’t see how this would impact Ohio’s economy in any measurable way,” he wrote.
There was stronger agreement when the economists were asked whether they agreed that “statewide bonds for the H2Ohio program will reduce the cost of water treatment and public health services for local governments.” Eleven agreed, one disagreed and five were uncertain.
Bill LaFayette of Regionomics said the benefits were obvious.
“The algal bloom the other year in Lake Erie that crippled Toledo’s water supply is just one example of the costs of inattention to agricultural runoff,” he wrote.
This story is republished from the Ohio Capital Journal. View the original article.
