“It’s just a total disaster,” said John Schoettl, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“I think we should be looking at the science.
It’s all bunk.”
In fact, Schoettsl and others like him have argued that the EPA’s assessment of the lake’s future was based on faulty assumptions about the state’s current pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
But the agency rejected those arguments, and in January the agency released its new assessment, based on a new analysis that included new data on lake pollution and emissions.
“This is a pretty big, big deal,” Schoetsl said.
“The EPA’s new analysis is a complete disaster.”
The EPA’s analysis is also the first to include data from the region’s most important industrial sites, like the world’s largest steel mill, which produces about half of all steel used in the United States, and a key industrial hub in the Midwest, where it makes more than $200 billion a year in sales.
These sites also make up a substantial portion of the state of Ohio, and their use in the lake is crucial to the lake ecosystem.
In its new report, the EPA estimates that the lake will be in “critical condition” by 2030 if emissions stay the same as they are now.
The lake is a crucial source of drinking water, and the EPA estimate that the water supply for some of Ohio’s most vulnerable communities could be reduced by 70 percent, depending on the amount of water being pumped into the lake.
But that’s not the only thing the EPA thinks the lake needs to address.
The agency’s new report also points to a number of measures that could address a number issues.
For example, the agency’s latest assessment of Lake Erie’s lake level projected that the river would reach “critical” condition by 2030.
But in addition to that, the report says that “a more ambitious, long-term plan to manage the lake with increased management is needed.”
This would involve raising the lake level, dredging to fill in the channel, installing a new dredge, building and maintaining an irrigation system, and restoring a number other water quality features that would help the lake continue to thrive.
These are all steps that could reduce the lake by 20 percent or more, and some could be implemented even before 2030.
The EPA also projects that by 2030, Lake Erie will be a “major source of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution” and a “critical source” of phosphorus runoff, which could harm drinking water for other residents and the environment.
“There are some very serious issues with the water quality and the water quantity in Lake Erie, and we need to address them,” said Michael Biesecker, a water resources scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
“It would be a huge step to reduce phosphorus runoff.”
And while the EPA does not predict a dramatic reduction in phosphorus runoff and other pollutants in Lake Huron’s watershed, it says that in addition, it is “concerned about a significant reduction in nitrogen oxides in the water, particularly in the northern part of Lake Huronia, where Lake Erie meets the Ohio River.”
But that hasn’t stopped opponents of the EPA from pointing to these issues as evidence that the agency is failing to properly protect the lake from future pollution.
“We’re looking at water pollution, not fish and wildlife,” said Mark Kramar, a spokesman for the Ohio Farm Bureau, which has been a vocal opponent of the Lake Erie dredging plan.
“They are talking about fish and habitat, not lake quality.”
The environmental groups say that the report underestimates the threat of the dredging.
For one thing, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that in 2030, more than half of Lake Ontario’s wetlands will be destroyed by dredging, according to the latest study commissioned by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
That means a significant increase in pollution in the Great Lake’s waters, which is expected to affect many communities downstream.
The report also says that the federal government should invest in Lake Ontario, and it says the EPA has “significant authority” to take action on its own.
But experts say that while the agency could address the lake pollution, it has failed to do so.
“Even though the agency has authority to protect Lake Ontario and Lake Erie in a clean way, they’ve never done so,” said Richard D. Cusick, director of the Environmental Policy Program at George Washington University.
“And they should take action.
The problem is, they haven’t acted.”
The agency also has a lot of power to address other environmental threats to the Great East Lake, but experts say it has done little of that.
“In the last few years, they have been very slow to act on the problems in the Lake Hurons, particularly with regard to pollution,” said David Rieger, a former EPA administrator who is now at the National Wildlife Federation.