United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Transportation 

Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water 

Quality, Committee on the Environment and 

Public Works, U.S. Senate 

IMPLEMENTATION OF 

THE BEACH ACT OF 2000 

EPA and States Have Made 

Progress, but Additional 

Actions Could Improve 

Public Health Protection 

Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 

 

GAO-07-1043T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 27, 2007

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BEACH ACT 

OF 2000 

EPA and States Have Made Progress, but 

Additional Actions Could Improve Public 

Health Protection 

Highlights of GAO-07-1043T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on 

Transportation Safety, Infrastructure 

Security, and Water Quality, Committee 

on the Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate 

Waterborne pathogens can

contaminate water and sand at 

beaches and threaten human 

health. Under the Beaches 

Environmental Assessment and 

Coastal Health (BEACH) Act, the 

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) provides grants to states to 

develop water quality monitoring

and public notification programs. 

This statement summarizes the key 

findings of GAO’s May 2007 report,

Great Lakes: EPA and the States 

Have Made Progress in 

Implementing the BEACH Act, but 

Additional Actions Could Improve 

Public Health Protection. In this 

report GAO assessed (1) the extent 

to which EPA has implemented the 

Act’s provisions, (2) concerns 

about EPA’s BEACH Act grant 

allocation formula, and (3) 

described the experiences of the 

Great Lakes states in developing

and implementing beach

monitoring and notification 

programs using their grant funds. 

What GAO Recommends

In the May 2007 report, GAO 

recommended that EPA distribute 

grant funds to better reflects states’ 

monitoring needs and help states

improve the consistency of their 

monitoring and notification 

activities; and the Congress

consider providing more flexibility

to allow states to use some BEACH 

Act funds to investigate and 

mitigate contamination sources. 

GAO is not making any additional 

recommendations in this 

statement.

EPA has taken steps to implement most BEACH Act provisions but has 

missed statutory deadlines for two critical requirements. While EPA has 

developed a national list of beaches and improved the uniformity of state 

water quality standards, it has not (1) completed the pathogen and human 

health studies required by 2003 or (2) published the new or revised water 

quality criteria for pathogens required by 2005. EPA stated that the required 

studies are ongoing, some studies were initiated in the summer of 2005, but 

the work was interrupted by Hurricane Katrina. EPA subsequently initiated 

two additional water studies in the summer of 2007. According to EPA, 

completion of the studies and development of the new criteria may take an 

additional 4 to 5 years. Further, although EPA has distributed approximately 

$51 million in BEACH Act grants from 2001-2006, the formula EPA uses to 

make the grants does not accurately reflect the monitoring needs of the 

states. This occurs because the formula emphasizes the length of the beach 

season more than the other factors in the formula—beach miles and beach 

use. These other factors vary widely among the states, can greatly influence 

the amount of monitoring a state needs to undertake, and can increase the 

public health risk. 

Thirty-four of the 35 eligible states have used BEACH Act grants to develop 

beach monitoring and public notification programs. Alaska is still in the 

process of developing its program. However, because state programs vary 

they may not provide consistent levels of public health protection 

nationwide. GAO found that the states’ monitoring and notification programs 

varied considerably in the frequency with which beaches were monitored, 

the monitoring methods used, and how the public was notified of potential 

health risks. For example, some Great Lakes states monitor their highpriority beaches as little as one or two times per week, while others monitor 

their high-priority beaches daily. In addition, when local officials review 

similar water quality results, some may choose to only issue a health 

advisory while others may choose to close the beach. According to state and 

local officials, these inconsistencies are in part due to the lack of adequate

funding for their beach monitoring and notification programs. 

The frequency of water quality monitoring has increased nationwide since 

passage of the Act, helping states and localities to identify the scope of 

contamination. However, in most cases, the underlying causes of 

contamination remain unknown. Some localities report that they do not 

have the funds to investigate the source of the contamination or take actions 

to mitigate the problem, and EPA has concluded that BEACH Act grants 

generally may not be used for these purposes. For example, local officials at 

67 percent of Great Lakes beaches reported that, when results of water 

quality testing indicated contamination at levels exceeding the applicable

standards during the 2006 beach season, they did not know the source of the 

contamination, and only 14 percent reported that they had taken actions to 

address the sources of contamination. 

 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1043T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Anu Mittal at 

(202) 512-3841or mittala@gao.gov. 
BEACH Act of 2000

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on the 

implementation of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal 

Health Act, known as the BEACH Act. Congress passed the BEACH Act in

2000, to improve states’ beach monitoring programs and processes for 

notifying the public of potential health risks from beach contamination. As 

you know, waterborne pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites 

can contaminate the water and sand at beaches and threaten human 

health. Contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated water can 

cause vomiting, diarrhea, and other illnesses, and may be life-threatening 

for susceptible populations such as children, the elderly, and those with 

impaired immune systems. State and local health officials may issue health 

advisories or close beaches when they believe levels of waterborne 

pathogens are high enough to threaten human health. Under the Clean 

Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for 

publishing water quality criteria that establish thresholds at which 

contamination—including waterborne pathogens—may threaten human 

health. 

Our testimony is based on GAO’s recently issued report1

 on BEACH Act 

implementation in the eight Great Lakes states and will cover three issues 

(1) the extent to which EPA has implemented the provisions of the Act, (2) 

concerns about EPA’s formula for allocating BEACH Act grants, and (3) 

states’ experiences in developing and implementing beach monitoring and 

notification programs using BEACH Act grants. Although, our testimony 

and recent report addressed the Great Lakes states, published EPA data 

and information presented at EPA sponsored BEACH Act conferences 

suggest that the findings are applicable nationwide. In summary, we found 

the following: 

• EPA has implemented seven of the BEACH Act’s nine requirements and 

provisions, but has missed statutory deadlines for two critical 

requirements. Among other things, EPA promulgated water quality 

standards for the 21 states and territories that had not adopted EPA’s 

water quality criteria and developed a national list of beaches.

However, EPA has not (1) completed the pathogen and human health

studies that were required by 2003 or (2) published new or revised 

 1 Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act, but 

Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection, GAO-07-591 (Washington,

D.C.: May 1, 2007). 

Page 1 GAO-07-1043T 
BEACH Act of 2000

water quality criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators that were 

required by 2005. EPA told us that the required studies are ongoing, but

may take an additional 4 to 5 years to complete, and that the 

development of new pathogen indicators would follow completion of 

the studies. We recommended that EPA establish a definitive time line 

for completing the studies required by the BEACH Act and for 

publishing new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens and 

pathogen indicators. EPA concurred with this recommendation. 

• Although EPA has distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH Act 

grants between 2001 and 2006 to the 35 eligible states and territories, 

EPA’s formula for distributing BEACH Act grant funds does not reflect 

the states’ varied monitoring needs. EPA’s formula is based on three 

factors—length of beach season; beach miles, as measured by length of 

shoreline; and beach use, as measured by coastal population. If the 

program had received its full funding of $30 million annually that EPA 

used to develop the formula, each of the formula factors would have 

had a roughly equal impact on the grant allocations made to states. 

However, the program has received only about $10 million annually. 

Consequently, the beach season factor which EPA uses as a baseline 

for calculating states’ grants has had a greater influence (about 82 

percent) on the total BEACH Act grants each state received, while 

beach miles and beach use, which vary widely among the states and 

can impact the public health risk, have had a significantly smaller 

impact (about 9 percent each). As a result, states that have greater 

beach monitoring needs because of their longer coastlines and larger 

coastal populations, receive almost the same amount of funding as 

those states with smaller coastlines and coastal populations. We 

recommended that EPA reevaluate the funding formula it uses to 

distribute BEACH Act grants. While EPA concurred in the need to 

reevaluate the formula, it stated that some states were reluctant to 

make any significant changes to the formula. 

• States’ use of BEACH Act grant funds to develop and implement beach 

monitoring and public notification programs has generally increased 

the extent of beach monitoring. However, states vary considerably in 

the frequency with which they monitor beaches, the monitoring 

methods used, and the means by which they notify the public of 

associated health risks. These differences are due, in part, to the 

current BEACH Act funding levels, which some state officials said are 

inadequate for sufficient monitoring. Moreover, while increased

frequency of monitoring has helped states and localities identify the 

scope of contamination, in most cases, the underlying causes of the 

contamination remain unknown and unaddressed. Local officials from 

Page 2 GAO-07-1043T 
BEACH Act of 2000

within the Great Lakes states told us that they generally do not have 

the funds to investigate and identify sources of contamination or to 

take actions to mitigate the problem, and EPA has concluded that 

states can not use BEACH grants for this purpose. To assist states and 

localities nationwide in identifying and addressing sources of beach 

contamination, we recommended that the Congress consider allowing 

states some flexibility to use their BEACH Act grants to undertake 

limited research to identify specific sources of contamination at 

monitored beaches and take certain actions to mitigate these problems. 

In addition, we recommended that EPA provide states and localities 

with specific guidance on monitoring frequency and public notification. 

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is responsible for publishing water 

quality criteria that establish thresholds at which contamination—

including waterborne pathogens—may threaten human health. States are 

required to develop standards, or legal limits, for these pathogens by either 

adopting EPA’s recommended water quality criteria or other criteria that 

EPA determines are equally protective of human health. The states then 

use these pathogen standards to assess water quality at their recreational 

beaches. The BEACH Act amended the Clean Water Act to require the 35 

eligible states and territories to update their recreational water quality 

standards using EPA’s 1986 criteria for pathogen indicators. In addition, 

the BEACH Act required EPA to (1) complete studies on pathogens in 

coastal recreational waters and how they affect human health, including

developing rapid methods of detecting pathogens by October 2003, and (2) 

publish new or revised water quality criteria by October 2005, to be 

reviewed and revised as necessary every 5 years thereafter. 

Background 

The BEACH Act also authorized EPA to award grants to states, localities, 

and tribes to develop comprehensive beach monitoring and public 

notification programs for their recreational beaches. To be eligible for 

BEACH Act grants, states are required to (1) identify their recreational 

beaches, (2) prioritize their recreational beaches for monitoring based on 

their use by the public and the risk to human health, and (3) establish a 

public notification program. EPA grant criteria give states some flexibility 

on the frequency of monitoring, methods of monitoring, and processes for 

notifying the public when pathogen indicators exceed state standards, 

including whether to issue health advisories or close beaches. Although 

the BEACH Act authorized EPA to provide $30 million in grants annually 

Page 3 GAO-07-1043T 
BEACH Act of 2000

for fiscal years 2001 through 2005,2 since fiscal year 2001, congressional 

conference reports accompanying EPA’s appropriations acts have directed 

about $10 million annually for BEACH Act grants and EPA has followed 

this congressional direction when allocating funds to the program. 

EPA Has Implemented 

Some But Not All of the 

BEACH Act Provisions 

EPA has made progress implementing the BEACH Act’s provisions but has 

missed statutory deadlines for two critical requirements. Of the nine 

actions required by the BEACH Act, EPA has taken action on the following 

seven: 

Propose water quality standards and criteria—The BEACH Act required 

each state with coastal recreation waters to incorporate EPA’s published 

criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators, or criteria EPA considers 

equally protective of human health, into their state water quality standards 

by April 10, 2004. The BEACH Act also required EPA to propose 

regulations setting forth federal water quality standards for those states 

that did not meet the deadline. On November 16, 2004, EPA published in 

the Federal Register a final rule promulgating its 1986 water quality 

standards for E. coli and enterococci for the 21 states and territories that 

had not adopted water quality criteria that were as protective of human 

health as EPA’s approved water quality criteria. According to EPA, all 35

states with coastal recreational waters are now using EPA’s 1986 criteria, 

compared with the 11 states that were using these criteria in 2000. 

Provide BEACH Act grants—The BEACH Act authorized EPA to 

distribute annual grants to states, territories, tribes and, in certain 

situations, local governments to develop and implement beach monitoring 

and notification programs. Since 2001, EPA has awarded approximately 

$51 million in development and implementation grants for beach 

monitoring and notification programs to all 35 states. Alaska is the only 

eligible state that has not yet received a BEACH Act implementation grant 

because it is still in the process of developing a monitoring and public 

notification program consistent with EPA’s grant performance criteria. 

EPA expects to distribute approximately $10 million for the 2007 beach 

season subject to the availability of funds. 

 2

 Although the BEACH Act was originally authorized through 2005, Congress continued to

fund EPA’s efforts under the act in 2006 and 2007. 

Page 4 GAO-07-1043T 
BEACH Act of 2000

Publish beach monitoring guidance and performance criteria for 

grants—The BEACH Act required EPA to develop guidance and 

performance criteria for beach monitoring and assessment for states 

receiving BEACH Act grants by April 2002. After a year of consultations 

with coastal states and organizations, EPA responded to this requirement 

in 2002 by issuing its National Beach Guidance and Required

Performance Criteria for Grants. To be eligible for BEACH Act grants, 

EPA requires recipients to develop (1) a list of beaches evaluated and

ranked according to risk, (2) methods for monitoring water quality at their 

beaches, such as when and where to conduct sampling, and (3) plans for 

notifying the public of the risk from pathogen contamination at beaches, 

among other requirements. 

Develop a list of coastal recreational waters—The BEACH Act required 

EPA to identify and maintain a publicly available list of coastal

recreational waters adjacent to beaches or other publicly accessible areas, 

with information on whether or not each is subject to monitoring and 

public notification. In March 2004, EPA published its first comprehensive 

National List of Beaches based on information that the states had provided

as a condition for receiving BEACH Act grants. The list identified 6,099 

coastal recreational beaches, of which 3,472, or 57 percent, were being 

monitored. The BEACH Act also requires EPA to periodically update its 

initial list and publish revisions in the Federal Register. However, EPA has 

not yet published a revised list, in part because some states have not 

provided updated information. 

Develop a water pollution database—The BEACH Act required EPA to 

establish, maintain, and make available to the public an electronic national 

water pollution database. In May 2005, EPA unveiled “eBeaches,” a 

collection of data pulled from multiple databases on the location of 

beaches, water quality monitoring, and public notifications of beach 

closures and advisories. This information has been made available to the 

public through an online tool called BEACON (Beach Advisory and 

Closing Online Notification). EPA officials acknowledge that eBeaches has 

had some implementation problems, including periods of downtime when 

states were unable to submit their data, and states have had difficulty 

compiling the data and getting it into EPA’s desired format. EPA is 

working to centralize its databases so that states can more easily submit 

information and expects the data reporting will become easier for states as 

they further develop their system. 

Provide technical assistance on floatable materials—The BEACH Act 

required EPA to provide technical assistance to help states, tribes, and 

Page 5 GAO-07-1043T 
BEACH Act of 2000

localities develop their own assessment and monitoring procedures for 

floatable debris in coastal recreational waters. EPA responded by 

publishing guidance titled Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris in 

August 2002. The guidance provided examples of monitoring and 

assessment programs that have addressed the impact of floatable debris 

and examples of mitigation activities to address floatable debris. 

Provide a report to Congress on status of BEACH Act implementation—

The BEACH Act required EPA to report to Congress 4 years after 

enactment of the act and every 4 years thereafter on the status of 

implementation. EPA completed its first report for Congress, 

Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: Report to Congress in October 

2006, which was 2 years after the October 2004 deadline. EPA officials 

noted that they missed the deadline because they needed additional time 

to include updates on current research and states’ BEACH Act 

implementation activities and to complete both internal and external 

reviews. 

EPA has not yet completed the following two BEACH Act requirements: 

Conduct epidemiological studies—The BEACH Act required EPA to 

publish new epidemiological studies concerning pathogens and the 

protection of human health for marine and freshwater by April 10, 2002,

and to complete the studies by October 10, 2003. The studies were to: (1) 

assess potential human health risks resulting from exposure to pathogens 

in coastal waters; (2) identify appropriate and effective pathogen 

indicator(s) to improve the timely detection of pathogens in coastal 

waters; (3) identify appropriate, accurate, expeditious, and cost-effective 

methods for detecting the presence of pathogens; and (4) provide 

guidance for state application of the criteria. EPA initiated its multiyear 

National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational

Water Study in 2001 in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention. The first component of this study was to develop faster 

pathogen indicator testing procedures. The second component was to 

further clarify the health risk of swimming in contaminated water, as 

measured by these faster pathogen indicator testing procedures. While 

EPA completed these studies for freshwater––showing a promising 

relationship between a faster pathogen indicator and possible adverse 

health effects from bacterial contamination––it has not completed the 

studies for marine water. EPA initiated marine studies in Biloxi, 

Mississippi, in the summer of 2005, 3 years past the statutory deadline for 

beginning this work, but the work was interrupted by Hurricane Katrina. 

EPA initiated two additional marine water studies in the summer of 2007.

Page 6 GAO-07-1043T 
BEACH Act of 2000

Publish new pathogen criteria—The BEACH Act required EPA to use the 

results of its epidemiological studies to identify new pathogen indicators 

with associated criteria, as well as new pathogen testing measures by 

October 2005. However, since EPA has not completed the studies on 

which these criteria were to be based, this task has been delayed. 

In the absence of new criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators, 

states continue to use EPA’s 1986 criteria to monitor their beaches. An 

EPA official told us that EPA has not established a time line for 

completing these two remaining provisions of the BEACH Act but 

estimates it may take an additional 4-5 years. One EPA official told us that 

the initial time frames in the act may not have been realistic. EPA’s failure 

to complete studies on the health effects of pathogens for marine waters 

and failure to publish revised water quality criteria for pathogens and 

pathogen indicators prompted the Natural Resources Defense Council to 

file suit against EPA on August 2, 2006, for failing to comply with the 

statutory obligations of the BEACH Act. 

To ensure that EPA complies with the requirements laid out in the BEACH 

Act, we recommended that it establish a definitive time line for completing 

the studies on pathogens and their effects on human health, and for 

publishing new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens and 

pathogen indicators. 

EPA’s BEACH Grant 

Formula Does Not 

Adequately Reflect States’ 

Monitoring Needs 

While EPA distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH Act grants 

between 2001 and 2006 to the 35 eligible states and territories, its grant 

distribution formula does not adequately account for states’ widely varied 

beach monitoring needs. When Congress passed the BEACH Act in 2000, it 

authorized $30 million in grants annually, but the act did not specify how 

EPA should distribute grants to eligible states. EPA determined that 

initially $2 million would be distributed equally to all eligible states to 

cover the base cost of developing water quality monitoring and 

notification programs. EPA then developed a distribution formula for 

future annual grants that reflected the BEACH Act’s emphasis on beach

use and risk to human health. EPA’s funding formula includes the 

following three factors: 

• Length of beach season—EPA selected beach season length as a factor 

because states with longer beach seasons would require more 

monitoring. 

Page 7 GAO-07-1043T 
BEACH Act of 2000

• Beach use—EPA selected beach use as a factor because more heavily

used beaches would expose a larger number of people to pathogens, 

increasing the public health risk and thus requiring more monitoring. 

EPA used coastal population as a proxy for beach use because 

information on the number of beach visitors was not consistently 

available across all the states. 

• Beach miles—EPA selected beach miles because states with longer 

shorelines would require more monitoring. EPA used shoreline miles, 

which may include industrial and other nonpublicly accessible areas, as 

a proxy for beach miles because verifiable data for beach miles was not 

available. 

Once EPA determined which funding formula factors to use, EPA officials 

weighted the factors. EPA intended that the beach season factor would 

provide the base funding and would be augmented by the beach use and 

beach mile factors. EPA established a series of fixed amounts that 

correspond to states’ varying lengths of beach seasons to cover the general

expenses associated with a beach monitoring program. For example, EPA 

estimated that a beach season of 3 or fewer months would require 

approximately two full-time employees costing $150,000, while states with 

beach seasons greater than 6 months would require $300,000. Once the 

allotments for beach season length were distributed, EPA determined that 

50 percent of the remaining funds would be distributed according to 

states’ beach use, and the other 50 percent would be distributed according 

to states’ beach miles, as shown in table 1. 

Table 1: BEACH Act Grant Distribution Formula 

Formula factor Amount of grant 

Beach season length Less than 3 months: $150,000 

3-4 months: $200,000 

5-6 months: $250,000 

Greater than 6 months: $300,000 

Beach use 50% of funds remaining after allotment of beach season length 

funding. 

Beach miles 50% of funds remaining after allotment of beach season length 

funding. 

Source: EPA. 

a

States with less than a 3-month beach season only receive the $150,000 in beach season length 

funding. 

Page 8 GAO-07-1043T 
BEACH Act of 2000

EPA officials told us that, using the distribution formula above and 

assuming a $30 million authorization, the factors were to have received 

relatively equal weight in calculating states’ grants and would have

resulted in the following allocation: beach season—27 percent (about $8 

million); beach use—37 percent (about $11 million); and beach miles—37 

percent (about $11 million). However, because funding levels for BEACH 

Act grants have been about $10 million each year, once the approximately 

$8 million, of the total available for grants, was allotted for beach season 

length, this left only $2 million, instead of nearly $22 million, to be 

distributed equally between the beach use and beach miles factors. This 

resulted in the following allocation: beach season—82 percent (about $8 

million); beach use—9 percent (about $1 million); and beach miles—9 

percent (about $1 million). 

Because beach use and beach miles vary widely among the states, but 

account for a much smaller portion of the distribution formula, BEACH 

Act grant amounts may vary little between states that have significantly 

different shorelines or coastal populations. For example, across the Great 

Lakes, there is significant variation in coastal populations and in miles of 

shoreline, but current BEACH Act grant allocations are relatively flat. As a 

result, Indiana, which has 45 miles of shoreline and a coastal population of

741,468, received about $205,800 in 2006, while Michigan, which has 3,224 

miles of shoreline and a coastal population of 4,842,023, received about 

$278,450 in 2006. Similarly, the current formula gives localities that have a 

longer beach season and significantly smaller coastal populations an 

advantage over localities that have a shorter beach season but significantly 

greater population. For example, Guam and American Samoa with 12 

month beach seasons and coastal populations of less than 200,000 each 

receive larger grants than Maryland and Virginia, with 4 month beach

seasons and coastal populations of 3.6 and 4.4 million, respectively. 

If EPA reweighted the factors so that they were still roughly equal given 

the $10 million allocation, we believe that BEACH Act grants to the states

would better reflect their needs. Consequently, we recommended that if 

current funding levels remain the same, that the agency should revise the 

formula for distributing BEACH Act grants to better reflect the states’ 

varied monitoring needs by reevaluating the formula factors to determine 

if the weight of the beach season factor should be reduced and if the 

weight of the other factors, such as beach use and beach miles should be 

increased. 

Page 9 GAO-07-1043T 
States’ use of BEACH Act grants to develop and implement beach 

monitoring and public notification programs has increased the number of 

beaches being monitored and the frequency of monitoring. However, 

states vary considerably in the frequency in which they monitor beaches, 

the monitoring methods used, and the means by which they notify the 

public of health risks. Specifically, 34 of the 35 eligible states have used

BEACH Act grants to develop beach monitoring and public notification 

programs; and the remaining state, Alaska, is in the process of setting up 

its program. However, these programs have been implemented somewhat 

inconsistently by the states which could lead to inconsistent levels of 

public health protection at beaches in the United States. In addition, while 

the Great Lakes and other eligible states have been able to increase their 

understanding of the scope of contamination as a result of BEACH Act 

grants, the underlying causes of this contamination usually remain 

unresolved, primarily due to a lack of funding. For example, EPA reports 

that nationwide when beaches are found to have high levels of

contamination, the most frequent source of contamination listed as the 

cause is “unknown”. 

Experiences of the Great 

Lakes and Other Eligible

States in Implementing 

BEACH Act Grants 

BEACH Act officials from six of the eight Great Lakes states that we 

reviewed—Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin—reported that the number of beaches being monitored in their

state has increased since the passage of the BEACH Act in 2000. For 

example, in Minnesota, state officials reported that only one beach was 

being monitored prior to the BEACH Act, and there are now 39 beaches 

being monitored in three counties. In addition, EPA data show that, in 

1999, the number of beaches identified in the Great Lakes was about 330, 

with about 250 being monitored. In 2005, the most recent year for which 

data are available, the Great Lakes states identified almost 900 beaches of

which about 550 were being monitored. 

In addition to an increase in the number of beaches being monitored, the 

frequency of monitoring at many of the beaches in the Great Lakes has 

increased. We estimated that 45 percent of Great Lakes beaches increased

the frequency of their monitoring since the passage of the BEACH Act. For 

example, Indiana officials told us that prior to the BEACH Act, monitoring 

was done a few times per week at their beaches but now monitoring is 

done 5-7 days per week. Similarly, local officials in one Ohio county 

reported that they used to test some beaches along Lake Erie twice a 

month prior to the BEACH Act but now they test these beaches once a 

week. States outside of the Great Lakes region have reported similar 

benefits of receiving BEACH Act grants. For example, state officials from 

Connecticut, Florida, and Washington reported increases in the number of 

Page 10 GAO-07-1043T BEACH Act of 2000
BEACH Act of 2000

beaches they are now able to monitor or the frequency of the monitoring 

they are now able to conduct. 

Because of the information available from BEACH Act monitoring 

activities, state and local beach officials are now better able to determine 

which of their beaches are more likely to be contaminated, which are 

relatively clean, and which may require additional monitoring resources to 

help them better understand the levels of contamination that may be 

present. For example, state BEACH Act officials reported that they now 

know which beaches are regularly contaminated or are being regularly 

tested for elevated levels of contamination. We determined that officials at 

54 percent of Great Lakes beaches we surveyed believe that their ability to

make advisory and closure decisions has increased or greatly increased 

since they initiated BEACH Act water quality monitoring programs. 

However, because EPA’s grant criteria and the BEACH Act give states and 

localities some flexibility in implementing their programs we also 

identified significant variability among the Great Lakes states beach 

monitoring and notification programs. We believe that this variability is 

most likely also occurring in other states as well because of the lack of 

specificity in EPA’s guidance. Specifically, we identified the following 

differences in how the Great Lake states have implemented their 

programs. 

Frequency of monitoring. Some Great Lakes states are monitoring their 

high-priority beaches almost daily, while other states monitor their highpriority beaches as little as one to two times per week. The variation in 

monitoring frequency in the Great Lakes states is due in part to the 

availability of funding. For example, state officials in Michigan and 

Wisconsin reported insufficient funding for monitoring. 

Methods of sampling. Most of the Great Lakes states and localities use 

similar sampling methods to monitor water quality at local beaches. For 

example, officials at 79 percent of the beaches we surveyed reported that 

they collected water samples during the morning, and 78 percent reported 

that they always collected water samples from the same location. 

Collecting data at the same time of day and from the same site ensures 

more consistent water quality data. However, we found significant 

variations in the depth at which local officials in the Great Lakes states 

were taking water samples. According to EPA, depth is a key determinant 

of microbial indicator levels. EPA’s guidance recommends that beach 

officials sample at the same depth—knee depth, or approximately 3-feet 

deep—for all beaches to ensure consistency and comparability among 

Page 11 GAO-07-1043T 
BEACH Act of 2000

samples. Great Lakes states varied considerably in the depths at which 

they sampled water, with some sampling occurring at 1-6 inches and other 

sampling at 37-48 inches. 

Public notification. Local officials in the Great Lakes differ in the 

information they use to decide whether to issue health advisories or close 

beaches when water contamination exceeds EPA criteria and in how to 

notify the public of their decision. These differences reflect states’ varied 

standards for triggering an advisory, closure, or both. Also, we found that 

states’ and localities’ means of notifying the public of health advisories or 

beach closures vary across the Great Lakes. Some states post water quality 

monitoring results on signs at beaches; some provide results on the 

Internet or on telephone hotlines; and some distribute the information to 

local media.

To address this variability in how the states are implementing their 

BEACH Act grant funded monitoring and notification programs, we 

recommended that EPA provide states and localities with specific 

guidance on monitoring frequency and methods and public notification. 

Further, even though BEACH Act funds have increased the level of 

monitoring being undertaken by the states, the specific sources of 

contamination at most beaches are not known. For example, we 

determined that local officials at 67 percent of Great Lakes’ beaches did

not know the sources of bacterial contamination causing water quality 

standards to be exceeded during the 2006 beach season and EPA officials 

confirmed that the primary source of contamination at beaches 

nationwide is reported by state officials as “unknown.” For example, 

because state and local officials in the Great Lakes states do not have 

enough information on the specific sources of contamination and 

generally lack funds for remediation, most of the sources of contamination 

at beaches have not been addressed. Local officials from these states 

indicated that they had taken actions to address the sources of

contamination at an estimated 14 percent of the monitored beaches. 

EPA has concluded that BEACH Act grant funds generally may be used 

only for monitoring and notification purposes. While none of the eight 

Great Lakes state officials suggested that the BEACH Act was intended to

help remediate the sources of contamination, several state officials believe 

that it may be more beneficial to use BEACH Act grants to identify and 

remediate sources of contamination rather than just continue to monitor 

water quality at beaches and notify the public when contamination occurs. 

Local officials also reported a need for funding to identify and address 

Page 12 GAO-07-1043T 
BEACH Act of 2000

sources of contamination. Furthermore, at EPA’s National Beaches 

Conference in October 2006, a panel of federal and academic researches 

recommended that EPA provide the states with more freedom on how 

they spend their BEACH Act funding. 

To address this issue, we recommended that as the Congress considers 

reauthorization of the BEACH Act, that it should consider providing EPA

some flexibility in awarding BEACH Act grants to allow states to 

undertake limited research to identify specific sources of contamination at 

monitored beaches and certain actions to mitigate these problems, as 

specified by EPA. 

_ _ _ _ _ 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, EPA has made progress in implementing 

many of the BEACH Act’s requirements but it may still be several years 

before EPA completes the pathogen studies and develops the new water 

quality criteria required by the act. Until these actions are completed, 

states will have to continue to use existing outdated methods. In addition, 

the formula EPA developed to distribute BEACH Act grants to the states

was based on the assumption that the program would receive its fully 

authorized allocation of $30 million. Because the program has not received 

full funding and EPA has not adjusted the formula to reflect reduced 

funding levels, the current distribution of grants fails to adequately take 

into account the varied monitoring needs of the states. Finally, as 

evidenced by the experience of the Great Lakes states, the BEACH Act has 

helped states increase their level of monitoring and their knowledge about 

the scope of contamination at area beaches. However, the variability in 

how the states are conducting their monitoring, how they are notifying the 

public, and their lack of funding to address the source of contamination 

continues to raise concerns about the adequacy of protection that is being 

provided to beachgoers. This concludes our prepared statement, we would 

be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

If you have any questions about this statement, please contact Anu K. 

Mittal @ (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Other key contributors to this 

statement include Ed Zadjura (Assistant Director), Eric Bachhuber, Omari 

Norman, and Alison O'Neill. 

Page 13 GAO-07-1043T 

GAO Contacts 

(360860) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER