U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–690 PDF 2007

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE BEACHES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND

COASTAL HEALTH ACT

(110–59)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 12, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi

TESTIMONY 

Bilbray, Hon. Brian P., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California .............................................................................................................. 6

Dias, Mara, Water Quality Coordinator, Surfrider Foundation, San Clemente, 

California .............................................................................................................. 22

Gold, Mark, Executive Director, Heal the Bay, Santa Monica, California ......... 22

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. .............................. 8

Heaney, Hon. Patrick Skip, Town Supervisor, Southampton Town Board, 

Southampton, New York ..................................................................................... 8

Jackson, Hon. Lisa, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, Trenton, New Jersey ......................................................................... 8

Mittal, Anu K., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 22

Pallone, Jr., Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey ........................................................................................................... 4

Stoner, Nancy, Director, Clean Water Project, Natural Resources Defense 

Council .................................................................................................................. 22

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana .................................................................... 34

Bilbray, Hon. Brian P., of California ..................................................................... 38

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 41

Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida ................................................................................ 43

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 45

Pallone, Hon. Frank, of New Jersey ...................................................................... 47

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Dias, Mara ................................................................................................................ 50

Gold, Mark ............................................................................................................... 56

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H. ................................................................................. 58

Heaney, Patrick A. ................................................................................................... 72

Jackson, Lisa P. ....................................................................................................... 79

Mittal, Anu K. .......................................................................................................... 82

Stoner, Nancy ........................................................................................................... 99

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Report of the 

Experts Scientific Workship on Critical Research Needs for the Development of New or Revised Recreational Water Quality Criteria, draft executive summary ........................................................................................................ 106

vi


36690.001
vii


36690.002
viii


36690.003
ix


36690.004
x


36690.005
(1)

HEARING ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

BEACHES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

AND COASTAL HEALTH ACT 

Thursday, July 12 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I call the Subcommittee to order. 

Today, we meet to gather diverse opinions and expert analysis on 

reauthorization of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and 

Coastal Health Act or the BEACH Act. First signed into law October 2000, the BEACH Act has provided States, local governments 

and tribes funding for the assessment, analysis and public notification programs that monitor our coastal waters. 

Although each beach and each coastal or Great Lakes shoreline 

may look pristine, the water quality may be unsafe for human contact. The BEACH Act sought to advance three separate goals: making beach water quality monitoring mandatory, making water quality criteria universal and making sure that the public was well informed on the quality of water that they would be using for swimming, fishing or other recreational activities. 

Our Country’s beaches are far from insignificant. With over 

28,000 miles of coastal and Great Lakes shoreline, over 150 million 

tourists each year seek out a spot on a beach for recreational purposes. At a time when parents bemoan that their children are too 

focused with computers, video games and television to get proper 

outside exercise, beaches provide lush scenery and draw people of 

all ages to the shore for water sports, boating, birdwatching and relaxation. 

Without monitoring the quality of water, however, our Country 

faces sizeable public health concerns. Waterborne pathogens and 

bacteria can cause illness to all who make contact with the water. 

Children and the elderly are especially susceptible to the sore 

throats, severe infections, meningitis, hepatitis that come from 

swimming, fishing or boating in polluted water. Each beach visitor 

should be informed that risk could be involved if they choose to immerse themselves in water. 

By authorizing nearly $62 million in grant funding from 2001 to 

2007 to all 35 States with coastal or Great Lakes shoreline, the 

2

BEACH Act has supported universal criteria for beach monitoring 

assessments and public notification programs. 

Although we have made great strides in protecting the public 

from unsafe waters, the programs have been far from perfect. A 

GAO report that was released several weeks ago reported that the 

Environmental Protection Agency has not completed the pathogen 

or human health studies that were required by the Act nor has it 

published a new or revised water quality standard. 

In addition, the BEACH Act grants have not been disbursed by 

needs as one would think would be the most efficient. Monitoring 

varies by beach and by State, and State and local officials informed 

the GAO that they do not have enough funding to address contamination sources. 

Three of our colleagues have introduced various takes on the reauthorization of the BEACH Act this Congress. My colleague from 

the Committee, Congressman Bishop, as well as Congressman 

Pallone and Congressman Bilbray, each has taken a keen interest 

in trying to find the most viable solutions to protecting our shore 

waters. I appreciate your efforts. 

I welcome the witness panel today and look forward to your testimony. 

I now ask the gentleman from Louisiana for a statement. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate your 

willingness to call this hearing and direct attention to this most 

important matter. 

Preservation of recreational assets is extremely important and 

the numbers of individuals who press to the coast or to inland river 

beaches across the Country are enormous. Monitoring and taking 

action to correct or notify individuals of potential hazards is an extraordinarily important activity for this Congress to authorize. 

Certainly, technology enables us to do more in a more cost-efficient manner than ever possible, but clearly there is much work to 

be done. Distribution of the grants on a rational basis is certainly 

a high priority of this Committee’s work. 

I look forward to hearing from the distinguished panel of witnesses we have scheduled for the afternoon and certainly from our 

colleagues who have keen and direct interest in this matter who I 

am sure will bring their own area of expertise to the subject. 

With that, I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for holding this hearing and inviting these distinguished members, local 

elected officials including my good friend from the town of Southampton, the Supervisor Skip Heaney, and members of the environmental community. 

My district encompasses well over 300 miles of coastline, and I 

am very proud to represent some of this Country’s most beautiful 

and popular beaches. Maintaining coastal health is an integral objective towards preserving the Nation’s environment and sustaining 

the tourist economies of our States. The beach-going public that 

flocks to our Nation’s shores this summer reminds us that we deserve pristine waterways to enjoy with our families and the need 

to preserve them for future generations of Americans. 

3

The water quality monitoring and notification grants established 

in the BEACH Act have been absolutely necessary in protecting the 

health of beach-goers on our shores. Today, with this discussion, we 

can continue to assure the American public that preserving healthy 

shores is a priority of our environmental agenda. 

In the 109th Congress, with the help of Mr. Pallone and Mr. 

LoBiondo and others, I introduced legislation to reauthorize the 

BEACH Act for an additional four years. This legislation passed 

through this Committee, passed the House but stalled in the Senate. 

Earlier this year, I reintroduced similar legislation, H.R. 723, 

with the help of Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Bilbray and several other members of this Committee to renew the discussion of how we can continue to protect our Nation’s beaches. 

After recent reports marked progress but raised questions about 

the implementation of the BEACH Act, it has become clear that 

further development of the BEACH Act is needed. That is why Mr. 

Pallone, the author of the original BEACH Act, and I decided to 

pool our resources to advance better legislation to fix problems and 

fund grant programs. 

Mr. Pallone will address the Committee shortly about how to 

fund the program for an additional four fiscal years and how to 

solve many of the obstacles and challenges that have become apparent as this program is implemented. 

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is tasked with publishing water 

quality criteria that alerts officials to human health risks, setting 

a regulatory floor that States must meet. The original BEACH Act 

amended the Clean Water Act to require 35 eligible States to update recreational water quality standards using EPA’s 1986 model 

and authorizing $150 million to do so. 

The BEACH Act also required EPA to develop rapid pathogen 

tests by 2003 and publish new criteria by 2005, neither of which 

has been issued by the EPA. 

In the recent report released by the GAO on the BEACH Act, the 

EPA is criticized for failing to publish water quality criteria for 

pathogens and failing to meet the 2003 deadline for studies on 

pathogens and human health. This report makes it obvious that 

there are problems in need of a solution, and it is most likely not 

limited to the Great Lakes region but has national implications 

which is why I now support H.R. 2537. 

I hope my colleagues agree that the BEACH Act is an excellent 

example of an effective government program that benefits communities in every region of the Country and has yielded tremendous 

progress in restoring healthy shores. 

Madam Chairwoman, with your leadership and support, the 

Water Resources Subcommittee can ensure that beach visitors 

throughout the Country are assured that local governments have 

all of the resources they need to monitor recreational waters and 

alert the public of potential health hazards. To that end, I look forward to working with you and thank you for your consideration of 

our request. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Congressman LoBiondo. 

4

Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes, Madam Chair, thank you very much. Thank 

you for holding this hearing today. I just have a very brief statement. 

Over 30 years ago, my home State of New Jersey became one of 

the first State’s in the Nation to regularly test water quality in its 

over 300 public beaches and notify the public of disclosure. I am 

very proud that New Jersey’s program became a model for the nationwide program that we set up under the Beach Act. 

Thanks to the BEACH Act, New Jersey has recovered over $1.4 

million to further strengthen their existing program. The grants 

are helping to protect the millions of people that visit our 127 miles 

of coastline every year and our $31 billion tourist industry. 

I am disappointed the Senate failed to pass our reauthorization 

of this critical program in the last Congress, but I look forward to 

working with you, Madam Chair, and the Committee to quickly 

move legislation to reauthorize and improve the BEACH Act. 

I thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

We are pleased to have two very distinguished members for our 

first panel here this afternoon. First, we have the Honorable Frank 

Pallone, Jr. of New Jersey’s Sixth Congressional District, and we 

have the Honorable Brian Bilbray of California’s 50th Congressional District, who also appeared yesterday. From the way he described his problem, he will use every penny authorized if he can 

get it. 

We are pleased you were both able to make it this afternoon, and 

your full statements can be placed in the record. We ask that you 

try to limit your testimony to five minutes oral in a summary. 

We will continue to proceed in the order in which the witnesses 

are listed in the call of the hearing, and I will now recognize Congressman Pallone. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, JR., A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. 

I really appreciate the fact that you are having this hearing today. 

This is obviously a bill that is very important to us and anyone 

who lives or works along the coast. 

I also want to thank our Ranking Member Baker as well. 

I want to specifically recognize Mr. Bishop from Long Island for 

his leadership on this issue. Our two offices have worked together 

in crafting what I believe is the most comprehensive beach protection legislation in our Nation’s history. 

Our Nation’s beaches are vital not only to residents of our coastal 

States but also for countless visitors who come to visit each year. 

In New Jersey alone, beaches are the primary driver of a tourism 

economy that provides nearly 500,000 jobs and generates $36 billion in economic activities for the State each year. I think the main 

thing is that we would like Congress to assure beach-goers that our 

Nation’s beaches are clean and safe. 

Now the 2000 BEACH Act which has already been discussed, 

thanks to that, we have made major strides over the last six years. 

5

That Act helped us improve water quality testing and monitoring 

of beaches across the Country. 

The Act basically had three provisions: requiring States to adopt 

current EPA water quality criteria to protect beach-goers from getting sick, requiring the EPA to update these water quality criteria 

with new science and technologies to provide better, faster water 

testing and finally providing grants to States to implement coastal 

water monitoring programs. 

My home State of New Jersey used some of this grant money to 

become the first State to launch a real-time web site that notifies 

beach-goers of the state of our beaches. 

Now the bill that is before you, the Beach Protection Act, is basically an improvement over the 2000 Beach Act, and that is what 

Mr. Bishop and I had in mind when we introduced the bill. It 

would go further to ensure that beach-goers throughout the Country can surf, swim and play on clean and safe beaches. 

The legislation not only reauthorizes the BEACH Act grants to 

States through 2012, but it also doubles the annual grant levels 

from $30 million under the old authorization to a new level of $60 

million annually. It also expands the scope of those grants from 

water quality monitoring and notification to also include pollution 

source tracking and prevention efforts. 

Most importantly, the legislation goes further on environmental 

standards than ever before by requiring tougher standards for 

beach water quality testing and communication. The bill requires 

that beach water quality violations are disclosed not only to the 

public but to all relevant State agencies with beach water pollution 

authority. 

Now I wanted to just stress the rapid testing methods. The new 

bill mandates the use of rapid testing methods by requiring the 

EPA to approve the use of testing methods that detect beach bathing water contamination in two hours or less. The problem is in the 

past it would take up to 48 hours after the test was done to get 

the results. Then the beach would be closed two days later, but in 

the meantime people would be swimming in contaminated waters. 

Then vice versa, when the testing showed that the beaches could 

be opened again, it would take two days before the beaches would 

be open even though they were safe for those two days. From a 

tourism point of view, obviously, that is not good. 

So we have been advocating for several years—I say myself, Mr. 

Bilbray, Mr. Bishop—that we use these new standards that basically test that would allow you to get the results in two hours or 

less. I don’t have to tell you why that is a good thing. 

In addition, we are requiring each State receiving the BEACH 

grants to implement measures for tracking and identifying sources 

of beach water pollution, creating a public online database for each 

beach with relevant pollution and closure information posted and, 

third, ensuring that closures or advisories are issued shortly after 

the State finds coastal waters out of compliance with water quality 

standards or within 24 hours of failed water quality tests. 

We are also holding States accountable by requiring the EPA Administrator to do annual reviews of grantees’ compliance with the 

BEACH Act’s process requirements. Grantees have one year to 

comply with the new environmental standards or they will be reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:53 Feb 14, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36690 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
6

quired to pay at least a 50 percent match for their grant until they 

come back into compliance. 

I just want to say in closing, this is a very important bill. I think 

it will make even further strides towards our goal of clean beaches, 

clean water, swimmable waters which, of course, has always been 

the goal of the Clean Water Act. 

Once again, I want to thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking 

Member and, of course, Mr. Bishop for holding this hearing and for 

putting this legislation together. 

I also don’t want to fail to mention that one of your witnesses 

is Lisa Jackson who is our New Jersey Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. She has been a leader on 

cleaning up the beaches, cleaning up coastal water quality and basically protecting our coastal areas. So I also appreciate the fact 

that you have her as one of your witnesses today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. [Presiding] Mr. Pallone, thank you very much for 

your testimony. 

Mr. Bilbray. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BRIAN P. BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let us talk about what is really important in this world. 

So, first of all, I would like to ask you to thank the Madam Chair 

for holding the hearing today rather than tomorrow. Because you 

are holding the hearing at this time, I will be able to be in the 

water, surfing in California at noon Pacific Standard Time tomorrow. Some people may think it is recreation. It is a cultural and 

religious mandate for those of us along the California coastline. 

Seriously though, I feel like I practically ought to pull up a chair 

here because we were here earlier this week, talking, Bob Filner 

and I, about the problems of international pollution and those relationships. 

In my neighborhoods where I grew up, for over 50 years, we have 

had posting of beaches. We have had the testing. Frankly, as a 

former mayor and county supervisor—and in California, the county 

supervisors are the ones who supervise the water quality testing 

along all the beaches in California—I just sort of took it for granted 

that everybody did that though I am reminded by my wife who is 

also, Mr. Baker, a native of New Orleans, that there are places 

where they don’t dare test the water. The fact is it was just a shock 

for me when I came here to realize that the rest of the world didn’t 

live up to that standard. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, now I think the history 

of the BEACH bill, I was privileged to be able to work with Mr. 

Pallone, Surfrider and other environmental groups at trying to do 

this cooperative effort of Federal and State agencies and local agencies, but the real success is dependent on the local communities 

being involved and integrated into this, and I think if you look at 

where things have not worked out with the BEACH bill, it has not 

been on those who were the county supervisors and those who were 

7

mayors. It has been that Washington never does quite live up to 

its expectations, and we have got to remember that if we are going 

to be successful in the future, it is through the cooperative effort 

of local communities who have the true vested interest at what 

happens on their beaches actually being empowered to the right 

thing and Washington being in a support mode, not necessarily in 

the direction mode on this. I really want to point that out very, 

very strongly. 

But let me say on the flip side is the real-time testing is essential. As the gentleman from New Jersey pointed out, it is actually 

worse than what some people think. In California, we do not hedge 

the bet. If there is an incident, if there is rain in California, we 

post our beaches immediately until the test comes out that it is 

clean. So what happens is the young people, those of us who are 

surfers, after a rain, we don’t know if it is closed or not. The red 

signs are up, but we assume that it is probably still clean, that 

they are just being safe. So a lot of people go into the water with 

the red signs up because we do not have real-time testing. It takes 

about two to three days. That two to three days, if the signs are 

still up two or three days, then almost you start thinking, well, 

maybe it is polluted. 

We need to give credibility to those signs by having real-time 

testing. I think that is an essential part of this. That is why I have 

asked that even in my district that we take a portion of these and 

actually do these tests and develop these tests to be able to have 

real-time detection. I think that is an essential part of this issue, 

so that when a red sign goes up, when the pollution sign goes up, 

those of us who are water users know that that really means that 

the test came up positive, not that the test might come up positive 

in three days. I think from the public health point of view, we cannot overstate how real-time testing is absolutely essential for the 

future. 

I think that with all the talk of bipartisan support and cooperative efforts, this bill is a good example that it was borne and bred 

of bipartisan cooperation. It grew in the environment of local, State 

and Federal cooperation. Keep that spirit, keep it moving, and I 

think we will be able to make sure that our children are protected 

and our beaches are clean. 

It is a nice thing for me as a legislator to see my son and daughter on the internet, checking out the surf on the internet rather 

than driving to beaches to look at it but also on the internet, being 

able to know what the water quality testing has been over a period 

of time, that the young people are making the internet and this information source part of their daily routine and enjoying our water 

resources. I think that is a great legacy that we can leave for the 

future. 

If we continue to work together, not just here in Washington but 

especially with those mayors and those county supervisors and 

those State officials who are actually going to be our agents in our 

neighborhoods, protecting our environment. 

I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Bilbray, thank you very much for your testimony. 

8

Mr. Pallone, thank you for your testimony. Our custom is to not 

ask members to stay for questioning so that you can get on with 

your day. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, could I deviate from that custom for 

one moment? 

Mr. BISHOP. Certainly. 

Mr. BAIRD. I would just ask Mr. Bilbray, you mentioned that 

surfing is religion. Do we have a religious symbol here in our presence. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, we do. 

Mr. BAIRD. I observe that we often get bored in hearings. This 

is the first time we have gotten a board in a hearing. We appreciate your testimony. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BILBRAY. When you hear about in San Diego, we are having 

board meetings, it is usually out in the waves. We don’t sit in 

them. We are not going to ask you to bow before our religious symbol this time, but thank you very much and I appreciate the chance 

to participate. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you both very much. 

We will now move to the second panel. 

Our second panel this afternoon will consist of the Honorable 

Benjamin Grumbles, the Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water and a frequent visitor 

to our Committee. We will next have the Honorable Lisa Jackson, 

Commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection, and finally we will have the Honorable Patrick Skip 

Heaney, supervisor of my home town of Southampton, New York. 

For each of you, we will place your full statements in the record, 

and we ask that you try to limit your verbal testimony to about five 

minutes. 

Mr. Grumbles, we will begin with you. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF WATER, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.; THE HONORABLE LISA JACKSON, COMMISSIONER, NEW 

JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY; THE HONORABLE PATRICK SKIP 

HEANEY, TOWN SUPERVISOR, SOUTHAMPTON TOWN BOARD, 

SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As always, 

it is an honor to appear before the Subcommittee. 

EPA has a lot to be proud of, as do the States and coastal communities, in the progress that has been made since the Beach Act 

of 2000, and your Committee has a lot to be proud of too. I was 

here, and I remember the pride that the members took in enacting 

that landmark legislation. 

My testimony today on behalf of EPA is to emphasize not just 

where we have been and what we are currently doing but also 

some of the cutting edge science in the areas where we can continue to make progress and to accelerate the progress in implementing the Beach Act. 

9

Mr. Chairman, there are three basic areas in the primary focus 

of our efforts in our clean beaches plan and implementing with our 

State partners, the Beach Act. 

The first is sound science, and there will be a lot of conversation 

in this hearing about the importance of getting that sound science 

foundation as we explore rapid methods and identify the best indicators for pathogens so that we can continue to make progress. The 

Agency is committed to continuing to invest in the sound science 

to carry out the studies, the epidemiological studies, the other 

types of scientific analyses to get the methods, the rapid methods 

adopted and validated so that we have rapid and reliable reporting. 

That leads me to the second principle, the key cornerstone of the 

Act and of the EPA’s efforts, and that is awareness, public notification. The Act authorized grants from EPA to the States for beach 

water quality monitoring and also public notification. 

Then the third important component is pollution prevention, and 

that is where as we all turn our attention to beach water quality 

both in terms of the sound science, the water quality criteria and 

standards and also the public awareness and notification, that is 

where we can also look to the permitting programs, the TMDL 

planning procedures, look upstream and take important steps to reduce the amount of overflows, the stormwater problems and plan 

accordingly. 

What I would like to do in the remaining amount of time, Mr. 

Chairman, is to focus on some key areas. Let us not lose sight of 

these important accomplishments. Over the last six years, we have 

seen the number of beaches go from 1,000 to over 3,500 that are 

monitored and assessed under the Beach Act. That increased monitoring and awareness leads to action. 

Another major accomplishment based on EPA’s actions pursuant 

to the Beach Act in late 2004 was that we promulgated for 21 

States what we viewed as more protective water quality criteria 

and standards to help the progress in moving away from the older 

criteria of fecal coliform to the more important and I think protective of public health criteria involving E. coli and enterococcus. 

Another major accomplishment has been to increase public 

awareness in this day of information, the information age, and the 

web site. EPA has launched an eBeaches web site with other partners, with States. We are all part of this important effort so that 

the public, whether it is through computers or through other 

means, gets a much better sense of the quality of the beach water. 

Another major item I want to focus on, Mr. Chairman, is getting 

to the next step, and that is completing our critical science research plan. In the next month, month and a half, we will complete 

this important plan. It is based in many respects on the unprecedented workshop we had in March where we had 42 of the Nation’s 

experts including international experts convene at EPA’s request 

and identify the key scientific issues to move us further to get to 

the point where we can with confidence use these rapid and reliable methods and the best possible indicators of pathogens. 

The other major point I want to make is that as we go through 

this science plan and complete it, we are fully committed to and we 

will continue to put a priority on this effort with our research office 

to complete those studies. That will also allow us to issue the criVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:53 Feb 14, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36690 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
10

teria that was envisioned by Congress in the Beach Act, the criteria and standards so that we can continue to make progress. 

Then the last point, Mr. Chairman, is that as we focus on the 

sound science, the public awareness and the pollution prevention, 

this is a critically important program to remind all of us, State 

partners and local officials, of the importance of controlling 

stormwater, looking upstream to reduce wet weather flows, nonpoint source pollution and other forms that ultimately are contributing to the water quality impairments. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Grumbles, thank you very much for your testimony. 

We will now move to Commissioner Jackson. 

Commissioner Jackson, welcome to the Committee. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Minority Member Baker. 

I just want to speak a few minutes. You heard from my Congressman, Frank Pallone, and Congressman LoBiondo about the 

importance of New Jersey’s beaches, so I will quickly re-emphasize 

the fact that our beaches in New Jersey are a statewide, but also 

we believe a national, treasure. 

Besides the economic impact and tourism industry, I think one 

of the things that I like to talk about is the culture of beaches in 

New Jersey. Clearly, there is an example of beach culture here, but 

for most people in New Jersey we believe part of our heritage is 

our beaches. 

It is true that 30 years ago our cooperative coastal monitoring 

program became a model for what is now the original BEACH Act, 

and we are very proud of that. So I would just like to spend a few 

minutes letting you know how we implement our monitoring program in the State because I think there are lessons there for how 

this Act, if implemented, could move forward the Country’s work 

with respect to beaches. 

We have 188 ocean and 76 bay monitoring stations, and our 

CCMP enables local health agencies to respond to immediate public 

health concerns during our beach seasons. Luckily, the majority of 

our beach visitors have never seen a beach closed sign. However, 

local beach managers take them very seriously not only from the 

standpoint of notifying the public which is, of course, their primarily purpose but also because they trigger a series of actions to 

track down and determine the source of any closure. 

The majority of our closures are actually associated with one 

stormwater issue that we are working hard to remedy. It will take 

a bit more time and certainly some more money, but the State is 

aware of what happens around the rec pond area. 

That aside, when we do have closures, we perform sanitary surveys in those beach areas to determine and investigate the source 

of any water pollution, and the protocols that have been established and followed now for 30 years and improved upon over that 

time allow us to work closely with local and county governments 

to make sure that that is happening. 

In addition, we have for many, many decades now used monitoring first by vessels and then later with planes and helicopters 

11

to actually fly our coast. We do that cooperatively with EPA. I 

think they fly one day and we fly the other six days or five days 

a week. That allows for some amount of sampling as well as visual 

observation of algal blooms or other near shore problems that may 

cause concern and gives us an early warning system for our beaches. 

Partial funding for that program has come from BEACH Act 

grants. 

We certainly support the legislation sponsored by Congressman 

Pallone. Our Senator Lautenberg is also supportive of it in New 

Jersey for a few reasons. 

You heard about the need for enhanced funding. As much as 

work as we do in New Jersey and while we appreciate our BEACH 

Act grants, we could and would do more if we had additional funding. Our beaches are important enough to us that we have already 

made State funding available through the sale of shore license 

plates which brings in over $200,000 to augment our BEACH Act 

work. 

We would also improve tracking of pollution sources. I think that 

that is probably one of the most important parts of the reauthorized BEACH Act being proposed. We have been limited because of 

funding in our ability to do a number of trackdowns. 

We have done some successfully, applying microbial source tracking techniques such as viral coliphage, antibiotic resistance testing 

and the use of optical brighteners at several locations around the 

State with very, very impressive results and with results that 

mean fewer beach closings and fewer incidents around our beaches. 

We are pleased that the reauthorized BEACH Act would provide 

funding that would allow us to expand that program greatly. 

The rapid test methods, you have already heard about. We are 

proud to work this summer with the U.S. EPA in our region to 

evaluate a method rapid for measuring bacteria in marine waters, 

and we are planning to use our 2008 BEACH Act funds to purchase equipment to allow us to do additional testing of that rapid 

test method. 

Timely public notification, although New Jersey prides itself on 

getting results up within an hour of receipt, obviously the time it 

takes to receive them is the critical path right now for us. 

So once again I would like to close up by thanking you for the 

opportunity to appear and testify, and I am happy to answer any 

questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

We are going to move to Supervisor Heaney. It is not often that 

one gets to introduce one’s hometown supervisor to testify before a 

Congressional committee, so if I just may say a word about Supervisor Heaney. 

He has had over two decades of experience as an elected official 

in the Town of Southampton, and he has throughout those two decades a strong record as an advocate for protection and preservation 

of our natural resources. He has been a member of the Southampton Town Board of Trustees, a town councilman, and deputy 

supervisor and now for the last six years, the supervisor of the 

Town of Southampton. 

12

On this occasion, I would like to thank you, Mr. Supervisor, for 

your service to my hometown, and I anxiously await your testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. HEANEY. I am happy to be here to represent a typical coastal 

community that can benefit from the ongoing work of this Committee. The Town of Southampton is a coastal community of 59,000 

residents, located approximately 70 miles east of New York City, 

and it is wedged between the Peconic Bay which is part of the National Estuary Program and the New York State designated South 

Shore Estuary Reserve. 

These areas provides over 300 miles of shoreline, 19,000 acres of 

inland tidal areas and nearly 20 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline 

beaches. Here, one finds magnificent scenery, fishing, farmland, 

boating, dining, hawks and hiking, trails, lush wetlands, bays and 

creeks. Summer draws hundreds of thousands of visitors from all 

over the world and contributes millions of dollars to the local economy. 

Today, thousands of jobs and millions in revenue are derived 

from maritime industries along our beaches and adjacent waterways. These waterways also support several thousand sport fishermen and commercial fishing fleets at Shinnecock Inlet, the second 

largest in the State of New York with over 50 commercial trawlers 

and long liners operating year round. Collectively, they produce a 

dockside value exceeding $16 million per year and roughly $80 million when one factors in economic multipliers. 

Southampton’s beaches are our main recreational destination. 

Each summer, our population nearly triples, and attendance at 

public beaches exceeds 370,000 people generating almost a million 

dollars just from seasonal vehicle passes alone. 

Beach-goers also put hundreds of millions of dollars into the regional economy through boating, swimming, diving, shopping, sailing, birding and second home construction. They are also a mainstay of the local restaurants, stores and service industries. 

In terms of biodiversity, our beaches and estuaries are irreplaceable. They support nearly 200 uncommon species of animals and 

plants. These species include Federally threatened sea turtles, 

shorebirds, raptors, offshore whales, rare plants as well as nearly 

150 species of fish and shellfish vital to marine ecology and the 

economy of our township. 

Pathogen inputs to the Peconic and South Shore Estuaries 

present a significant concern because of potential health risks and 

the economic losses associated with the closure of shellfish beds 

and public bathing areas. Our bays are critical spawning grounds 

for scallops which have sharply declined in numbers due to excessive nutrients, low oxygen, contamination of shellfish beds and recurring brown tide algal blooms. 

Millions of dollars are being spent by Federal, State, county and 

local governments along with Brookhaven National Laboratory and 

Stony Brook University at Southampton to support pathogen management and brown tide research. However, additional research 

and funding is necessary. 

Tremendous advances have been made to improve water quality 

and to safeguard beaches by controlling pollution and pathogens 

13

from non-point sources such as roadway runoff and boat septic 

wastes, but much more needs to be done. 

Our non-point source pollution education began with the passage 

of Southampton’s own Clean Water Bond Act in 1993, a funding 

program that continues to capture runoff from roadways that lead 

to our bays. The town also receives matching funds from the State 

and the county to enact stormwater abatement projects along literally hundreds of miles of shore-fronting roads. 

Thanks to Federal assistance, Southampton manages a free mobile pumpout program to eliminate boat wastes. We operate seven 

boats, seven days a week between Memorial Day and October 15th 

each year, and last year we removed close to 100,000 gallons of 

septic waste from recreational boats in the Peconic and South 

Shore Bays. 

To further combat the loss of tidal wetlands, Southampton also 

relies on a local community preservation plan that has purchased 

at least 200 acres of beachfront property. These initiatives also include water quality monitoring, scallop seeding, shellfish population surveys, aquaculture pilot programs, residential and commercial fuel tank removal rebate programs and restoration of 

beaches and even eel grass beds. 

Since the collapse of the local bay scallop harvest in 1985, some 

local baymen have resorted to growing finfish and shellfish in cages 

and racks out in open clean waters. 

We urge you to continue to act to protect coastal resources so 

that we can continue with these important conservation initiatives. 

Our maritime resources and beaches are crucial to maintaining 

public health, our economy and our recreational pursuits. 

On behalf of the residents of the Town of Southampton and 

neighboring communities, I thank each of you for the opportunity 

to speak on behalf of the need to protect coastal resources. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Supervisor Heaney. 

We will now move to questions. 

Mr. Grumbles, if I may start with you, as you know, the EPA 

missed its deadline for publishing revised water quality criteria, 

mandated by Congress that that deadline be October of 2005. It is 

my understanding from your testimony that you are now anticipating publishing that criteria by 2012, is that correct? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, hopefully sooner 

than that. 

Mr. BISHOP. One would hope. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. The key is to get the science. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can you just outline for us briefly why it is that the 

EPA is so far off the mark? This isn’t a near miss. I mean from 

2005 to 2012 is quite a gap. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. The first 

thing I would say is that this landmark statute, when it was enacted, I think many people recognized that it is the right approach, 

that deadlines in the statute were ambitious and that the key principle was to use sound science in order to promulgate criteria and 

standards that were legally defensible as well as scientifically defensible. 

So what we have been doing, Mr. Chairman, is we have been 

gathering the data. It has taken quite a long time in the terms of 

14

interviewing 21,000 or more beach-goers, conducting the epidemiological studies and getting the science right on the indicators as 

well as the rapid methods. 

It is an evolving area. The science is evolving, the molecular and 

the biological science. There are a lot of complex questions. So, Mr. 

Chairman, it has taken us time. 

The key to the statute and the success of its implementation has 

been in the collaborative nature of working with the States because 

they are the ones who are truly on the front lines in terms of implementing the Clean Water Act criteria and standards and the 

permitting process. So it has been taking some time to do that. 

The science has been evolving on the rapid methods but, Mr. 

Chairman, EPA is committed to accelerating the pace and to answering key questions that are arising today about the quantitative 

polymerase chain reaction and some of the other methods because 

we know in this litigious world we have got to get the science right. 

Mr. BISHOP. The current authorization for the BEACH Act is $30 

million a year. Current funding is about $10 million. 

My question is: Is the fact that the EPA has had difficulty meeting this 2005 deadline and now will not meet it until 2012, to what 

extent, if any, is it related to the fact that you simply don’t have 

enough people to conduct the analysis and issue the findings and 

if you do not have enough people, to what extent is that related to 

the fact that funding is at best case a third of authorized levels? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, I think the key to effectively carrying out, 

to meeting congressional and statutory deadlines, which we always 

strive to do, is to be able to have a plan under various funding scenarios. The plan that we have been operating under the last several years, one which Congress has also agreed to in terms of appropriating about $10 million each year, is based on priorities and 

on tiering and using risk and other important risk management 

methods. 

I would say that we have the capacity, the current capacity to 

meet the expectations. We are running late on two of the nine 

areas that were identified in the statute, but I think we have the 

partners and also the inside expertise, in-house expertise to meet 

those deadlines. 

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the key question as the 

Committee focuses in on reauthorizing this important statute is to 

keep in mind that the success of it is to stay focused and not to 

open it up into a much broader program of broad-scale remediation, 

I think. 

The Agency hasn’t taken an official view on the legislation yet, 

but I think the key is to zero in on the monitoring and the public 

notification and to keep in mind other programs under the Clean 

Water Act and State programs can help implement in the pollution 

prevention steps. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let us stay on that point for a moment. H.R. 2537 

would make as an allowable use of funds, tracking the sources of 

coastal water pollution. Did I just hear you say that you believe 

that we should be narrowing our focus as opposed to expanding our 

focus, and if I did hear you correctly, what would your reaction be 

to a statute that would allow for a broader use of funds such as 

to track point sources of pollution? 

15

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think that the Agency and the States and the 

local officials and stakeholders ought to understand more about the 

precise intent in terms of what those phrases are in the legislation. 

What you will find from EPA is support for sanitary surveys 

using beach money for sanitary surveys, we take some pride in the 

fact that we are doing some cutting edge work on that in the Great 

Lakes. It is also happening in other places. 

But, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the broader beyond just the 

sanitary surveys but the pollution tracking and pollution prevention in a broader context, I think it would be very helpful for us 

to get more clarity as to what those broad terms are because I 

think we run the risk of losing momentum if we open it up to be 

a much broader statute beyond what it was. 

I do think that the value of the beaches statute and the program 

that EPA is implementing is that once you do put a focus on the 

science and the monitoring and the public notification, then additional funds and resources and partners will come in, in the name 

of pollution prevention and pollution tracking, to take steps to reduce the problem so that there won’t be as many closures or beach 

advisories. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Commissioner Jackson, in your testimony, you have indicated 

supporting expanding use of funds to allow for source tracking. But 

under current appropriations, again about $10 million and there 

are 35 States eligible for funding under the BEACH Act, that 

works out to about $300,000 a State, is tracking feasible under the 

current funding? If funding doesn’t increase, what impediments 

does that put on the kind of work you are trying to accomplish? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe under the current grant, trackdown work is prohibited. 

So the trackdown work that we currently do, New Jersey gets 

about $280,000 in BEACH Act grant funding, certainly not enough 

but because we pass about 80 percent of that on to our counties 

and municipalities who do the work in the field for us. It is important to get that work out to the front lines so that you can manage 

and move forward, I think, on science as well. 

But what happens is and I do think it is a State prerogative or 

States are best able to come in when problems are found and look 

more regionally at a problem. So once we know we have an issue 

in terms of monitoring data, we like to come in with our staff, and 

this is where State funds are used to come behind that monitoring 

data and try to track down sources. 

If you don’t do that work, to me, I think it is an incredibly lost 

opportunity. It is nice to know what is going on, and I can’t imagine why we wouldn’t want to take the next step in finding out from 

a scientific point of view. 

We have done this across regions and sometimes mediated a few 

disputes amongst municipalities about who is causing what problems at whose beach. The way to solve that is by actually pointing 

out the problem and making sure it gets fixed, maybe using some 

enforcement authority or 319 authority, sometimes some EPA 

grant money to get it done. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

16

I just have one more question. Thank you for indulging me, Mr. 

Baker. 

This is for Supervisor Heaney. We know we have been fortunate 

in Southampton that we have not had beach closures in the recent 

past. But can you just briefly give us what you would think the implications would be of, let us say, a weekend-long beach closure or 

even a week-long beach closure at the height of our tourist season? 

Mr. HEANEY. Well, that would be catastrophic for us on the local 

economy. We still have essentially a tourist economy that relies 

heavily on the activity that occurs during the 13 or 14 week period 

between Memorial Day and Labor Day although, admittedly, we 

are seeing more and more year-round weekenders. 

But to have a long-term closure of any of our oceanfront beaches 

along the 19 mile stretch that we have would affect just about 

every one of the economic sectors that I pointed out earlier in my 

comments and have a dramatic impact on local businesses from the 

bait shop to the nearby bed and breakfast and anyone in between. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Baker? 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Grumbles, is there now identified or approved a scientifically 

accepted methodology for real-time pathogen determination? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Real-time meaning not just rapid but virtually 

now, getting the information? I think based on the expert workshop 

that we had, the answer is no. 

Mr. BAKER. What type of time delay would technology now avail 

us from the standpoint of when the monitoring takes place? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. We are very excited about the promising technologies. The molecular methods that involve DNA, as Congressmen and witnesses have testified to, it can mean getting results in 

two to three hours as opposed to 24 or 48 hours. A priority for us 

is to validate that and see that that can work and be accepted 

throughout the Country. 

We still have some substantial questions, though, variability over 

those emerging technologies or the use of the DNA. 

That is, honestly, Mr. Chairman and Congressman, that is a 

focus. A high priority for us is getting those rapid methods verified 

and validated and out into the field throughout the Country, not 

just on a pilot basis. 

Mr. BAKER. Is the current best practices scientifically acceptable 

methodology basically the wet chemistry where you send it to the 

lab or is there anything between the two to three day wait and real 

time that is now deployable? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, I think that there are some in-betweens. I 

would also, Congressman, say that our research office along with 

the Water Office, are teaming up and putting a significant investment into the research precisely to answer the questions you have. 

I would also suggest that we can provide much greater detailed answers to your question for the record. 

The technologies are promising. We all agree. I think there is 

consensus that this is where the Country needs to be moving. The 

technologies aren’t quite there yet and the science. 

Mr. BAKER. If I may, there is a cost-benefit issue underlying this. 

Right now, if the beaches are closed for two days, the local commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:53 Feb 14, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\36690 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
17

nity is uncertain as to water quality. There is two days worth of 

revenue lost or foregone because of the determination awaiting the 

chemistry process. 

On the other hand, if we are have as close to real time, some 

sensing device in the water connected to a transponder which is 

going to digitally transform the findings to some central location 

which may require repeater stations because you can’t have very 

significant high power off a pole-mounted transponder. Then you 

are going to have to have a data collection location which can take 

those varied sensor readings and put that into something usable 

for the internet user at home who is trying to find out can I go to 

the beach today in some form or fashion. 

I don’t know quite yet because the technology is emerging as to 

whether or not the cost to the local community who is going to 

have to bear the brunt of establishing these real-time reporting 

mechanisms is greater than the two day cost of the current beach 

closure using the wet chemistry. 

All I am suggesting—and I am sort of indirectly responding to 

the first panel where there was great interest in real-time reporting—I am for it, but I think we need to move cautiously before we 

mandatorily deploy any new technologies before we understand 

what cost that represents to local communities who are going to be 

the folks actually paying for the reporting methodologies that we 

are going to dictate by law that they must utilize. 

Would it be your view that even if new technologies are developed and a community could deploy real-time reporting, that it 

would still be an option for the community to determine to use the 

old methodology as long as they continued to close the beach when 

there was uncertainty? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, I don’t know. I have a concern as 

well about locking into requiring EPA to include in the Clean 

Water Act 304 a criteria mandating the use of rapid methods at 

this point or including as a condition on EPA grants that Congress 

appropriates for us to the States that they use rapid methods. 

We need to answer some more of the scientific questions, and 

there needs to be certainly in the statute but also in the EPA regulations, some degree of flexibility so that as the science continues 

to evolve and the technologies, that the States and that the local 

beach managers can actually use the best approach that makes the 

most sense and actually meets the Clean Water Act’s goals. 

Mr. BAKER. I come at it just slightly differently. I think if the 

protection of the beach-using customer is our goal and the community chooses to use the slower and more costly from a lost revenue 

perspective but that is their choice, bathers are prohibited from entering the water. They are secure. 

If they choose to deploy the more rapid reporting system, which 

is a convenience to the beach user, however much more expensive 

I would suspect, the beach user is still protected because they are 

getting the benefit of real-time factual information. 

But in either event, there is no greater health risk posed to the 

user of the beach. The beneficiary is the choice to the local community as to which method they would choose to utilize on economic 

basis. Now that doesn’t step to the front of safety, but it enables 

you to preserve safety, using either out you want. You can buy a 

18

new computer or you can be an old guy and get a slide rule. It 

doesn’t matter to me as long as you get the answer right. 

What I am saying here is that we get the answer right by protecting the user of the waters until we know for certain what the 

condition of the water is when they enter it. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Baker. 

We are joined by the distinguished Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. Oberstar? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Baker, thank you for your participation. Always good to see 

you here. Thank you. 

Mr. Grumbles, good to see you back here again. It is a familiar 

place for you on both sides of the table actually. You have served 

this Committee in both capacities and my former colleague, Arlen 

Stanglin. As I recall, you were his administrative assistant for a 

time. 

Over in the corner is the portrait of former Chairman of this 

Committee, John Blatnik, the father of clean water legislation, my 

predecessor in Congress for whom I was administrative assistant 

for 11 and a half years and administrator of the Committee staff 

during the time that he was Chairman of this Committee. 

When he took the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Rivers 

and Harbors, which in fact is the oldest committee of the Congress 

established in 1789—this is just a little free history for everybody. 

The first act of the first Congress was that of the Rivers and 

Harbors Committee to authorize the construction and maintenance 

of a lighthouse at Hampton Roads, and the second act of the first 

Congress was to authorize the construction and maintenance of a 

lighthouse at Cape Henry, all for the purpose of navigation, linking 

inextricably our Committee and its work with the water transportation and in subsequent years with the quality of that water. 

When John Blatnik assumed the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, he took a journey down the Mississippi River for the purpose of understanding the navigational 

needs. As he traveled along, he saw the river, which starts just outside of my and his district and courses through that district, which 

was clean, beautiful water increasingly polluted by the time he got 

to New Orleans, he said there were raw phenols—and he was a 

microbiologist by training—raw phenols being dumped into the 

water, bubbling and boiling and killing everything in its wake. He 

was appalled. 

He then took a look at the Tidal Basin, the Tidal Basin ringed 

by the cherry trees, and he noted its polluted condition and called 

it the best dressed cesspool in America. We have to fix this, and 

he created the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with the support of garden clubs and conservation societies and all the fishing 

and waterfowl hunting groups who wanted to preserve our precious 

resources of fresh water. 

That was 1956, about the same time my late wife was in college 

nearby here at Trinity College. One of her classmates went boating 

on the Potomac, canoeing, and fell overboard. The poor child, by 

the time Jo and I were married many years later, still had a skin 

19

rash from falling into the Potomac, the same river George Washington crossed at one time. 

There are over 180 million people who are close to the water. In 

fact, three-fourths of the population of this Country lives along the 

water, either the saltwater coasts or the freshwater or the inland 

waterways, the rivers and lakes of this Country. Water-based activities are a $50 billion a year sector of our economy. 

In 1972 in the Clean Water Act, we established a goal of fishable, 

swimmable waters by 1985 which, of course, we have not reached. 

Maybe about 60 percent of the Nation’s waters are fishable and 

swimmable, but the goal remains. 

It is astonishing to me that 50 years after the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 and 30 plus years after the Clean Water 

Act that EPA says we really don’t know how to establish the scientific basis standards for clean water. It is not a defensible position. 

I heard you say you want more clarity. 

We have these national research laboratories of EPA. The environmental research laboratory in Duluth for freshwater, and we 

have the saltwater research laboratory in Rhode Island. We have 

an additional one at Corvallis, Oregon. We have five regional laboratories, two national laboratories. Haven’t they been useful in establishing standards? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Mr. Chairman, as a student of the Clean Water 

Act and of your efforts in the Clean Water Act, I would say EPA 

does know how to establish standards and to identify indicators 

and methods for rapid reporting and reliable reporting. We have 

seen progress, and we have been a very integral part of the 

progress under the Beach Act. 

The great challenge is to do even better which we need to do, and 

that is to move from the 24 or 48 hour methodology that results 

in tests over an extended period of time and to get to the point 

where a two hour or three hour test, something much closer to real 

time, is available and is scientifically and legally defensible. 

I think we will get there, Mr. Chairman. We are doing what we 

can, and we will get the support of the academic community and 

other partners as well, but we are at a critical stage. 

The question isn’t whether or not we can set standards or have 

the technical know-how to establish criteria and standards. It is 

how do we get to that dramatic improvement for pathogens in 

coastal fresh and marine waters and move to the DNA-based, molecular-based methods? 

I just want to clarify that that was the basic message, the point 

I was getting at, that the most important component of the Clean 

Water Act is the standards and then coupling that with the enforcement through the permitting program. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a very thoughtful response, but also remember that standards are not intended nor were they intended in 

the 1956 Act or the 1960 amendments or the 1961 amendments or 

the Clean Water Act of 1972 to be a static item. We know science 

advances. We know there is greater capability to detect at ever 

lower, smaller levels, harmful amounts of pathogens in the water. 

We also are faced with the warming of waters for a longer period 

of time. The warmer the water, the greater the amount of pathogen 

20

development and harmful development in that water, whether it is 

the coastal saltwater resources of the Country or the inland waterways. 

Lake Superior, for example, with which you are very familiar 

having served Mr. Stanglin, is six degrees warmer than its all-time 

temperature. That is very serious. The lower lakes of the Great 

Lakes also have warmer temperatures which have fostered in Lake 

Erie the development of the viral hemorrhagic septicemia, and the 

sport fishery of Lake Erie is now migrating upstream. 

You know these things, and so you take a snapshot today and 

say, all right, let us publish this standard. Then as science progresses and you have basis for improving the standards, then you 

move. But don’t fail to or shrink from establishing a standard because you don’t have the very last best, perfect scientific evidence. 

I remember John Blatnik, out of frustration in a hearing with a 

group of scientists, sitting there saying, you know, I am a scientist 

too. That was my whole training. Take this test tube and say, yes, 

it is polluted, and then go back and study it some more. At some 

point, we have to take action, and that is what legislation is about. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Mr. Chairman, if I have permission, I would love 

to submit for the record the report that the Agency has compiled 

based on the expert workshop that was held at the end of March. 

It is on our web site. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. How many pages is it? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. It is about 150, I think, 150 pages. It raises questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is there an executive summary of it? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. There is an executive summary. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent, the executive summary 

be included in the Committee record. 

Mr. BISHOP. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And the full document received for Committee 

files. I would like to review both. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. It raises questions not for the sake of paralysis 

by analysis, but the experts throughout the Country and there 

were also some international experts to make sure that we make 

the most sophisticated and responsible decisions, taking into account tropical and subtropical waters, varying conditions and just 

that we move forward smartly but that we move forward. 

I think it is a good resource for the Agency, and I appreciate that 

you include it as part of the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would be happy to receive that, and I look forward to reading it myself and will do so in depth. 

I would just conclude by observing that Congressman Bilbray felt 

so strongly about this beach issue. He worried us to death when 

he first introduced this bill, and then he felt so strongly about it 

he ran for Congress and got re-elected to come here and make sure 

it is carried out. 

With that, thank you very much. I want to thank our two witnesses, Ms. Jackson and Mr. Heaney, for being here with us today 

and thank you for your contribution. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. Brown? 

21

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witnesses for coming and being with us today, and my question is 

to Mr. Grumbles. 

Mr. Grumbles, I represent South Carolina which is Myrtle Beach 

and Charleston. It is probably about 175 miles of the coast, and so 

this is a special item of interest to us too. 

My first question would be: Has EPA had the same formula in 

place for distributing BEACH Act dollars since the program’s inception or have you changed your formula? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, thank you for the question because it is a subject that we are spending considerable time reviewing and revising. In 2002, we issued guidance, performance criteria 

guidance, and we also established a formula. So that is the formula 

that we have been using. 

Prior to GAO issuing a report, which I believe will come up in 

this hearing, we convened a State EPA workgroup to ask amongst 

our State partners should the formula be revised. We look at beach 

miles. We look at beach season. We look at beach use. Should we 

be revising that? 

So we are in the midst of digesting the GAO recommendations 

and also getting further input from our State partners on whether 

and/or how to revise that formula. 

Mr. BROWN. If I might just maybe add some input, I am curious. 

Have you taken into account the number of tourists that would be 

visiting those beaches? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. As I understand it, we do look at one very important component is the use by the public of the beaches, and that 

is also an important part in terms of the States, how they tier their 

beaches for monitoring and protection activities. It is based on the 

risk and also use by the public. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Ms. Jackson, if I might ask, one area where my State is facing 

pressure is the need to expand monitoring in response to additional 

development and beach use along the coast. Has New Jersey experienced similar challenges and, if so, what have you done to meet 

those needs? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. Yes, New Jersey is the most densely 

populated State, and near a couple of population centers we have 

seen increasing use except in those years when we have a beach 

scare, and those can be extraordinarily expensive and take a long 

time for us to recover from. 

We have spent a lot of State money and local money. We take 

our BEACH Act funding seriously, and we need more of it in order 

to work on a couple of things. The development of rapid test methods is something we support. Frankly, our citizenship asks for it 

and is to the point of demanding it. They want us to be cuttingedge at the State level and not to wait for a rapid test method. 

The other thing that we spent a lot of time and we have gotten 

some funding from EPA that we are grateful for is on timely public 

notification. We pride ourselves in getting the results of the monitoring we have up within one hour. 

I spoke earlier about the amount of time and resources we spend 

on source trackdown. Once we find a problem, the State thinks it 

is one of our unique roles to work regionally to find the sources of 

22

pollution because if it is usually a recurring problem. Sometimes it 

is a one time hit, but often times it is a recurring problem, and we 

have to work across jurisdictions to bring a solution to the problem, 

so we can be done with it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. I thank you very much for your response. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank our second panel for your testimony and for your 

response to our questions, and we will now move to our third 

panel. Thank you very much, all of you. 

Our third and final panel for the afternoon will consist of: Ms. 

Nancy Stoner, the Director of the Clean Water Project of the Natural Resources Defense Council; Ms. Mara Dias, Water Quality Coordinator for the Surfrider Foundation; Dr. Mark Gold, Executive 

Director of Heal the Bay; and Ms. Anu Mittal, Director of the Natural Resources and Environment Division of the Government Accountability Office. 

We will accept your full written statements for the record, but 

we ask that you try to limit your verbal testimony before this panel 

to about five minutes. 

Ms. Stoner, we will begin with you. 

TESTIMONY OF NANCY STONER, DIRECTOR, CLEAN WATER 

PROJECT, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; MARA 

DIAS, WATER QUALITY COORDINATOR, SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA; MARK GOLD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEAL THE BAY, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; ANU K. MITTAL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. STONER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify this afternoon, and I appreciate the Subcommittee’s interest in beach water pollution and in particular in 

reauthorizing the BEACH Act. 

Americans love to go to the beach, and we are blessed with thousands of miles of beautiful beaches, many of which we have been 

hearing about this afternoon, but our beaches are threatened by 

coastal development, by the pollution generated by people, the pollution generated as people move into coastal areas, which Americans are increasingly doing. 

Development is occurring in the United States at twice the rate 

of population growth and occurring even faster in coastal areas. 

What this generates is sewage pollution, contaminated stormwater 

pollution and the loss of wetlands and soil and vegetation that 

serve as pollution sinks that capture and filter pollution in a natural environment. The result is that we have human and animal 

waste in the waters. 

NRDC does a report ever year, called the Testing the Waters, on 

beach water pollution. That report isn’t yet available for this year, 

but last year we found that there were more than 20,000 beach 

closings and advisories in the U.S. That is not only a threat to the 

environment and to public health but to coastal economies as well. 

23

So I am delighted to see the interest of the Subcommittee here and 

of the Chairman, Mr. Oberstar, in this issue. 

In 2000, Congress passed the BEACH Act. There are two aspects 

of it that I wanted to mention: funding State and local monitoring 

and public notification programs and requiring EPA to update the 

public health-based standards for ensuring that beach waters are 

safe. 

There has been significant progress in the first component of 

this. Now every coastal State has a beach water monitoring and 

public notification program. There were only a handful of such programs before the BEACH Act was passed in 2000. But the more 

monitoring that is done, the more unhealthy beaches we find. 

In addition, as we have been discussing, EPA has failed to comply with the mandate to update the public health-based standards. 

Those standards are more than 20 years old. They are based on 

even older science. They fail to protect beach-goers from the full 

range of waterborne illnesses, and they do not provide adequate 

protection for children, the elderly and others who are most susceptible to getting sick from swimming in contaminated beach water. 

There are three particular things that I would like to address 

this afternoon, all of which have been mentioned in the hearing already today and all of which are in H.R. 2537, the Beach Protection 

Act, which our Agency strongly endorses and appreciates your leadership in. 

The first is faster testing. I have heard a lot of indications of support for faster testing, and I believe that is necessary and appropriate. I support those provisions in the law. It just is unacceptable 

to have people get information about what the beach water quality 

was a day or two days earlier. They need to know when they swim 

as close as possible, as close as we can provide that information on 

whether the water is safe. 

The rapid tests that are currently being piloted in several States 

provide that information in two hours or less. The beaches can be 

monitored early in the morning and posted by, say, 10:00 in the 

morning when most people arrive at the beach, so people can know 

whether the beach is safe when they swim, not whether it used to 

be safe or whether it may be safe in the future. 

The second thing is increasing funding for prevention as well as 

monitoring and public notification. This is also in H.R. 2537. I 

think it is really important. 

People want to have a safe beach. They want not only to know 

whether the beach water is safe, but they want to know that it will 

be safe and that they can go to the beach and enjoy the beach with 

their families without being afraid of getting sick. In order to do 

this, we need to identify and address the sources of beach water 

pollution. 

I fully understand and I think the Committee fully understands 

that there are other sources of funding for sewage and stormwater 

pollution. As a matter of fact, I had the privilege of testifying before the Committee earlier this year on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which is one of the major sources. That is not what 

we are trying to address here. 

What we are trying to address here is sanitary surveys, source 

tracking and the immediate sources of beach water pollution. Is 

24

there trash on the beach that is attracting wildlife? Are there other 

things that could be addressed and immediately correct the sources 

of beach water pollution to complement the SRF? 

The third and last point I wanted to make is improved communication between environmental agencies and public health authorities. A piece of this is in H.R. 2537. Another piece is in another piece of legislation that you have sponsored, Mr. Congressman, H.R. 2452, the Raw Sewage Overflow Community Right to 

Know Act. 

These two pieces of legislation work together to ensure that the 

beach water managers who know when the beach is contaminated 

are in communication with the environmental agencies who have 

the responsibility of regulating the sources of beach water pollution. They both need to know when there is a problem, so that it 

can be addressed. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify this afternoon, and I look 

forward to working with you as this legislation moves forward. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Our next witness will be Ms. Mara Dias who I am proud to say 

is a graduate of Southampton College, an institution that I served 

for a long, long time. 

Ms. Dias, welcome to the Committee. 

Ms. DIAS. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak and Congressman Baker and the rest of the 

Committee members. 

I as well have brought along a little prop for a history lesson. 

This is a surfboard that was signed by over 100 members of the 

House of Representatives, and on the back there are some Senate 

signatures which just sort of demonstrates the unanimous support 

that the BEACH Act had in 2000 and the real need for legislation 

such as this to keep our beaches clean. 

Surfrider Foundation is a grassroots environmental non-profit 

dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world’s oceans, 

waves and beaches for all people. Surfrider operates through a system of over 60 chapters located in almost every coastal State. 

Many of our members are in the water daily, so poor water quality is a real concern for us. Surfers have unfortunately begun to 

take on the role of the canary in the coal mine as the pollution of 

our beaches becomes more prevalent around this Country. Along all 

of our coasts, surfers and swimmers are noticing flu-like symptoms 

after being in the water, and they often turn to us when they believe they have become ill from surfing in polluted water. 

The BEACH Act of 2000 is responsible for great improvements 

in beach monitoring, but unfortunately inadequate funding has 

prevented full State implementation and has left the public health 

at risk in many instances. Many State programs are understaffed 

and are unable to meet all of their current testing requirements. 

Blue Water Task Force is Surfrider’s water quality monitoring 

program. Many of the chapters’ Blue Water Task Force sampling 

programs have been designed to fill in the gaps left by the State 

programs. For instance, beach monitoring is limited to the summertime only in most cold water States. Surfers, however, are in the 

water year round and even swimming is popular well into the 

warmer fall months. 

25

Surfrider members in both Delaware and New Hampshire are 

working with their State agencies to extend the beach monitoring 

season beyond summer without adding further financial or staff 

burden to the States. In Delaware, they have been collecting samples year round since local surfers got ill after surfing in the fall. 

Inadequate funding has also resulted in geographical gaps in 

State programs. In California, some of our volunteers are collecting 

samples from more of the remote beaches and bringing them to the 

county health department for analysis to increase their coverage. 

Because States are forced to prioritize which beaches they will 

sample, they often choose beaches where they know there are 

water quality problems, but this leaves the public health at risk at 

the beaches that are being passed over. 

Both in Oregon and New Jersey, Surfrider data have been 

shared with the States to demonstrate new water quality concerns, 

and as a result beaches have been added to the State programs 

that were not previously being sampled. 

If Federal funding were appropriated at the levels recommended 

by the Beach Protection Act of 2000, I believe many of the gaps and 

problems with current State implementation could be corrected. 

Surfrider is also supportive of using BEACH Act funds to investigate the sources of pollution. When people see the no swimming 

signs, their first question is almost invariably: Why? We need to be 

providing the answer to this question, so that coastal communities 

can take action to correct their water quality problems and the 

signs can be taken down for good. 

Surfrider also agrees that EPA needs to begin approving new 

rapid methods. The long lag time can leave swimmers exposed to 

polluted water, but the opposite is also happening. Many States 

take a very cautious approach and close beaches preemptively after 

heavy rain, not knowing whether the water is polluted or not. Then 

they have to wait to see if it is safe for swimming, leaving the 

beaches closed when it could have been fine. 

This happened just this past holiday weekend in Long Island. 

Heavy rain and thunderstorms on July 4th caused preemptive closures at nearly 70 beaches, and that is just in Suffolk County 

alone. 

There are rapid methods available now that the EPA should be 

considering for approval. A sound streamlined process to approve 

these new methods needs to be developed without delay. Relying on 

old methods is putting the public health at risk and hurting the 

economy. 

The GAO has pointed out before that there are many inconsistencies in implementation of the BEACH Act, and this is certainly 

the case. The EPA should be taking a strong leadership role 

through the proposed annual reviews to set the bar for State implementation. 

In particular, we ask that EPA take a close look at how our 

beaches are being posted. This has been an area of concern for 

many of our members. At Pismo Beach in California, they were 

using cardboard signs that were either getting wet or blowing 

away. This has been corrected since then. 

Additionally, in Corpus Christi, Texas, the city has refused to 

post swimming advisories at beaches even when directed to do so 

26

by the State program. This refusal seems to stem from fears that 

no swimming signs will drive tourists away and hurt the local 

economy, but Surfrider has been trying to educate the city on how 

issuing swimming advisories can actually be protective of the tourism industry and will protect the city from certain economic disaster that would occur if tourists became ill and the proper warnings were not in place. 

In closing, the Surfrider Foundation would like to thank this 

Committee for listening to the perspective of our members who are 

at the beach and in the water daily. We also urge Congress to consider the real costs of running comprehensive State beach monitoring programs that are in the best interest of public safety, the 

environmental health of our beaches and also the vitality of our 

coastal economies. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Gold? 

Mr. GOLD. Thank you. 

My name is Dr. Mark Gold. I am President of the Santa Monica 

environmental group, Heal the Bay. Thank you for the opportunity 

and honor to testify on the BEACH Act amendment legislation. 

I have spent over 20 years working on beach water quality 

issues. As background, I was a co-author of the 1995 Santa Monica 

Bay epidemiology study on swimmers in runoff contaminated waters. I participated in EPA’s experts scientific workshop on critical 

needs for the development of new or revised recreational water 

quality criteria which you have heard already from Mr. Grumbles. 

I helped authored California’s beach water quality standards, 

monitoring and notification law, probably the premier law in the 

Country, and helped create California’s Clean Beach Initiative 

which has allocated over $100 million to clean up the State’s most 

polluted beaches in about the same timeframe as the Federal Government has only allocated about $62 million. 

I helped create Heal the Bay’s Beach Report Card which provides 

weekly grades for nearly 500 California beaches on an A to F basis 

based on fecal bacteria densities. What you see on the screen is the 

Beach Report Card and then the next screen, just to let you know 

what it is, that is for Santa Monica Bay area and gives you an idea 

of we are grading more than 500 beaches on a weekly basis and 

getting that information out to the public on every single Friday 

afternoon. 

Heal the Bay strongly supports Representative Pallone’s H.R. 

2537 because it provides a substantial and necessary funding increase to the program. To date, only $62 million over seven years 

has been made available for this program and the results have 

been predictable. 

Far too many heavily visited beaches are not monitored or monitored infrequently and inadequately. Also, in many States, the 

public is ill informed about water quality at their favorite beach. 

A day at the beach should not make you sick, but inadequate monitoring and poor public notification could lead to millions of swimmers unknowingly exposed to unacceptable health risks. 

In addition, Heal the Bay has the following recommendations for 

an amendment to the bill. EPA’s 2002 monitoring and assessment 

27

performance criteria were generic, advisory in nature and they 

were only guidance. So please amend the bill as follows: 

EPA shall develop a baseline beach monitoring and public notification program that shall be used to determine eligibility of States 

for BEACH Act grant funding. The program shall include criteria 

for which beaches must be monitored based on visitorship, proximity to potential pollution sources, minimum monitoring frequency, sample collection requirements, analytical methods, beach 

closures requirements for sewage spills and public notification requirements. If a State does not utilize a program that meets or exceeds this baseline program, then they should not be eligible for 

BEACH Act funds. 

This amendment is critical to ensure that monitoring results between States and even counties are comparable. For example, currently one cannot compare water quality in Florida, New Jersey, 

Hawaii or California because the programs are all so different. 

Using a metric of number of beach closures or postings to compare 

counties and States only provides meaningful information if monitoring programs are comparable. 

Eligibility criteria are commonly used in Federal grant programs 

to ensure high quality projects, and the same incentive for effective 

and protective monitoring and public notification programs should 

occur for BEACH Act funding. 

As you know, the recreational waters criteria development requirement for pathogens and pathogen indicators was not met by 

EPA. As a Nation, we are still relying on criteria based on epidemiology studies completed in the 1970s. Many studies have been completed subsequent to EPA criteria development, and some extraordinary studies are going on as I speak. 

Please require EPA to look at the results of all pertinent studies 

completed subsequent to 1985 for criteria development. Also, please 

require the EPA to protect swimmers in freshwater and marine 

waters equally, a major shortcoming in the current criteria. 

The most sensitive population of swimmers, children, must be 

protected under the new criteria. 

Also, if the EPA should choose to eliminate an indicator for criteria use, like E. coli in freshwater which is something they are 

thinking about, then the Agency must provide scientific substantiation for eliminating the criterion. 

Finally, criteria development must take into account different 

sources of pathogens. In the past, the EPA has focused on sewage 

sources in temperate waters. The new criteria must take into account differences between temperate, subtropical and tropical waters and sewage, urban runoff and non-point source runoff such as 

confined animal feedlots, agriculture and septic systems sources. 

All of these recommendations are in the recently released experts 

report you heard about previously. 

In conclusion, despite my strong recommendations on improvements necessarily to strengthen the BEACH Act, I do want to 

thank EPA for their efforts on the experts workshop and their unbelievable cooperation in providing funding for a health effects 

study in Avalon on Catalina Island that will start at the end of this 

month. 

28

Congress has a great opportunity to turn a good law into an effective law that will protect the health of hundreds of millions of 

swimmers every year. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am more than happy 

to answer any technical questions that you may have, for example, 

on methods and the like. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Mittal? 

Ms. MITTAL. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Baker, thank you for inviting us today to participate in your hearing on the BEACH Act. 

Recently, GAO issued a report on the implementation of the 

BEACH Act and the impact that it has had on water quality monitoring at some of our Nation’s beaches. My testimony will summarize the findings and recommendations that were included in the 

report and which underscore many of the points that you have already heard today. 

As you know, to accomplish the goals of the BEACH Act, EPA 

was required to implement nine specific provisions. We found that 

EPA has implemented seven of the nine provisions. As a result all 

30 States and 5 territories with coastal recreational beaches now 

use EPA’s water quality criteria for beach monitoring, and the public has better information on the number of beaches being monitored and the extent of contamination at these beaches. 

However, we also found that EPA has not complied with two key 

requirements of the Act. First, it has not completed the pathogen 

and human health studies that were to be done by 2003 and, second, it has not published the new water quality criteria that were 

required by 2005. As a result, States continue to use outdated criteria established in 1986 to monitor water quality. 

Because actions on these two provisions are several years behind 

schedule and may not be completed until 2011 or 2012, we recommended that EPA provide the Congress with a definitive 

timeline for completing these actions. 

The BEACH Act also authorized EPA to make $30 million annually in grants to eligible States and territories. However, since 

2002, the grant program has only been funded at about $10 million 

a year. 

A consequence of this lower funding level is that States receive 

grants that do not reflect their actual monitoring needs. In fact, we 

found that States with significantly greater monitoring needs because they have longer coastlines and larger coastal populations receive almost the same amount of funding as States with significantly smaller coastlines and smaller coastal populations. 

This relatively flat distribution of grants across the States is due 

to the combined effect of the lower funding levels and the way that 

EPA applies the grant distribution formula. We, therefore, recommended that if funding for the program is not going to increase, 

then EPA should revise its formula to provide more equitable 

grants to the States. 

We also reviewed how some States have used their BEACH Act 

grants and found that these grants have helped increase the number of beaches being monitored as well as the frequency of the 

monitoring. Because of this increased level of monitoring, States 

29

now know which beaches are more likely to be contaminated, which 

are relatively clean and which need more resources. 

However, we also identified a number of inconsistencies in how 

often the States conduct their beach monitoring, how they take 

water samples, how they make beach closure or health advisory decisions and how they notify the public if they find a problem. These 

inconsistencies could lead to inconsistent levels of public health 

protection across and among States. To address these concerns, we 

recommended that EPA develop specific program guidance for the 

States. 

Although the BEACH Act has helped identify the scope of contamination at coastal beaches, in most cases the underlying causes 

of this contamination remain unknown and unaddressed. States 

told us that they do not have the funds to identify what is causing 

the contamination that they now know exists because of the 

BEACH Act and they do not have the funds to take actions to mitigate these problems. 

As you already know, BEACH Act funds cannot be used for these 

purposes. Therefore, we recommended that Congress consider providing some flexibility to the States to allow them to use a part of 

their BEACH Act grant to identify sources of contamination and to 

take some corrective actions. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while the BEACH Act has helped 

States improve water quality monitoring, much remains to be done 

if we are to fully protect U.S. beach-goers. 

EPA needs to complete the studies and the new water quality 

criteria that were required by the Act. The program needs to be 

fully funded or the grant distribution formula needs to be revised. 

Inconsistencies in States’ monitoring programs and notification programs need to be resolved, and funding is still needed to address 

sources of contamination. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

We will now move to questions. 

Ms. Stoner, let me begin with you. 

It was 1998 when this Committee last held hearings on the issue 

of beach water quality. At that time there was near unanimity that 

the water quality criteria standards that were currently in place 

were inadequate, and it was for that reason that the BEACH Act 

directed the EPA to update these standards before 2005. We now 

know that we won’t be getting an update until 2011 or 2012 which 

I find shocking, frankly, but that is what we have been told. 

I understand that the NRDC agrees that these standards are in 

need of updating and revision. Can you indicate why you feel the 

current standards are inadequate and what specifically needs to be 

addressed by any new standards that the EPA may promulgate? 

Ms. STONER. Yes. Thank you for that. 

One thing to mention is that we, of course, brought an action 

against EPA, NRDC did, about a year ago to ensure that the Agency complied with the requirements of the BEACH Act, which we 

think are necessary and appropriate. 

Dr. Gold mentioned a number of the deficiencies in the standards. One of them is really that they were based on epidemiological 

30

studies focusing on sewage influenced beaches and focusing on 

gastroenteritis. So they haven’t looked at the full range of sources 

that cause beach water pollution, the largest known source of 

which is actually contaminated stormwater, and that is one of the 

very important things that they do updating the standards. 

They also haven’t looked at all the different kinds of ailments associated with swimming in contaminated beach waters: respiratory 

illness, earache, pink eye, even very serious ailments, encephalitis, 

meningitis and so forth. 

So we would like the standards that will protect the public from 

the full range of illnesses and, as was mentioned earlier by several 

witnesses, provide sufficient protection to ensure that small children and elderly people, pregnant women, others who are most 

likely to get seriously ill can swim safely at the beach. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

One other question for you Ms. Stoner: There has been broad 

agreement among the panelists this afternoon, with the possible 

exception of the EPA, that allowing source tracking to be an acceptable use of funds is certainly an appropriate and reasonable thing 

to do. Beyond that, what other role can the Federal Government 

take in helping to support State and local agencies to engage in 

this pollution source tracking? 

Ms. STONER. Well, I think it is important to increase the authorization and to, of course, appropriate the funds for source tracking, 

sanitary surveys and other corrective actions to address the sources 

of beach water pollution. 

If there is a stormwater pipe discharging near the beach, if there 

is a way to have it discharged into a wetland, if there is a bath 

house that is leaking sewage, those kinds of things are very important to do again to complement the other sources of funding that 

Congress provides. 

Of course, the House has passed the reauthorization of the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund. I certainly hope the Senate follows 

suit in that. I would like to see that fully funded as well. All of 

those sources of funding to municipal entities, to local utilities are 

very important in working with communities, assisting communities in addressing the sources of beach water pollution which, of 

course, is the ultimate goal—to have beaches that are clean and 

safe for everyone. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Ms. Dias, beaches are required to developed public notification 

methods, but there is no uniformity with respect to the methods 

that they use or the guidelines that would guide their notification. 

Do you believe that there should a Federal standard that all States 

should follow and, if so, what are your thoughts on what that 

standard would be? 

Ms. DIAS. I think there needs to be a Federal standard both for 

the notification but also for the decision that is made because some 

States close beaches, some States don’t close beaches. Some States 

issue advisories and if there is an advisory posted, someone can 

still go in the water, so that is another inconsistency. 

On notification, yes, I definitely like what is proposed in H.R. 

2537 about decisions should be made within 24 hours. I think that 

is certainly the least that we could be doing. 

31

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Dr. Gold, same question to you. 

Mr. GOLD. Well, I would just add to that and say the fact that 

there be any discretion whatsoever on a sewage spill, if you have 

raw sewage getting to the beach, the discretion should be lost for 

any public health officer. It should just be an automatic closure. It 

is very, very well known what the health risks are for exposure to 

raw sewage, and so that would be something that I think would 

help dramatically. 

Twenty-four hours, I think is absolutely critical in that regard. 

How they do public notification from the standpoint of making 

sure that there is a 1-800 hotline, that there is some sort of web 

site information plus also point of access at the beach. I think those 

are all critical. 

I would still leave discretionary, believe it or not, on the issue 

of whether or not you have high bacteria counts and you close or 

post a beach. Our organization has really taken the tack that that 

is a public right to know issue as much as anything else. If the 

public wants to take a risk of going in the water and swimming or 

surfing because the waves are great that day and they are willing 

to do that, they shouldn’t be kicked out of the water. 

If you can imagine, it is pretty difficult to kick people out of the 

water, but in the event of a raw sewage spill, all bets are off and 

there should definitely be people removed from the water. 

There were a couple of other questions that were asked earlier 

that were technical of EPA that I have answers to. I am not sure 

if you are interested. Everything from how quickly the methods can 

provide information, some of the cost information that was being 

asked before, and I am not sure if this is a good time or place to 

do that. 

Mr. BISHOP. If you could submit those for the record, we would 

be very grateful. 

Mr. GOLD. Okay. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Mittal, is that correct? 

Ms. MITTAL. Yes, that is fine. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

The GAO recommended that the EPA establish a definitive 

timeline for completing the studies that are outstanding on pathogens and their effect on human health. What was the Agency’s reaction, if any, to that recommendation? 

Ms. MITTAL. The Agency did concur with our recommendation. 

They said they would develop an action plan and provide a definitive timeline. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Baker. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It seems as though before we go to requiring communities to 

have real-time reporting, Mr. Chairman, we ought to at least get 

the EPA on real-time reporting. It would seem like a logical first 

step. 

Ms. Mittal, in the concluding remarks of your prepared testimony, you made reference to flexibility at the community level to 

perhaps take action to cure an identified contamination source. 

32

As Dr. Gold was talking, if there is clear, convincing evidence, 

immediate action is necessary, but that doesn’t stop the problem. 

You need resources to go fix it. 

Can you describe for me a little bit more clearly in the current 

program, what flexibility you have in mind with that recommendation? 

Ms. MITTAL. Sure. What we heard over and over again from the 

beach managers we talked to is that the BEACH Act grants have 

allowed them to identify that there is a problem with the water 

quality. 

Because they are doing more monitoring, they know there is a 

reoccurring problem, but the current grants do not allow them to 

go and use a little bit of that money to find out what is causing 

the problem. A very few localities actually have their own resources 

to go and identify what is causing the problem that is leading to 

the contamination, and so what we recommended was that within 

certain guidelines. 

We don’t want to divert all of this funding. Monitoring is very 

important, and the BEACH Act has been very successful in establishing these monitoring programs. So we don’t want the communities to divert all the monitoring funds to now just going and either identifying sources of problems or remediating. 

We want them to use within certain guidelines, within a certain 

amount of money, maybe just a small portion of it, and we thought 

that EPA could provide the guidelines for when that would be appropriate and use some of their money when they know there is a 

recurring problem to identify what is causing the problem and then 

maybe take some limited remediation actions. 

What we heard from the communities that we talked to is often 

times the solutions are very simple. They just don’t have the resources to identify what is causing the problem and how to fix it. 

Mr. BAKER. That would get to my sort of follow-up question. It 

would be fairly easy, I would think, to have some sequential triggering steps. For example, it is repetitive. It is coming from a specific geographic location. The contamination is above a certain unacceptable amount. 

Then you could provide out of the funds a basic match for which 

the locality or State or responsible jurisdiction would have to put 

up the other money. They don’t get quite as much as bang for their 

buck out of that side, so there is a natural financial incentive to 

spend it on monitoring. But if it is really bad, you have got to assume localities are acting in good faith. They are not going to move 

that money for a remedy or identifying a remedy unless there is 

a real high need or justification. 

I think that sort of premise should run through this whole program. 

Again, with due respect to the experts about the availability of 

real-time reporting methodologies and the pilots which may be underway, until we have scientifically valid methodologies where we 

know we are not going to be having downtime. The worst thing 

about having new technologies is the wet chemistry may be three 

days. If the system goes down, you may be out for quite a while 

longer. 

33

So reliability and scientific validity, I think, must precede what 

broad-based deployment. In the interim, allow communities to have 

flexibility to make the choice they believe best for protecting the 

most number of users in their communities. 

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t protect people. I am saying we 

should our best and highest judgment in how to deploy very limited 

resources in the most effective manner possible. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

This brings our hearing to a close. I thank you for your testimony 

and thank you for all of your work on this very important effort. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

34


36690.006
35


36690.007
36


36690.008
37


36690.009
38


36690.010
39


36690.011
40


36690.012
41


36690.013
42


36690.014
43


36690.015
44


36690.016
45


36690.017
46


36690.018
47


36690.019
48


36690.020
49


36690.021
50


36690.022
51


36690.023
52


36690.024
53


36690.025
54


36690.026
55


36690.027
56


36690.028
57


36690.029
58


36690.030
59


36690.031
60


36690.032
61


36690.033
62


36690.034
63


36690.035
64


36690.036
65


36690.037
66


36690.038
67


36690.039
68


36690.040
69


36690.041
70


36690.042
71


36690.043
72


36690.044
73


36690.045
74


36690.046
75


36690.047
76


36690.048
77


36690.049
78


36690.050
79


36690.051
80


36690.052
81


36690.053
82


36690.054
83


36690.055
84


36690.056
85


36690.057
86


36690.058
87


36690.059
88


36690.060
89


36690.061
90


36690.062
91


36690.063
92


36690.064
93


36690.065
94


36690.066
95


36690.067
96


36690.068
97


36690.069
98


36690.070
99


36690.071
100


36690.072
101


36690.073
102


36690.074
103


36690.075
104


36690.076
105


36690.077
106


36690.078
107


36690.079
108


36690.080
109


36690.081
110


36690.082
111


36690.083
112


36690.084
113


36690.085
114


36690.086
115

Æ


36690.087