    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      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

                                       ____

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    36-690                      WASHINGTON : 2007
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman

    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia    JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             DON YOUNG, Alaska
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    Columbia                             JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    BOB FILNER, California               STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        GARY G. MILLER, California
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              Carolina
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    JULIA CARSON, Indiana                SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              Virginia
    JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado            JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          TED POE, Texas
    NICK LAMPSON, Texas                  DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio               CONNIE MACK, Florida
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
    BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa                York
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         Louisiana
    MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York           JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    VACANCY

                                      (ii)

    ?

                Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman

    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York              GARY G. MILLER, California
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
    JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado            HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              Carolina
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon           BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               CONNIE MACK, Florida
    JERRY MCNERNEY, California           JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   York
    Columbia                             CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
    BOB FILNER, California               Louisiana
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
    MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York           JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota           (Ex Officio)
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    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

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.005

    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 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.
        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.
        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. 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
    required 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 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.
        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.
        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 criteria 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, non-point 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 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.
        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
    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 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?
        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.
        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 community 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 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 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 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?
        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 cutting-edge 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 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. 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 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.
        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 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 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.
        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 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 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.
        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.
        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.
        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.]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6690.087