[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