[Senate Hearing 110-1098]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1098
PROTECTING WATER QUALITY AT AMERICA'S BEACHES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SAFETY,
INFRUSTRUCTURE SECURITY, AND WATER QUALITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 27, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-972 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and
Water Quality
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JUNE 27, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 1
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 2
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 55
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 56
WITNESSES
Pallone, Hon. Frank, U.S. Representative from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Bilbray, Hon. Brian P., U.S. Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Grumbles, Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 17
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 20
Mittal, Anu K., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S.
Government Accountability Office............................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 31
Zipf, Cindy, Executive Director, Clean Ocean Action.............. 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Dufrechou, Carlton, Executive Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Foundation..................................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 47
Dias, Mara, Water Quality Coordinator, Surfrider Foundation...... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, Kirk, Ken, Executive Director, National Association of
Clean Water Agencies........................................... 57
PROTECTING WATER QUALITY AT AMERICA'S BEACHES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure
Security, and Water Quality,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R.
Lautenberg (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Lautenberg and Boxer.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Good morning. The subcommittee will
come to order.
We welcome the members of the House of Representatives. We
welcome everybody to today's hearing, because we want to work
to improve the health of our beaches, protect the safety of the
people who enjoy them. All you have to do is be outside for a
few minutes and know that we ought to be at the beach.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. As long as we know it is clean and
hospitable.
As we work here in the Capitol, people are relaxing on our
Nation's shores. Even more will do so next week on the 4th of
July. It is reported that over 180 million people visit seaside
resorts in the year, more than half our population. New Jersey,
millions of people visit our shore each year, and their visits
generate more than $36 billion for our State's economy and
result in the employment of over 470,000 people.
So that is why it is so important that we protect our
shores, make sure they are safe for swimming, surfing, other
activities. Unfortunately, sometimes our coastal waters are
damaging, contaminated. Human exposure to such pollution can
cause all sorts of problems, illnesses, from rashes to
respiratory problems.
That is why Congress passed the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health Act, known as the BEACH Act, in
2000. Two friends from the Congress, Representatives Pallone
and Bilbray and I worked very hard to pass that law. It
required States to adopt standards for their coastal water and
provided grants to States to develop programs for testing the
water and notifying the public of any problems. Our legislation
required the EPA to study the health impacts of different
pathogens in ways to rapidly test the water for their presence.
Thanks to the BEACH Act, every coastal State now has standards
as strong or stronger than EPA's, and every coastal State has a
monitoring and notification program.
In May, Congressman Pallone and I introduced a new bill to
strengthen the law that we wrote in the year 2000. Our new bill
doubles the funding for State grants. It increases funds for
States to track pollutants that threaten public health and
cause beach closures. It strengthens requirements for informing
the public about health risks. It requires the EPA to develop
rapid testing of beach water, to analyze our water quality in
hours, not in days. The original BEACH Act was done in
bipartisan fashion, and we want to continue that spirit on this
committee as we proceed with this legislation, with the Beach
Protection Act of 2000.
I am delighted to be here by the Chairman, person, woman--
--
Senator Boxer. Chairman, person, woman. That is three
people.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. You do enough for three. Welcome to the
subcommittee hearing, and I will ask if Senator Boxer wants to
make an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. I do, Senator, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we
have this briefing, and just really unfortunate timing. So I am
going to make this statement and go to the briefing. But I had
to come here first because I am so proud of your leadership,
Senator, on protecting our oceans and our coasts. As you will
hear from Congressman Bilbray, and I know of course, Frank
Pallone, who I served with for a long time, our coast is
everything to our respective States, really, when you think
about it. So we need this kind of leadership.
When I took over as Chair of the committee, I was so
pleased that you would become the chair of this subcommittee.
With all of the responsibilities that you have, this is an
important one. Your leadership on the Ocean Dumping Ban Act to
stop the harmful dumping of sewage sludge in the Atlantic to
being the Senate leader on the BEACH Act that is the subject of
today's hearing, the oceans could have no better friend than
Senator Lautenberg.
He has led the charge in defense of the Jersey Shore, which
is as important to New Jersey's economy and identity as
California's spectacular coast is to the home State of
Congressman Bilbray and myself.
The oceans are a precious resource and they are just that,
they are a resource. That resource needs to be protected. In
addition to being the most diverse ecosystem on earth, they
provide us with a vital source of food and recreational
opportunities. To coastal States like California, clean,
healthy oceans and beaches are essential to our economy.
Senator Lautenberg, according to 2003 statistics, ocean-
related tourism generates $11.1 billion annually and accounts
for 271,000 jobs in the State of California. It is an enormous
resource for us.
Nationally, the figure is $58 billion annually. That
doesn't even include jobs and revenue from other ocean sectors,
such as fishing and shipping.
So to put it bluntly, in California and coastal States,
beautiful, safe beaches are big business. But I think we all
agree that if the beaches and ocean waters are not clean and
healthy, people will not come and enjoy them. Indeed, according
to EPA, public health risks from swimming in polluted coastal
waters is serious. EPA's research has found that contact with
contaminated water can lead to gastrointestinal disorders, ear
or skin infections and inhalation of contaminated water can
cause respiratory diseases.
The pathogens responsible for these diseases can be
bacteria, viruses, protozoans, fungi or parasites. Our children
and seniors, of course, are the most sensitive. They always
are. That is why this hearing is so important.
To address this issue in 2000, Congress enacted the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, nicknamed the
BEACH Act, which requires States to update their water quality
standards to include protection of human health from pathogens
in all waters. The Act also includes a grant program to help
States monitor water quality standard violations and notify the
public of these problems. The BEACH Act has had successes.
States have adopted water quality standards, public
notification of problems is now the norm, not the exception.
However, we need to improve our testing abilities and
assist communities in identifying and addressing sources of
contamination. You are very distinguished witnesses today,
representing a broad swath of our Nation's coasts and coastal
interests. I particularly do want to welcome our House
colleagues, who worked together to see the BEACH Act through
the House in 2000.
So, Senator Lautenberg, as I go off to this briefing, I
just feel so secure knowing that you have the chair of the
subcommittee, that you are on my committee and that your
leadership and your wisdom is just going to shine through in so
many areas. This is just one of them today.
I also want to say that as soon as we are ready to move
this legislation through the committee, you can count on me to
put it on the schedule.
Senator Lautenberg. Sure thing.
Are you finished saying those nice things?
Senator Boxer. Yes, do you want some more? Did I say
enough?
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. You can have more time.
Senator Boxer. The Senator is giving me an additional 5
minutes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks. I love serving with Senator
Boxer as the Chairman, I can tell you. The environment is
different, it is healthier, it is nice.
Anyway, Congressman Pallone, we have worked together on
lots of things. Obviously, being from the wonderful State of
New Jersey, our paths cross often, but more often on the coast
than any place else in the State. I enjoy our opportunities to
discuss our views and to learn from your intimate knowledge of
what goes on in the coastline and the waters. We have passed
other legislation, also, along the way, to make sure that the
waters are kept as clean as they can be. We welcome you.
Congressman Bilbray, your coast is also a critical item in
the State's economy and certainly in your district. We thank
you for your participation today.
First, we will hear from Congressman Pallone.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
First of all, let me say, I know we keep piling it on here.
But I have to say that without your help over the years, and
what you have done in the Senate, many of the battles that we
fought to preserve the shore, to clean up the beaches, to
improve our ocean water quality, would never have been
successful. Whether it is money for beach replenishment or
trying to put an end to ocean dumping, or the BEACH Act that we
are talking about today, you have always been the key person to
be out there and make sure that our beaches and our shore are
protected. I know you just always go out of your way when it
comes to the New Jersey coast, so thank you again for that.
It is really great to see that you chair this subcommittee
and to see Senator Boxer chair the full committee, because it
is nice to have Democrats in the majority, but it is
particularly nice to have the two of you out there on this
important issue. It really makes a difference.
I am not going to go into the various reasons why a clean
ocean and clean beaches are important to our economy. I think
you know that. But of course, I do want to say that next
weekend, which of course is the 4th of July weekend, we are
going to have thousands of people down on the New Jersey
beaches and we want to make sure that they are clean and safe.
As we speak, the House is actually passing a resolution
designating next week as Clean Beaches Week nationally, which
is part of a several organization national campaign. I would
hate to think that we have Clean Beaches Week but the beaches
are not clean. So obviously, that is why this is important to
us.
You talked about the original BEACH Act, which you authored
and both of us authored on the House side. There is no question
that that has made major strides over the years in keeping the
beaches clean and keeping the waters clean. But it is also true
that it can be improved, which is why we have jointly
introduced this new legislation that is before us today. I will
just say, the Act, as you know, has three provisions, basically
requiring States to adopt current EPA water quality criteria to
protect beach-goers from getting sick, two requiring the EPA to
update these water quality criteria with new science and
technologies to provide better, faster water testing; and
third, providing grants to States to implement coastal water
monitoring programs.
New Jersey has used some of this grant money in the past to
become the first State in the Nation to launch a real-time Web
site that notifies beach-goers of the state of our beaches.
That Web site has been very successful as well.
The bill that is before us today significantly increases
the grant levels. It goes from $30 million under the old
authorization to a new level of $60 million annually, so it is
twice as much. But it also says that the scope of those grants
are expanded from just water quality monitoring and
notification, which is the way it has been in the past, to now
include pollution source tracking and prevention efforts. I
think that is significant, because we want the States to be
able to prevent the problems that we see.
More importantly, the legislation goes further on
environmental standards than any before by requiring tougher
standards for beach water quality testing and communication. It
says that beach water quality violations are disclosed not only
to the public, but all relevant State agencies with beach water
pollution authority.
Now, I want to stress a little bit the rapid testing, Mr.
Chairman, because I think that is a very important part of what
we are trying to do here. The bill mandates the use of rapid
testing methods by requiring the EPA to approve the use of
rapid testing methods that detect bathing water contamination
in 2 hours or less. Grantees must use those methods within 1
year of approval. This is something that you and I have been
advocating for the last several years, as well as Mr. Bilbray.
The current tests, like those in New Jersey, only test for
bacteria levels and take 24 to 48 hours to produce reliable
results. During that time, beach-goers can be unknowingly
exposed to harmful pathogens. More immediate results will
prevent beaches from remaining open when high levels of
bacteria are found.
The other thing we require is to implement, those States
that receive grants have to implement measures for tracking and
identifying sources of pollution, create a public online
database for each beach with relative pollution and closing
information posted, and third, ensure that closures or
advisories are issued shortly after the State find coastal
waters out of compliance with water quality standards, within
24 hours of failed water quality tests.
Now, I know, Senator Lautenberg, you have been an advocate
for years of the right to know in so many environmental issues
and health care issues, whether it be Superfund or in this
case, beaches. So essentially, the heart of this thing is what
I call, and you often call, the right to know. We are
essentially improving the right to know by giving people more
information so they know what is going on.
We are holding States accountable by requiring the EPA
Administrator to annually review a grantee's compliance with
the BEACH Act's process requirements. Grantees have 1 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. Current law gives the
Administrator discretion to require a non-Federal share of up
to 50 percent.
So again, I think the bill was good. It was effective for
the last few years. What we are introducing now I think will be
more effective, more in line with the theme of the right to
know, and certainly provides an expanded opportunity to prevent
pollution problems in the future.
So again, I just want to thank you and Mr. Bilbray. We are
going to try, I heard what Chairman Boxer said about trying to
expedite this. Obviously we will try to do the same thing in
the House if we can get this bill passed and to the President
as soon as possible. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, U.S. Representative from the
State of New Jersey
I would first like to thank Chairman Lautenberg and Ranking Member
Vitter for conducting this important hearing. This is an issue that
Chairman Lautenberg and I have worked for a long time to clean up and
protect our national beaches.
Across the country, American families and international tourists
make over 2 billion trips each year to America's beaches to fish,
sunbathe, boat, swim, surf, and bird-watch. Our coastal areas produce
85 percent of all U.S. tourism dollars, fueling a huge economic engine.
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. Our beaches are a tremendous resource for those who come here to
enjoy them, and they are a huge economic engine for our coastal States.
In New Jersey alone beaches are the primary driver of a tourism economy
that means nearly 500,000 jobs and generates $36 billion in economic
activities for the State each year.
Next weekend for the 4th of July, thousands of people will flock to
New Jersey beaches to enjoy everything they have to offer, to celebrate
our nations independence. During the 4th of July Celebration we want to
be sure that our beaches are clean and safe for beach goers.
2000 beach act
And thanks to the BEACH Act, a law that I helped to author with
Senator Lautenberg back in 2000, we have made major strides over the
last 6 years. The BEACH Act of 2000 helped us improve water quality
testing and monitoring at beaches across the country, which is critical
to protecting the health of beachgoers.
The Act had three provisions: requiring States to adopt current EPA
water quality criteria to protect beachgoers from getting sick;
requiring the EPA to update these water quality criteria, with new
science and technologies to provide better, faster water testing; and
providing grants to States to implement coastal water monitoring
programs.
New Jersey used some of its grant money to become the first State
in the Nation to launch a real-time Web site that notifies beachgoers
of the state of their beaches.
the beach protection act
Despite all the strong steps that coastal States and our nation
have taken since the BEACH Act was signed into law, this Act can still
be improved, and that's what Senator Lautenberg and I had in mind when
we introduced the BEACH Protection Act of 2007.
The BEACH Protection Act, H.R. 2537, is a bill that will help
ensure that beachgoers throughout the country can surf, swim, and play
on clean and safe beaches.
This legislation not only reauthorizes the grants to States through
2012, but doubles the annual grant levels from a total $30 million
under the old authorization to a new level of $60 million annually.
H.R. 2537 will expand the scope of BEACH Act grants from water
quality monitoring and notification to also include pollution source
tracking and prevention efforts.
More importantly this legislation goes further on environmental
standards than any before. It requires 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.
rapid testing methods
The Beach Protection Act mandates the use of rapid testing methods
by requiring the EPA to approve the use of rapid testing methods that
detect bathing water contamination in 2 hours or less. Grantees must
use those methods within 1 year of approval.
This is something that I have been advocating for the last couple
of years. Current water quality monitoring tests, like those used in
New Jersey, only test for bacteria levels and take 24 to 48 hours to
produce reliable results, during which time many beachgoers can be
unknowingly exposed to harmful pathogens. More immediate results would
prevent beaches from remaining open when high levels of bacteria are
found.
We are requiring each State receiving BEACH Act grants to:
Implement measures for tracking and identifying sources of
beachwater pollution;
Create a public online database for each beach with relevant
pollution and closure information posted; and
Ensure that closures or advisories are issued shortly after the
State finds coastal waters out of compliance with water quality
standards.
We are also holding States accountable by requiring the EPA
Administrator to do annual reviews of grantees' compliance with BEACH
Act process requirements. Grantees have 1 year to comply with the new
environmental standards, otherwise they will be required to pay at
least a 50 percent match for their grant until they come back into
compliance. (Current law gives the Administrator discretion to require
a non-Federal share of up to 50 percent.)
Mr. Chairman, protecting our coasts and oceans is critical to the
local economies that depend on them for billions in tourism and
recreation revenues.
Once again I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking
member for holding this hearing and for their leadership on this
important issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues across
the Capitol on protecting New Jersey's, and our nations, beaches for
years to come.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Congressman
Pallone, and for the association that you brought up about the
right to know. I think people have a right to know a lot about
Government, a lot more than we get to know. We work on that
together, and I look forward to continuing that.
Congressman Bilbray, I appreciate your coming here today,
appreciate the help that you gave to us in 2000. I look forward
to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
sincerely, I appreciate the chance to be here today. I
appreciate the fact that you were wiling to be my partner
working with the Congressman to get the original BEACH bill
through. Let me just tell you, as a lifelong surfer, I was very
proud of the fact that the BEACH bill is the first piece of
Federal legislation passed in the United States that mentioned
surfing specifically.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bilbray. So we make history in different ways. I am
very impressed with your statement that half of America is
going to go to the beaches this summer. My only question would
be, what the heck is the rest of the half doing? That is
astonishing.
But let me just say that your support was essential in the
106th, and I really do appreciate that. I think that when we
move ahead with that, you may know that I am a former lifeguard
and presently a surfer, but you may not know that I am a former
Mayor of a beach community. Actually, I grew up in one of the
most polluted cities in America, down on the Mexican border
south of San Diego, polluted by a foreign government that the
Federal Government is still grappling with that problem. So I
grew up as a child going down to the beach and seeing those
orange pollution signs down there. This is an issue that does
affect you, and it is kind of hard to tell a 7, 8, 10 year old,
12 year old young man that he can't go in the water when it is
July in California. The challenge here is how do we make this
work.
I also was a county supervisor. In California, the
supervisors are in charge of water quality monitoring and
public health protection. One of the things that I was very
excited about, our success with the BEACH bill, was that it
wasn't just a traditional command and control top down, that we
recognized our Federal system and we recognized the real source
out there to protect the American people is not necessarily the
Federal Government, but the Federal Government aiding and
encouraging the local communities to do what they do best.
After all, who has more of a vested interest in water quality
and public health than the local neighborhoods?
I think that was a big success with our BEACH bill, is that
we empowered the local community to not only know but get the
job done. I am sure that we all know the different success rate
that we have been able to go through with the extensive
numbers. I think that just looking at the increases in the
water quality criteria from 11 to 35 States that are actually
actively involved.
Let me just say, as we go into this, it is not only the
cooperative effort, but the personal interrelationships that
this may have. It was sort of interesting for me to see my son
and daughter on the Internet, not only finding out how good the
surf was at a certain beach, so they didn't have to drive
around polluting the air and putting out the greenhouse gases.
They knew right where the surf was good. But at the instant
they checked out the surf, right on the screen, was the water
quality ratings and the ability for them to have that
integrated into their decisionmaking process, not just, has the
wind blown out the surf, is the swell good, but is the water
clean and has it been clean.
But there is this big missing issue, and I will just tell
you, I think that the real-time testing is absolutely
essential. As the Congressman pointed out, there is this delay.
But the delay isn't that the beaches aren't posted. The public
health officials, when there is an incident like rain, maybe a
sewer spill, or they may suspect, they always post. Because
they are always doing more than, they always err on the side of
safety.
The trouble is, that is known by our young people and by
our citizens that, look, when a surfer goes and checks out the
surf and sees that red sign up, he knows, well, it rained 2
days ago, so they just posted it, it doesn't mean it is
polluted. We need that real-time test to bring credibility to
those signs when they go up, that they only go up when the
number comes up positive.
So they really do have the impact that we want them to have
and they originally had. So I think it is essential that we
make this system as real-time and as responsive as possible.
Because those who are using the beaches are sophisticated
enough to know the safety margin and will push that margin. So
we need to make sure there are efficiencies in posting as close
as possible.
That is why I introduced the Safe Water Improvement
Modernization Act, the SWIM Act, of 2007. Because there are
technologies out there that can do this real-time testing. The
fact is, sadly, right now, with the incubator system we have,
it is not just 12 to 24, it ends up being 3 days that signs are
up. So those are 3 days that there is a question that we want
to eliminate for the safety purposes.
Again, I want to thank you very much for your support and
your cooperative effort with myself back in the old days, when
we were getting this through and it was essential. It was a
great bipartisan approach to protecting our children. After
all, we never know if our grandchildren are going to be looking
on the Internet to check out the surf and find out where the
clean beaches are 10 years from now.
So God bless you and thank you for your efforts, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilbray follows:]
Statement of Hon. Brian P. Bilbray, Representative from the
State of California
Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Vitter and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to join in the discussion on
reauthorization issues concerning the Beaches Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act (Public Law 106-284). This was
legislation Chairman Lautenberg and I were proud to author in the 106th
Congress. The legislation was passed with overwhelming bipartisan
support and was signed into law by President Clinton.
President Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``The nation behaves well
if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to
the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.'' These
words have resonated strongly with me, as a lifelong outdoorsman,
former lifeguard, and through my career in elected office. This
statement is as applicable today as it was when he said it more than
100 years ago. We have an obligation to preserve and enhance our
natural resources so that our children and grandchildren have the
opportunity to enjoy the same quality of life we do today.
For this reason, the BEACH Act becoming law was a tremendous
achievement for our Nation. Growing up along the coast in San Diego, I
saw how harmful bacteria and pathogens in the water can affect the
health of both children and adults alike. Without basic standards for
water quality evaluation, the health of our coastal waters and those
that enjoy it would be threatened.
The successful implementation of the BEACH Act throughout the past
7 years has led to significant improvements in public health according
to a report released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last
October. Key findings I wanted to highlight to the Committee included:
States have significantly improved their assessment and monitoring
of beaches; the number of monitored beaches has increased from about
1,000 in 1997 to more than 3,500 out of approximately 6,000 beaches, as
identified to EPA by the States for the 2004 swimming season.
EPA has strengthened water quality standards throughout all the
coastal recreation waters in the United States; the number of coastal
and Great Lakes States with up-to-date water quality criteria has
increased from 11 in 2000 to 35 in 2004.
EPA has improved public access to data on beach advisories and
closings by improving its electronic system for beach data collection
and delivery systems; the system is known as ``eBeaches.'' The public
can view the beach information at http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon--
national--page.main.
EPA is working to improve pollution control efforts that reduce
potential adverse health effects at beaches. EPA's Strategic Plan and
recent National Water Program Guidance describe these actions to
coordinate assessment of problems affecting beaches and to reduce
pollution.
EPA is conducting research to develop new or revised water quality
criteria and more rapid methods for assessing water quality at beaches
so that results can be made available in hours rather than days.
Quicker tests will allow beach managers to make faster decisions about
the safety of beach waters and thus help reduce the risk of illness
among beachgoers. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing the BEACH Act of
2000, Report for Congress, October 2006, Available at: http://
www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/report/full-rtc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the progress we have made is impressive the BEACH Act can be
improved to be even more effective in protecting public health, by
incorporating new developments in the science behind water quality
testing. Since 1986, the EPA has tested pathogens in the water through
culture testing. Unfortunately, this antiquated method which is still
in use today can take upwards of 72 hours to yield results. Conversely,
new advances in molecular testing show tremendous promise, both in
rapidly identifying potential pathogens in coastal waters, and in
reducing the amount of time required to provide test results to
appropriate public health officers.
Molecular testing has been shown to identify bacteria in only 4
hours, rather than 72. Additionally, culture methods cannot
differentiate between non-human and human organisms without additional
testing. As a result, many beaches are closed unnecessarily and for too
long due to detection of organisms that do not pose a threat to humans.
Unlike culture methods, molecular tests can be designed to have unique
specificity only for bacteria that are associated with human illness.
This specificity is due to the molecular test's ability to recognize
species specific bacterial DNA, a feature that prevents ``false-
positive'' detection of irrelevant organisms.
In the past Congress, several of my House colleagues undertook
efforts to reauthorize the BEACH Act. This renewed commitment
underscores the importance of this legislation. I look forward to
working with my colleagues and with this committee, to ensure the
reauthorization of the BEACH Act, so that the significant strides we
have made to date can be sustained and enhanced.
To this end, I introduced H.R. 909, the Safe Water Improvement and
Modernization (SWIM) Act of 2007. This legislation will reauthorize the
programs in the BEACH Act until 2012 as well as authorize the EPA to
complete a 2-year study of the full capabilities of molecular testing.
It is my hope that this study will open the door to quicker and more
efficient testing times which will better protect the health and well
being of those that want to enjoy our recreational waters.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the landmark BEACH
legislation, and how we might continue to work together to build on its
successes. I look forward to working with this committee, and would be
pleased to address any questions you may have.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
You and I share another note of distinction. We were in, we
were out, we were in.
Mr. Bilbray. I was thinking, I was very appreciative of
that in California, the voters can be environmentally
sensitive, and they believe in recycling Congressmen.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. The other thing that struck me, new
information, that is, without taking too much time, a Web site
on surfing, how does the data get into the system? Who monitors
whether surfing is good? Does it measure swells? What does it
tell you?
Mr. Bilbray. NOAA has interlinks. There are actually these
little gnomes who actually put all this stuff together and that
don't have a real life. I think this is what some of these kids
do when----
Senator Lautenberg. Putting them out of the computer
business.
Mr. Bilbray [continuing]. The sun goes down. But actually,
you have NOAA weather, they can predict swells, they can tell
you exactly directions, they can tell which facing beaches may
or may not.
But then the other key is, you have real-time, actual
visuals of what it looks like at that time on the Internet. So
instead of the old days when we had to drive down to the beach
and check out each point and see if Swami's was breaking or
Black's Beach or Doheny, you actually can click and look and
actually choose where you are going, you can tell the wind
conditions and the chop and the swell conditions.
Senator Lautenberg. Sounds swell to me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, each of you. I
couldn't resist. Humor gets in my way sometimes. Thank you each
very much for being here, for continuing. Let's continue to
work together and see if we can improve the condition that is
already a lot better as a result of the work we have done in
the past.
Now we will hear from our second panel. Mr. Benjamin
Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water at U.S. EPA. Anu
Mittal, Director of the National Resources and Environment Team
at the U.S. GAO. We look forward to hearing from you.
I want to particularly thank Mr. Grumbles for being here.
He was planning a trip to the West Coast, but changed his plans
to join us this day. I consider that a real measure of your
interest in this subject and your willingness to give us your
views. If you would start, observing the 5-minute rule. We are
not too rigid, but anything over 25, we are just not going to
accept.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a real honor
to be here, to appear before you and the subcommittee. Although
there is that temptation to say, as much as I enjoy being here,
I would rather be at the beach, monitoring the beach, and
continuing to work to ensure clean and safe beaches.
I do also want to say, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your
efforts in moving the Clean Beaches, the week of Clean Beaches
Sense of Congress. It sends some very powerful and strong
messages. It is also similar to the proclamation the President
issued for June as the National Oceans Month. So there is a
tremendous amount of focus and attention, as there should be,
on the coasts and beaches, because they do define our country.
It is important for the environment and for the economy to
continue to make progress on ensuring those beaches are clean
and safe.
EPA is delighted to be here to discuss the successes of
implementing the BEACH Act, and current activities of the
Agency, and challenges as well as the opportunities ahead. Mr.
Chairman, as you and your colleagues have stated, the real
focus should be, and is in EPA, on sound science, on pollution
prevention and on public notification, and public awareness.
I do think it is important to spend a minute to talk about
where we have been over the last several years and what we have
done to implement the BEACH Act, which is truly landmark
legislation. It took a long time for it to finally get across
the finish line, but it has been worth it. It is a very
important framework for success.
It is very important to recognize that the number of
monitored beaches since the BEACH Act and since EPA's efforts
to implement the Act has increased from about 1,000 to 3,500.
Actually, 3,700 beaches, that is good news. It ensures greater
vigilance and progress.
The other success that Congressman Bilbray mentioned, the
number of States with stronger water quality standards has gone
from 10 to 35 over the last several years. Part of that was due
to EPA stepping in in November 2004 and promulgating the
Federal standards to strengthen previous water quality
standards that relied on fecal coliform as opposed to E-coli
and Enterococcus as the indicators.
Another major success we view as progress is increased
public awareness. We have the eBeaches Web site. We work with
other organizations and of course with our partners at States
to get out more information about closures and advisories to
make this as successful as possible. Then of course, there is
the grants program that was authorized in the BEACH Act that
Congress continues to support and that the Administration and
EPA continues to support. That is translated into $52 million
in assistance, probably another $10 million as the
appropriations bills are working their way through. That is to
help the States develop and implement monitoring and
notification programs.
I do want to mention that a key area, a current effort and
focus of the Agency is building and continuing to improve the
partnership with States. I know that there is legislation that
is introduced, and it is important to be having these hearings.
It is also very important, just as it was in 2000 and years
leading to the Act's passage, to coordinate with the States, to
work with the States, because they are the implementers in so
many respects under the Clean Water Act.
Sound science is a key for us, Mr. Chairman. It has been
stated very well. We see great promise in the rapid, reliable
tests. The methods as a focus for us, so that the Quantitative
Polymerase Chain Reaction and other types of methodologies that
can reduce from several days to 2 to 3 hours in terms of the
lag time in getting results is perfected and advanced. That is
a priority for us as well.
Also, I think it is important to emphasize the
epidemiological studies that the Agency has been carrying out
over the last several years; linking the science, the impacts
of pathogens in waters with gastrointestinal or other problems,
and using those studies that have occurred in the Great Lakes
and also now are occurring on other coasts, to also improve the
methodologies. Because we do need to continue to work on the
science the microbial biology continues to evolve and it is
important to capture that knowledge and put it into practice.
The last thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is pollution
prevention. Pollution prevention is the key for us as well,
working with States and cities to further control sewer
overflows, storm water. Also tracking through sanitary surveys.
The Agency has been carrying out a program of grants in the
Great Lakes. We support the idea of continued efforts to use
sanitary survey to help get to the source of the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have and again, appreciate your leadership on having this
hearing and the support for the BEACH program.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:]
Statement of Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Benjamin H.
Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water at the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the accomplishments of and the challenges for the Beach
Program, EPA's current actions to further advance the Beach Program,
and our vision for the future of this national public health activity.
America's oceans and coasts are a national treasure. The President
has proclaimed June 2007 as National Oceans Month. Our nation's ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes waters have enormous environmental and
economic value. In the words of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
``Our oceans and coasts are among the chief pillars of our nation's
wealth and economic well-being.'' More than half of the country's
population lives near a coastal area, and the great majority of
Americans visit coastal areas to participate in recreational
activities. More specifically, it is estimated that one third of all
Americans visit coastal areas each year making a total of 910 million
trips while spending over $40 billion annually.
Protecting the beach-going public from illness is a national
priority. Since the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act's enactment in 2000, EPA, States, and local partners have
made substantial progress in implementing its requirements and taking
actions to protect the health of swimmers in our coastal recreation
waters.
In this testimony, I will describe recent EPA work to support beach
monitoring and public reporting; our activities to strengthen existing
water quality standards; research to support developing new or revised
recommended water quality criteria for the purpose of protecting human
health in coastal recreation waters; and cross-Agency efforts to
leverage other Clean Water Act programs to reduce pollution and
sources.
Although we have made substantial progress in implementing the
BEACH Act, I want to be clear that EPA recognizes there is important
work left to do in the areas of additional research and updating
existing recreational criteria. As I will describe further, EPA and
others have conducted a substantial amount of research since 2000. More
studies are needed to create a sound scientific foundation for new
criteria, as I will discuss later.
i. achievements
In order to better frame a discussion of ongoing and future
activities, I would like to begin by highlighting some of the
significant accomplishments that EPA has achieved under the Beach Act
since 2000, in partnership with States and Territories.
States have significantly improved their assessment and
monitoring of beaches; the number of monitored beaches has increased
from about 1,000 in 1997 to more than 3,500 in 2006.
EPA has strengthened water quality standards throughout
all the coastal recreation waters in the United States. All 35 States
and Territories with coastal recreation waters now have water quality
standards as protective of human health as EPA's recommended water
quality criteria--an increase from 11 States and Territories in 2000.
EPA has improved public access to data on beach advisories
and closings by improving the Agency's electronic beach data collection
and delivery systems. Today, BEACH Act States easily transmit data to
EPA on their Beach Monitoring and Notification Programs through a
system known as ``eBeaches.'' The data is uploaded onto a nationally
accessible Internet site that is easily reached by the public.
In the area of research, EPA has conducted cutting-edge
research on the use of molecular-based methods for more quickly
detecting indicators of fecal contamination in coastal waters. The
Agency's Office of Research and Development has also completed
critically needed epidemiological studies correlating the results from
these methods to the incidence of gastro-intestinal illness. These
molecular methods show great promise for providing quicker test results
and allowing beach managers to make faster and better decisions about
the safety of beach waters. Faster and better decisions are good for
public health and good for the economy in beach communities. We share
the goals of the public and State beach managers for making the best
decisions possible about keeping beaches open or placing them under
advisory.
ii. current efforts
A. Improving Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
One of the best indicators of progress to date is the fact that all
eligible States and Territories are now implementing the beach
monitoring and public notification provisions of the BEACH Act.
BEACH Act Grants
EPA's Beach Act grants are a cornerstone for Clean Beaches Program.
As you know, the BEACH Act authorizes and Congress appropriates funds
for EPA grants to States, Territories, and Tribes to develop and
implement monitoring and notification programs. Since 2000, EPA has
awarded approximately $52 million of grant funds under the BEACH Act to
all 35 eligible coastal and Great Lakes States and Territories. We
expect to award approximately $10 million dollars more this year.
EPA has been evaluating whether to revise the existing allocation
formula for distributing beach grant funds. EPA has awarded grants to
all eligible States that applied for funding using an allocation
formula that the Agency developed in 2002. EPA consulted with various
States and other stakeholders to develop a formula that uses three
factors--beach season length, beach miles, and beach usage. (Because
the data for beach miles and beach usage were not readily available,
shoreline length and coastal population have been used as
``surrogates.'') This formula has been effective in creating a strong
foundation for the current program, but it presently does not have the
flexibility to adjust new year grant allocation levels to reflect the
level and rate of grant utilization in prior years.
In 2006, EPA formed a State/EPA workgroup to examine the current
formula, assess current programs and their monitoring/notification
practices and develop options for possible changes to the allocation
formula. EPA reviewed a number of allocation formula scenarios during
the course of this process. One of the key issues identified by the
State/EPA workgroup is how to ensure that any readjustment to the
formula does not occur at the cost of a particular State being unable
to continue its current monitoring and reporting activities. No final
decision on possible allocation formula revisions has been made at this
time.
As we look at different allocation formula scenarios, we are
completely mindful of the need for maintaining State programs. EPA
plans to request public comment on a range of different options later
this fall. We look forward to receiving valuable information and
feedback from States, beach monitoring groups, and interested
stakeholders on how to proceed forward.
B. Program Development and Implementation
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria
for Grants
To ensure effective use of BEACH grants, EPA has undertaken a
substantial collaboration effort with States and interested parties to
develop a basic framework for beach monitoring and notification
programs. The Agency issued comprehensive national guidance in June
2002 which specifies nine performance criteria for implementing State
beach monitoring, assessment, and notification programs.
State and Local accomplishments
The real ``on the ground'' effect of this guidance in combination
with annual grants has been to enable the States and Territories to
establish or greatly improve their beach programs. The strength of
these programs is described in EPA's 2006 Report to Congress on the
BEACH Act which contains 15 pages of State-by-State program summaries
followed by another thirty pages of detailed accomplishments.
eBeaches--Public Reporting
The BEACH Act also directs EPA to establish, maintain, and make
available to the public a national coastal recreation water pollution
occurrence database. In response, EPA has established an online
electronic data collection and reporting system called ``eBeaches''.
The system provides for fast, easy, and secure transmittal of beach
water quality data; it improves public access to State-reported
information about beach conditions (along with information on health
risks associated with swimming in polluted water); and it saves time
and money by allowing electronic data transfer and eliminating paper
forms and outdated methods of data entry.
National List of Beaches
The BEACH Act also directs EPA to maintain a publicly available
list of waters that are subject to a monitoring and notification
program, as well as those not subject to a program. States and
Territories with BEACH Act implementation grants identify lists of
coastal recreational waters that are subject to the program and submit
this information to EPA.
The Agency has compiled this information into the National List of
Beaches; the list was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2004
(69 FR 24597); and the list will be updated as new information becomes
available from States and Territories. The list provides a national
picture of the extent of beach water quality monitoring, and the States
are using their BEACH Act grants to refine their inventory of beaches.
Great Lakes Sanitary Survey
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration recommends activities to
improve beach water quality. To that end, EPA is working with the Great
Lakes States to develop and conduct beach sanitary surveys to identify
sources of contamination at Great Lakes beaches. These surveys also
will help beach managers inform the public about any potential
pollution impacting a beach, which will support the public in making
better informed decisions before swimming to reduce their risk of
swimming-related illness. The final sanitary survey form has been
developed and is ready to be pilot tested. EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office has worked tirelessly to prepare grants using funds
appropriated in fiscal year to fund pilots at 60 Great Lakes beaches,
including beaches on each of the Great Lakes, in the near future.
I am pleased to report that six of the seven States (Michigan,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York) that
applied for a sanitary survey grant have received their award.
C. Conducting Research on Critical Science Issues
Current Research Accomplishments.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, a key area of remaining
work under the BEACH Act is to complete the science to support
developing new or revised recommended recreational water quality
criteria. Under CWA section 304(a)(9), EPA is required to publish new
or revised water quality criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators
for the purpose of protecting human health in coastal recreation
waters. Under section 104(v) of the CWA, EPA is required to complete
studies to provide additional information for use in developing these
new or revised recommended water quality criteria.
To date, EPA has conducted significant research on the use of
molecular-based methods to allow faster reporting. The Agency also has
completed critically needed epidemiology studies in fresh waters. EPA
has also completed the first comprehensive study evaluating how
different factors such as water depth, distance from the beach, and
time of day affect an individual's exposure and potential risk from
swimming.
EPA's NEEAR Water Study and Methods Development
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), in consultation
with the Office of Water, initiated the very comprehensive National
Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR)
Water Study in 2001. It is a collaborative research study between EPA
and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). EPA is also coordinating the
study with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other interested
agencies.
The indicators and rapid methods that EPA is evaluating through the
NEEAR study are DNA-based microbiological indicators of fecal
contamination. The goal of the NEEAR research is to produce information
defining the relationship between water quality, as measured with rapid
indicators of fecal contamination, and swimming-associated health
effects.
Indicator Methods Development
The goal is to help beach managers to quickly test the water in the
morning and make results about the safety of beach waters available in
hours, rather than days. Providing faster results to beach managers and
the public should help reduce the risk of waterborne illness among
beachgoers as well as re-open the beach earlier. A number of rapid
methods were evaluated for potential use in the NEEAR Water Study, but
only the few that met EPA's performance criteria were ultimately
included. One of the more promising methods that EPA is evaluating is a
molecular method called the Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction
(qPCR) Method.
Epidemiology Study
The second part of the NEEAR Water Study includes epidemiology
studies that combine health data and water quality analyses using the
selected indicator methods. The epidemiology studies measure human
health outcomes including gastrointestinal illness; ear, eye, and
respiratory infections; urinary tract infection; and skin (rash)
endpoints.
The NEEAR Water Study team has completed four summers of data
collection. These studies included a 1-year pilot study and two full-
year studies in the Great Lakes. In addition a partial study was
conducted along the Gulf coast. EPA also conducted a recreational
monitoring characterization study before starting the Great Lakes
studies. The data demonstrate that swimmers exposed to higher levels of
indicators as measured using rapid methods, experience more illness
than non-swimmers, or swimmers exposed to lower levels of indicators.
Analysis of the data from these Great Lakes studies shows a promising
relationship between one of the rapid indicators methods (qPCR) and
gastrointestinal illness among swimmers.
Monitoring and Modeling Studies
EPA has also been working to improve the science and integration of
monitoring and modeling for microbial contamination in coastal
recreation waters. My earlier discussion describes some of EPA's
efforts in this area. There are also other EPA efforts to improve
monitoring methodologies and techniques for coastal recreation waters.
The Agency wants to help beach managers with their efforts to provide
the public with real-time information on the condition of their
beaches, and EPA is working on predictive modeling tools that promise
faster results than single sample daily monitoring. The USGS, supported
in part by EPA also is working on the development and use of predictive
models to deliver near-real time data on the public health
acceptability of beaches in some area of the Great Lakes.
iii. lessons learned from beach act implementation
Mr. Chairman, EPA is working to publish new or revised recommended
water quality criteria as required by the BEACH Act. There are many
significant science issues that we believe need to be addressed, and we
are addressing them.
A. Agency Efforts to Address Scientific and Policy Questions
EPA's review of existing science and our research results have
raised a series of very significant scientific and policy questions.
Foremost among these questions are:
How should we address the geographic and temporal
variability in beach water quality?
How well do the new molecular methods work and how could
they be applied in other Clean Water Act programs (such as beach
notification, discharge permits, water quality assessments and TMDLs )?
How should the criteria address the difference between the
health threats posed by human vs. non-human sources of pollution?
How can we best address significant variability in
measurements at beaches--spatially and temporally?
We need to allow the science to inform our decisions--we do not
want to move too quickly--for acting quickly without a sound scientific
foundation can result in economic consequences for the economies of
coastal zones or impacts on public health.
Despite these challenges, I am happy to report that our efforts in
implementing the BEACH Act have not only provided people with up-to-
date information to enable them to make risk management decisions, but
it has also served as a motivator for people to identify sources of
contamination and to take action.
B. Cross-Agency Activities
The authors of the Clean Water Act had great foresight. They
believed something had to be done to defend America's water, and they
understood that meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act depended on
both the long-term protection of water quality and the involvement of
Federal, State and community partners.
We recognize that the BEACH Act focus on protecting coastal
recreation waters also extends to protecting America's coastal
estuaries, and our National Estuary Program has done significant work
in restoring and protecting our country's watersheds. The National
Estuary Program's collaborative approach to addressing watershed
protection and restoration is proving to be an effective model for how
Federal, State, and community partners can work together effectively.
After two decades of building partnerships across each of the 28
nationally recognized watersheds, we are seeing impressive
environmental results.
In December 2004, this Administration released a comprehensive
Ocean Action Plan (OAP) including 88 actions and a set of principles to
strengthen and improve U.S. ocean policy. The OAP aligns with a number
of EPA priorities, including improving water quality monitoring and
supporting regional, watershed-based collaboration for protecting the
health of our Nation's ocean and coastal waters.
I mentioned earlier the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration and
EPA's work with the Great Lakes States to develop and conduct beach
sanitary surveys to identify sources of contamination at Great Lakes
beaches.
EPA has also been working across Agency programs to control
bacteria/pathogen input into waters from Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSOs) which occur in 770 communities around the country. CSOs can
affect the quality of recreational waters by releasing untreated
wastewater potentially containing high levels of pathogens. EPA,
States, and local governments are making steady progress toward
reducing overflows under the 1994 CSO Policy. The Agency is also
working very closely with particular States, such as Indiana, to ensure
that water quality standards, permitting, and enforcement are
effectively coordinated so the entire water program is best leveraged
for reducing the impact of CSOs. EPA is also encouraging State, tribal
and local governments to adopt voluntary guidelines for managing
onsite/decentralized sewage treatment systems and using Clean Water
Revolving Loan Funds to finance systems where appropriate.
iv. future challenges
A. Identifying Future Science Needs
The BEACH Act requires EPA to develop new or revised recommended
water quality criteria for coastal recreation waters. Since EPA issued
its current recommended recreational water quality criteria over 20
years ago, there have been significant advances in molecular biology,
microbiology, and analytical chemistry that should be considered and
factored into the development of new or revised criteria. EPA has been
working to consider these advances as it develops the scientific
foundation for new criteria. EPA decided that the best approach to
complete development of that scientific foundation would be to obtain
individual input from members of the broad scientific and technical
community on the critical path research and science needs for
establishing scientifically defensible criteria by 2012.
Accordingly, EPA held the Experts Scientific Workshop on Critical
Research Needs for Developing New or Revised Recreational Water Quality
Criteria, on March 26-30, 2007 in Warrenton, Virginia; and invited 42
outstanding national and international technical, scientific, and
implementation experts from academia, Federal, State, and local
government, and interest groups.
We brought together U.S. and international experts to obtain
individual input on the critical path research and science needs for
developing scientifically defensible new or revised Clean Water Act
Section 304(a) recreational water quality criteria. A Report from that
meeting identified critical science issues for further study. The
report is available online at www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/
recreation. These issues include:
Need to determine potential human health impacts from
different sources of fecal contamination;
Need to determine potential human health impacts from
pathogens in waters across different climatic and geographic regions;
Need to determine an appropriate risk level for the most
sensitive subpopulation(s); and,
Need to identify appropriate indicators and methods for
measuring fecal contamination.
This expert report will be considered by EPA as we develop a
science plan to help address the previously mentioned critical issues
necessary to develop recreational water quality criteria. The science
plan will further inform the Agency as it sets overall research
priorities.
v. conclusion
We have made significant progress in the implementation of programs
and practices to protect our coastal recreational waters. EPA plans to
continue this work to achieve the BEACH Program's long-term goals.
We will continue to work with this committee, our Federal and State
partners, and the many stakeholders and citizens who want to accelerate
the pace and efficiency of coastal recreational water protection and
restoration.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks; I would be happy
to respond to any questions you may have.
______
Responses by Benjamin H. Grumbles to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. One of the main focuses of the GAO report and the
various bills introduced by my colleagues address the need for the real
time testing for pathogens. Can you tell the committee more about the
work EPA is doing to bring these technologies to fruition and how far
off do you think they are?
Response. EPA has been supporting cutting-edge research aimed at
developing molecular-based methods for rapid detection of fecal
contamination in coastal waters (e.g., DNA-based tests--also referred
to as rapid tests) and relating these measurements to human illness at
beaches. These new test methods can be used by laboratories to measure
the number of micro-organisms in a sample in 2 hours or less, because
they do not require 24-48 hours to grow the organisms in culture medium
(e.g., in Petri dishes), which has been the practice for decades. The
rapid methods rely on technology that measures in a water sample the
amount of DNA of organisms that are found in fecal matter. Even though
the assay time is decreased significantly and, based on the data from
the current studies' application of the rapid methods, provide more
accurate assessments of recreational water quality, as discussed below,
this does not mean that the entire process of sampling to beach manager
notification occurs in 2-hours.
EPA has already completed four major epidemiology studies using
these new DNA-based tests and is in the process of conducting two more
studies this summer at marine beaches in Rhode Island and Alabama. EPA
expects to be conducting additional similar studies over the course of
the next 3 years to evaluate rapid tests for their use in recreational
water quality criteria. EPA's research will not only include the rapid
methods for measuring the concentration of currently recommended
indicator organisms, but also addresses the challenge of identifying
additional or complementary indicators to the current recommended
Enterococcus and E. coli bacterial indicators. A list of studies
initiated and completed by EPA is attached at the end of this document.
While rapid tests are sometimes referred to as ``real-time'' tests,
they are not in fact real-time tests, as there is still a delay between
water sampling and obtaining test results. Even though these tests show
great promise in being able to substantially reduce (by more than \1/
2\) the time required to determine the amount of fecal contamination in
waters and to return the results to beach managers they will not
shorten the time required to collect water samples and deliver them to
the test laboratory (typically 4 to 5 hours or longer). Nor will they
shorten the time required to convey test results to the appropriate
authorities and the public (1 to 2 hours or more). Additionally, there
are a number of technical challenges that must be addressed before the
rapid methods can be used in routine beach monitoring programs. Among
the other aspects of the rapid methods' technology that EPA is
addressing in its research is the additional challenge in
interpretation of the rapid methods results when compared with culture
methods. For example, the rapid methods do not currently distinguish
between genetic material from live and dead indicator organisms.
Further, a better understanding of the detection level characteristics
of the rapid methods, relative to background organism levels, is
needed.
Still, these rapid tests have several benefits. They shorten the
time from when poor water quality occurs to when a test can confirm
that the water quality is in fact poor. This would shorten the time it
takes to post an advisory or to close the beach during poor water
quality conditions, and thereby reduce potential public health risk.
The shorter test period would also shorten the time required to remove
the advisory and/or reopen the beach when water quality improves.
Before any new test can be required to be used, the EPA will have
to complete additional studies at more locations to ensure that the
data are representative of a broad range of geographic and climactic
conditions. In addition, for official EPA approval of any standardized
method, it must undergo an interlaboratory validation process. EPA
began the methods validation process in spring 2007, and additional
work is needed before EPA officially approves the method. State and
local public health officials use the results of monitoring to make
health-based decisions to close or open a beach, or to issue or lift a
beach advisory. These officials need to know that the analytical method
they use provides reliable and reproducible results for the right
indicator; therefore, States typically only use methods that have
already been validated and approved by EPA. Further, to be able to
bring a faster test into routine use, States also need to have the
confidence that issues related to the purchase of test equipment,
training, laboratory capacity, and certification of laboratories will
have been addressed. EPA recognizes that as we move forward in the
development of new or revised criteria, consideration of these issues
must be part of the process.
Question 2. Recognizing that statutory deadlines have passed, how
important is it that EPA is given ample time to conduct comprehensive
scientific epidemiological studies of pathogens and pathogen indicators
before finalizing a new water quality criterion? Can you describe for
the committee what EPA has done with regard to the requirements to
conduct the studies and develop new criteria since passage of the BEACH
Act of 2000?
Response. EPA and its partners (researchers as well as States) need
the time to do the necessary research to ensure a sound scientific
foundation for new water quality criteria. We have made a strong start
but have not come as far as we need to. EPA has invested approximately
$14 million since 2000 on research to better understand pathogens and
pathogen indicators in recreational waters. This research includes:
four epidemiological studies in the Great Lakes, the start of a marine
study in Biloxi Mississippi in 2005, two ongoing marine epidemiology
studies in Alabama and Rhode Island this summer, the Environmental
Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking (EMPACT) Beaches
Project, reported on in August 2005, and work to develop predictive
models to aid beach managers in making beach advisory decisions. A more
complete listing of research initiated and completed by EPA is
attached. While this research answered many questions related to
pathogens and pathogen indicators, it has also identified and confirmed
important gaps and questions that we must address in developing sound
and defensible new or revised criteria. EPA recognizes the essential
importance of ensuring a sound scientific foundation for new criteria.
If EPA does not have a sufficient scientific foundation to support
local advisories, beach managers may make wrong decisions resulting in
poor public health outcomes (when beaches are left open when they
should have been closed) or lost revenues associated with unnecessary
beach closures.
EPA has openly and aggressively engaged the broader research,
academic, State, and interested stakeholder community regarding what
science needs to be done. These stakeholders have raised important
issues relating to the extent to which EPA criteria based on human
illness rates associated with swimming in waters contaminated with
human fecal matter would be over-protective or under-protective for
waters contaminated with non-human waste, such as waste from wildlife,
pets, or livestock. Since many beaches in the U.S. are not located in
proximity to major sources of human waste material, stakeholders
believe that EPA needs to conduct or support the studies needed to
better understand the relative risk of these sources before issuing new
criteria. We believe that doing this additional work and also looking
at additional indicators and rapid methods that might provide for
better criteria, applicable to the full range of beach settings, is
necessary for the development of sound, defensible criteria.
In March 2007, EPA convened a group of 43 national and
international technical, scientific, and implementation experts from
academia, numerous States, public interest groups, EPA, and other
Federal agencies, at a formal workshop to discuss the state of the
science on recreational water quality research and implementation. The
purpose of the workshop was for EPA to obtain individual input from
members of the greater scientific and technical community on the
``critical path'' research and science needs for developing
scientifically defensible new or revised CWA Sec. 304(a)(9)
recreational ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) in the near-term.
Near-term needs were defined as specific research and science
activities that could be accomplished in a 3-year time-frame so that
results are available to EPA in time to support developing new or
revised criteria. The new or revised criteria, which would be available
from EPA in roughly 5 years (2012), should be scientifically sound,
protective of the designated use, easily implemented by States,
applicable for broad Clean Water Act purposes, and when implemented,
provide for improved public health protection.
Finally, EPA notes that we already have indicator criteria to
protect against human pathogens at beaches. EPA believes the current
criteria, based on E-coli and Eenterococci, which have largely replaced
earlier criteria based on fecal and total coliforms, are serviceable
until better criteria are available. Pursuant to the BEACHES Act, EPA
has promulgated criteria based on these indicators for all coastal
States (including Great Lake States) that did not already have
comparably protective standards in place. EPA has also been working
with other States to promote adoption of our currently recommended
criteria. EPA believes it is important to complete the research
necessary to ensure that the next generation of indicators and criteria
represent a genuine improvement over the existing criteria.
Question 3. There is discussion in U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Experts Scientific Workshop report about the variability among
regions of the country and the potential need for different criteria
for different types of waters in different parts of the country.
Stakeholders have also spoken with my office about the need to address
different uses for recreational waters. Do you anticipate EPA will be
able to develop criteria to reflect secondary recreational contact and
the different regions of the country?
Response. The experts at the Scientific Workshop provided input
regarding differences in geographic/climactic conditions that should be
considered to ensure that any new criteria are scientifically
defensible for application in a wide variety of conditions that occur
throughout the United States. EPA expects to complete studies for a
range of geographic and climactic conditions and EPA recognizes the
possibility that different indicators and methods may be more or less
appropriate depending upon the location of waters.
In light of the need for EPA to move as quickly as possible to
complete the necessary research and issue new or revised criteria to
comply with the Beach Act requirements for new or revised primary
contact recreational water quality criteria, EPA does not expect at
this time to be developing EPA recommended criteria for secondary
contact recreation. However, we understand that parallel work is
underway in the wastewater community in Chicago to study the risks to
humans exposed to waters containing high levels of undisinfected
treated wastewater through secondary contact recreational activities
(e.g., use of paddle boats, canoes, etc). EPA will review the results
of this study and will consider the results of that work as it moves
forward.
______
Responses by Benjamin H. Grumbles to Additional Questions
Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. Please provide a copy of the ``Report of the Experts
Scientific Workshop on Critical Research Needs for the Development of
New or Revised Recreational Water Quality Criteria'' (U.S. EPA, Office
of Water, Office of Research and Development, June 8, 2007). We
understand that there are at least two different versions of the
Executive Summary that were prepared with this report. Please provide
copies of all versions of the Executive Summary.
Response. The full report together with an Executive Summary
representing the views of 7 Workgroup Chairs is enclosed. For
clarification, only one Executive Summary was produced in conjunction
with this workshop. The full report and Executive Summary are available
on our Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/
recreation/.
Question 2. Please provide the committee with the science action
plan and time line for the completion of additional studies and
research that will be used to develop and publish new or revised water
quality criteria. If the action plan and time line have not yet been
developed, please provide the committee with the date they will be
available and, once they are available, copies of them.
Response. With respect to recreational water quality criteria, EPA
is developing a Critical Path Science Plan for Development of New or
Revised Recreational Water Quality Criteria (CPSP or Science Plan). The
purpose of the CPSP is to articulate the critical path research and
science that EPA expects to complete by the end of 2010 to establish
the scientific foundation for new or revised recreational water quality
criteria. Additionally, EPA is developing a Criteria Development Plan
that will outline the steps involved in publishing new or revised
304(a)(9) criteria after the research is completed.
The critical research will be informed, in part, by the input on
essential research and science needs identified by forty-three
international and U.S. experts who attended a scientific workshop held
by EPA in March 2007. EPA sponsored the workshop to get individual
input from the greater scientific and technical community on the near-
term research and science needs to develop new or revised CWA Section
304(a)(9) criteria, fully supported by the soundest science. Near-term
needs were defined as specific research and science activities that
could be accomplished in a 3-year timeframe to support development of
new or revised criteria by 2012.
The draft CPSP has been submitted for expedited scientific peer
review; EPA expects to issue to the public the CPSP before the end of
the summer 2007. EPA will provide the committee with a copy of the CPSP
as soon as it is made final.
attachment a: studies already initiated and completed by epa
1. Four Great Lakes Freshwater Beach Epidemiological Studies
evaluating the relationship between water quality and swimming-
associated illness at freshwater coastal beaches;
2. Method Development Study of qPCR methods for Enterococcus and
Bacteroides;
3. Method Evaluation of Off-the-Shelf Technologies for rapid
methods for indicators of fecal contamination;
4. Development of Chemical Indicator Study evaluating other
chemical substances, including coprostanol, urobilin, caffeine,
acetaminophen, cotinine and codeine as possible indicators of human
fecal contamination (from sewage);
5. EMPACT Study collecting data at multiple beaches to be used in
the development of a monitoring protocols for measuring the quality of
bathing beach waters;
6. Study to develop a Virtual Beaches model intended to allow beach
managers to collect and analyze explanatory variables and develop a
beach prediction tool;
7. Matrices Evaluation Study testing the aquatic matrix effects on
the performance of the qPCR method in order to determine the method's
applicability beyond the four test sites.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles.
Ms. Mittal, we welcome you and invite you to give your
testimony now, please.
STATEMENT OF ANU K. MITTAL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Mittal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are pleased to be
here today to participate in your hearing on the BEACH Act of
2000.
Last month, GAO issued a report on the BEACH Act and its
impact on water quality monitoring at some of our Nation's
coastal beaches. My testimony today will summarize the results
of that report.
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 7 of the 9 provisions and 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 pollution 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.
Second, it has not published the new water quality criteria
that were required by 2005. As a result, States continue to use
outdated criteria to monitor water quality.
Because actions on these two provisions are several years
behind schedule and may not be completed until 2011, we
recommended that EPA provide the Congress with a definitive
time line for completing these actions. The BEACH Act also
authorized EPA to make $30 million in grants annually to
eligible State and territories. However, since 2002, the grant
program has only been funded at $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, received 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
formula. We have therefore recommended that if funding for the
program is not going to increase, then EPA should reevaluate
the formula.
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 monitoring, States
now know which beaches are more likely to be contaminated,
which ones are relatively clean and which ones may require
additional resources. However, we also identified several
inconsistencies in how 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 the
States. To address these concerns, we recommended that EPA
develop specific guidance for the programs the States have
implemented.
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 have told us that they do not have the funds to identify
what is causing the contamination and to take action to
mitigate the problem. BEACH Act funds cannot be used for this
purpose.
Therefore, we recommended that the Congress consider
providing some flexibility to the States and allow them to use
a part of their BEACH Act grants to identify sources of
contamination and take some corrective action.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while the BEACH Act has helped
States improve water quality monitoring, much remains to be
done if we want to fully protect U.S. beach-goers. EPA needs to
complete the studies and 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 and notification programs
need to be resolved, and funding is still needed to address
sources of contamination.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be happy
to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mittal follows:]
Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on
the implementation of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act, known as the BEACH Act. Congress passed the BEACH Act in
2000, to improve States' beach monitoring programs and processes for
notifying the public of potential health risks from beach
contamination. As you know, waterborne pathogens such as bacteria,
viruses, and parasites can contaminate the water and sand at beaches
and threaten human health. Contact with or accidental ingestion of
contaminated water can cause vomiting, diarrhea, and other illnesses,
and may be life-threatening for susceptible populations such as
children, the elderly, and those with impaired immune systems. State
and local health officials may issue health advisories or close beaches
when they believe levels of waterborne pathogens are high enough to
threaten human health. Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for publishing water quality
criteria that establish thresholds at which contamination--including
waterborne pathogens--may threaten human health.
Our testimony is based on GAO's recently issued report\1\ on BEACH
Act implementation in the eight Great Lakes States and will cover three
issues (1) the extent to which EPA has implemented the provisions of
the Act, (2) concerns about EPA's formula for allocating BEACH Act
grants, and (3) States' experiences in developing and implementing
beach monitoring and notification programs using BEACH Act grants.
Although, our testimony and recent report addressed the Great Lakes
States, published EPA data and information presented at EPA sponsored
BEACH Act conferences suggest that the findings are applicable
nationwide. In summary, we found the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing
the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health
Protection, GAO-07-591 (Washington, DC: May 1, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has implemented seven of the BEACH Act's nine
requirements and provisions, but has missed statutory deadlines for two
critical requirements. Among other things, EPA promulgated water
quality standards for the 21 States and territories that had not
adopted EPA's water quality criteria and developed a national list of
beaches. However, EPA has not (1) completed the pathogen and human
health studies that were required by 2003 or (2) published new or
revised water quality criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators
that were required by 2005. EPA told us that the required studies are
ongoing, but may take an additional 4 to 5 years to complete, and that
the development of new pathogen indicators would follow completion of
the studies. We recommended that EPA establish a definitive time line
for completing the studies required by the BEACH Act and for publishing
new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens and pathogen
indicators. EPA concurred with this recommendation.
Although EPA has distributed approximately $51 million in
BEACH Act grants between 2001 and 2006 to the 35 eligible States and
territories, EPA's formula for distributing BEACH Act grant funds does
not reflect the States' varied monitoring needs. EPA's formula is based
on three factors--length of beach season; beach miles, as measured by
length of shoreline; and beach use, as measured by coastal population.
If the program had received its full funding of $30 million annually
that EPA used to develop the formula, each of the formula factors would
have had a roughly equal impact on the grant allocations made to
States. However, the program has received only about $10 million
annually. Consequently, the beach season factor which EPA uses as a
baseline for calculating States' grants has had a greater influence
(about 82 percent) on the total BEACH Act grants each State received,
while beach miles and beach use, which vary widely among the States and
can impact the public health risk, have had a significantly smaller
impact (about 9 percent each). As a result, States that have greater
beach monitoring needs because of their longer coastlines and larger
coastal populations, receive almost the same amount of funding as those
States with smaller coastlines and coastal populations. We recommended
that EPA reevaluate the funding formula it uses to distribute BEACH Act
grants. While EPA concurred in the need to reevaluate the formula, it
stated that some States were reluctant to make any significant changes
to the formula.
States' use of BEACH Act grant funds to develop and
implement beach monitoring and public notification programs has
generally increased the extent of beach monitoring. However, States
vary considerably in the frequency with which they monitor beaches, the
monitoring methods used, and the means by which they notify the public
of associated health risks. These differences are due, in part, to the
current BEACH Act funding levels, which some State officials said are
inadequate for sufficient monitoring. Moreover, while increased
frequency of monitoring has helped States and localities identify the
scope of contamination, in most cases, the underlying causes of the
contamination remain unknown and unaddressed. Local officials from
within the Great Lakes States told us that they generally do not have
the funds to investigate and identify sources of contamination or to
take actions to mitigate the problem, and EPA has concluded that States
cannot use BEACH grants for this purpose. To assist States and
localities nationwide in identifying and addressing sources of beach
contamination, we recommended that the Congress consider allowing
States some flexibility to use their BEACH Act grants to undertake
limited research to identify specific sources of contamination at
monitored beaches and take certain actions to mitigate these problems.
In addition, we recommended that EPA provide States and localities with
specific guidance on monitoring frequency and public notification.
background
Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is responsible for publishing water
quality criteria that establish thresholds at which contamination--
including waterborne pathogens--may threaten human health. States are
required to develop standards, or legal limits, for these pathogens by
either adopting EPA's recommended water quality criteria or other
criteria that EPA determines are equally protective of human health.
The States then use these pathogen standards to assess water quality at
their recreational beaches. The BEACH Act amended the Clean Water Act
to require the 35 eligible States and territories to update their
recreational water quality standards using EPA's 1986 criteria for
pathogen indicators. In addition, the BEACH Act required EPA to (1)
complete studies on pathogens in coastal recreational waters and how
they affect human health, including developing rapid methods of
detecting pathogens by October 2003, and (2) publish new or revised
water quality criteria by October 2005, to be reviewed and revised as
necessary every 5 years thereafter.
The BEACH Act also authorized EPA to award grants to States,
localities, and tribes to develop comprehensive beach monitoring and
public notification programs for their recreational beaches. To be
eligible for BEACH Act grants, States are required to (1) identify
their recreational beaches, (2) prioritize their recreational beaches
for monitoring based on their use by the public and the risk to human
health, and (3) establish a public notification program. EPA grant
criteria give States some flexibility on the frequency of monitoring,
methods of monitoring, and processes for notifying the public when
pathogen indicators exceed State standards, including whether to issue
health advisories or close beaches. Although the BEACH Act authorized
EPA to provide $30 million in grants annually for fiscal years 2001
through 2005,\2\ since fiscal year 2001, congressional conference
reports accompanying EPA's appropriations acts have directed about $10
million annually for BEACH Act grants and EPA has followed this
congressional direction when allocating funds to the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although the BEACH Act was orginally authorized through 2005,
Congress continued to fund EPA's efforts under the act in 2006 and
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
epa has implemented some but not all of the beach act provisions
EPA has made progress implementing the BEACH Act's provisions but
has missed statutory deadlines for two critical requirements. Of the
nine actions required by the BEACH Act, EPA has taken action on the
following seven:
Propose water quality standards and criteria.--The BEACH Act
required each State with coastal recreation waters to incorporate EPA's
published criteria for pathogens or pathogen indicators, or criteria
EPA considers equally protective of human health, into their State
water quality standards by April 10, 2004. The BEACH Act also required
EPA to propose regulations setting forth Federal water quality
standards for those States that did not meet the deadline. On November
16, 2004, EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule
promulgating its 1986 water quality standards for E. coli and
enterococci for the 21 States and territories that had not adopted
water quality criteria that were as protective of human health as EPA's
approved water quality criteria. According to EPA, all 35 States with
coastal recreational waters are now using EPA's 1986 criteria, compared
with the 11 States that were using these criteria in 2000.
Provide BEACH Act grants.--The BEACH Act authorized EPA to
distribute annual grants to States, territories, tribes and, in certain
situations, local governments to develop and implement beach monitoring
and notification programs. Since 2001, EPA has awarded approximately
$51 million in development and implementation grants for beach
monitoring and notification programs to all 35 States. Alaska is the
only eligible State that has not yet received a BEACH Act
implementation grant because it is still in the process of developing a
monitoring and public notification program consistent with EPA's grant
performance criteria. EPA expects to distribute approximately $10
million for the 2007 beach season subject to the availability of funds.
Publish beach monitoring guidance and performance criteria for
grants.--The BEACH Act required EPA to develop guidance and performance
criteria for beach monitoring and assessment for States receiving BEACH
Act grants by April 2002. After a year of consultations with coastal
States and organizations, EPA responded to this requirement in 2002 by
issuing its National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria
for Grants. To be eligible for BEACH Act grants, EPA requires
recipients to develop (1) a list of beaches evaluated and ranked
according to risk, (2) methods for monitoring water quality at their
beaches, such as when and where to conduct sampling, and (3) plans for
notifying the public of the risk from pathogen contamination at
beaches, among other requirements.
Develop a list of coastal recreational waters.--The BEACH Act
required EPA to identify and maintain a publicly available list of
coastal recreational waters adjacent to beaches or other publicly
accessible areas, with information on whether or not each is subject to
monitoring and public notification. In March 2004, EPA published its
first comprehensive National List of Beaches based on information that
the States had provided as a condition for receiving BEACH Act grants.
The list identified 6,099 coastal recreational beaches, of which 3,472,
or 57 percent, were being monitored. The BEACH Act also requires EPA to
periodically update its initial list and publish revisions in the
Federal Register. However, EPA has not yet published a revised list, in
part because some States have not provided updated information.
Develop a water pollution database.--The BEACH Act required EPA to
establish, maintain, and make available to the public an electronic
national water pollution database. In May 2005, EPA unveiled
``eBeaches,'' a collection of data pulled from multiple databases on
the location of beaches, water quality monitoring, and public
notifications of beach closures and advisories. This information has
been made available to the public through an online tool called BEACON
(Beach Advisory and Closing Online Notification). EPA officials
acknowledge that eBeaches has had some implementation problems,
including periods of downtime when States were unable to submit their
data, and States have had difficulty compiling the data and getting it
into EPA's desired format. EPA is working to centralize its databases
so that States can more easily submit information and expects the data
reporting will become easier for States as they further develop their
system.
Provide technical assistance on floatable materials.--The BEACH Act
required EPA to provide technical assistance to help States, tribes,
and localities develop their own assessment and monitoring procedures
for floatable debris in coastal recreational waters. EPA responded by
publishing guidance titled Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris in
August 2002. The guidance provided examples of monitoring and
assessment programs that have addressed the impact of floatable debris
and examples of mitigation activities to address floatable debris.
Provide a report to Congress on status of BEACH Act
implementation.--The BEACH Act required EPA to report to Congress 4
years after enactment of the act and every 4 years thereafter on the
status of implementation. EPA completed its first report for Congress,
Implementing the BEACH Act of 2000: Report to Congress in October 2006,
which was 2 years after the October 2004 deadline. EPA officials noted
that they missed the deadline because they needed additional time to
include updates on current research and States' BEACH Act
implementation activities and to complete both internal and external
reviews.
EPA has not yet completed the following two BEACH Act requirements:
Conduct epidemiological studies.--The BEACH Act required EPA to
publish new epidemiological studies concerning pathogens and the
protection of human health for marine and freshwater by April 10, 2002,
and to complete the studies by October 10, 2003. The studies were to:
(1) assess potential human health risks resulting from exposure to
pathogens in coastal waters; (2) identify appropriate and effective
pathogen indicator(s) to improve the timely detection of pathogens in
coastal waters; (3) identify appropriate, accurate, expeditious, and
cost-effective methods for detecting the presence of pathogens; and (4)
provide guidance for State application of the criteria. EPA initiated
its multiyear National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of
Recreational Water Study in 2001 in collaboration with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. The first component of this study was
to develop faster pathogen indicator testing procedures. The second
component was to further clarify the health risk of swimming in
contaminated water, as measured by these faster pathogen indicator
testing procedures. While EPA completed these studies for freshwater--
showing a promising relationship between a faster pathogen indicator
and possible adverse health effects from bacterial contamination--it
has not completed the studies for marine water. EPA initiated marine
studies in Biloxi, Mississippi, in the summer of 2005, 3 years past the
statutory deadline for beginning this work, but the work was
interrupted by Hurricane Katrina. EPA initiated two additional marine
water studies in the summer of 2007.
Publish new pathogen criteria.--The BEACH Act required EPA to use
the results of its epidemiological studies to identify new pathogen
indicators with associated criteria, as well as new pathogen testing
measures by October 2005. However, since EPA has not completed the
studies on which these criteria were to be based, this task has been
delayed.
In the absence of new criteria for pathogens and pathogen
indicators, States continue to use EPA's 1986 criteria to monitor their
beaches. An EPA official told us that EPA has not established a time
line for completing these two remaining provisions of the BEACH Act but
estimates it may take an additional 4-5 years. One EPA official told us
that the initial timeframes in the act may not have been realistic.
EPA's failure to complete studies on the health effects of pathogens
for marine waters and failure to publish revised water quality criteria
for pathogens and pathogen indicators prompted the Natural Resources
Defense Council to file suit against EPA on August 2, 2006, for failing
to comply with the statutory obligations of the BEACH Act.
To ensure that EPA complies with the requirements laid out in the
BEACH Act, we recommended that it establish a definitive time line for
completing the studies on pathogens and their effects on human health,
and for publishing new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens
and pathogen indicators.
epa's beach grant formula does not adequately reflect states'
monitoring needs
While EPA distributed approximately $51 million in BEACH Act grants
between 2001 and 2006 to the 35 eligible States and territories, its
grant distribution formula does not adequately account for States'
widely varied beach monitoring needs. When Congress passed the BEACH
Act in 2000, it authorized $30 million in grants annually, but the act
did not specify how EPA should distribute grants to eligible States.
EPA determined that initially $2 million would be distributed equally
to all eligible States to cover the base cost of developing water
quality monitoring and notification programs. EPA then developed a
distribution formula for future annual grants that reflected the BEACH
Act's emphasis on beach use and risk to human health. EPA's funding
formula includes the following three factors:
Length of beach season.--EPA selected beach season length
as a factor because States with longer beach seasons would require more
monitoring.
Beach use.--EPA selected beach use as a factor because
more heavily used beaches would expose a larger number of people to
pathogens, increasing the public health risk and thus requiring more
monitoring. EPA used coastal population as a proxy for beach use
because information on the number of beach visitors was not
consistently available across all the States.
Beach miles.--EPA selected beach miles because States with
longer shorelines would require more monitoring. EPA used shoreline
miles, which may include industrial and other nonpublicly accessible
areas, as a proxy for beach miles because verifiable data for beach
miles was not available.
Once EPA determined which funding formula factors to use, EPA
officials weighted the factors. EPA intended that the beach season
factor would provide the base funding and would be augmented by the
beach use and beach mile factors. EPA established a series of fixed
amounts that correspond to States' varying lengths of beach seasons to
cover the general expenses associated with a beach monitoring program.
For example, EPA estimated that a beach season of 3 or fewer months
would require approximately two full-time employees costing $150,000,
while States with beach seasons greater than 6 months would require
$300,000. Once the allotments for beach season length were distributed,
EPA determined that 50 percent of the remaining funds would be
distributed according to States' beach use, and the other 50 percent
would be distributed according to States' beach miles, as shown in
table 1.
Table 1.--BEACH Act Grant Distribution Formula
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula factor Amount of grant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beach season length....................... Less than 3 months: $150,000
3-4 months: $200,000
5-6 months: $250,000
Greater than 6 months:
$300,000
Beach use................................. 50 percent of funds
remaining after allotment
of beach season length
funding.
Beach miles............................... 50 percent of funds
remaining after allotment
of beach season length
funding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA
aStates with less than a 3-month beach season only receive the $150,000
in beach season length funding.
EPA officials told us that, using the distribution formula above
and assuming a $30 million authorization, the factors were to have
received relatively equal weight in calculating States' grants and
would have resulted in the following allocation: beach season--27
percent (about $8 million); beach use--37 percent (about $11 million);
and beach miles--37 percent (about $11 million). However, because
funding levels for BEACH Act grants have been about $10 million each
year, once the approximately $8 million, of the total available for
grants, was allotted for beach season length, this left only $2
million, instead of nearly $22 million, to be distributed equally
between the beach use and beach miles factors. This resulted in the
following allocation: beach season--82 percent (about $8 million);
beach use--9 percent (about $1 million); and beach miles--9 percent
(about $1 million).
Because beach use and beach miles vary widely among the States, but
account for a much smaller portion of the distribution formula, BEACH
Act grant amounts may vary little between States that have
significantly different shorelines or coastal populations. For example,
across the Great Lakes, there is significant variation in coastal
populations and in miles of shoreline, but current BEACH Act grant
allocations are relatively flat. As a result, Indiana, which has 45
miles of shoreline and a coastal population of 741,468, received about
$205,800 in 2006, while Michigan, which has 3,224 miles of shoreline
and a coastal population of 4,842,023, received about $278,450 in 2006.
Similarly, the current formula gives localities that have a longer
beach season and significantly smaller coastal populations an advantage
over localities that have a shorter beach season but significantly
greater population. For example, Guam and American Samoa with 12-month
beach seasons and coastal populations of less than 200,000 each receive
larger grants than Maryland and Virginia, with 4-month beach seasons
and coastal populations of 3.6 and 4.4 million, respectively.
If EPA reweighted the factors so that they were still roughly equal
given the $10 million allocation, we believe that BEACH Act grants to
the States would better reflect their needs. Consequently, we
recommended that if current funding levels remain the same, that the
Agency should revise the formula for distributing BEACH Act grants to
better reflect the States' varied monitoring needs by reevaluating the
formula factors to determine if the weight of the beach season factor
should be reduced and if the weight of the other factors, such as beach
use and beach miles should be increased.
experiences of the great lakes and other eligible states in
implementing beach act grants
States' use of BEACH Act grants to develop and implement beach
monitoring and public notification programs has increased the number of
beaches being monitored and the frequency of monitoring. However,
States vary considerably in the frequency in which they monitor
beaches, the monitoring methods used, and the means by which they
notify the public of health risks. Specifically, 34 of the 35 eligible
States have used BEACH Act grants to develop beach monitoring and
public notification programs; and the remaining State, Alaska, is in
the process of setting up its program. However, these programs have
been implemented somewhat inconsistently by the States which could lead
to inconsistent levels of public health protection at beaches in the
United States. In addition, while the Great Lakes and other eligible
States have been able to increase their understanding of the scope of
contamination as a result of BEACH Act grants, the underlying causes of
this contamination usually remain unresolved, primarily due to a lack
of funding. For example, EPA reports that nationwide when beaches are
found to have high levels of contamination, the most frequent source of
contamination listed as the cause is ``unknown''.
BEACH Act officials from six of the eight Great Lakes States that
we reviewed--Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and
Wisconsin--reported that the number of beaches being monitored in their
State has increased since the passage of the BEACH Act in 2000. For
example, in Minnesota, State officials reported that only one beach was
being monitored prior to the BEACH Act, and there are now 39 beaches
being monitored in three counties. In addition, EPA data show that, in
1999, the number of beaches identified in the Great Lakes was about
330, with about 250 being monitored. In 2005, the most recent year for
which data are available, the Great Lakes States identified almost 900
beaches of which about 550 were being monitored.
In addition to an increase in the number of beaches being
monitored, the frequency of monitoring at many of the beaches in the
Great Lakes has increased. We estimated that 45 percent of Great Lakes
beaches increased the frequency of their monitoring since the passage
of the BEACH Act. For example, Indiana officials told us that prior to
the BEACH Act, monitoring was done a few times per week at their
beaches but now monitoring is done 5-7 days per week. Similarly, local
officials in one Ohio county reported that they used to test some
beaches along Lake Erie twice a month prior to the BEACH Act but now
they test these beaches once a week. States outside of the Great Lakes
region have reported similar benefits of receiving BEACH Act grants.
For example, State officials from Connecticut, Florida, and Washington
reported increases in the number of beaches they are now able to
monitor or the frequency of the monitoring they are now able to
conduct.
Because of the information available from BEACH Act monitoring
activities, State and local beach officials are now better able to
determine which of their beaches are more likely to be contaminated,
which are relatively clean, and which may require additional monitoring
resources to help them better understand the levels of contamination
that may be present. For example, State BEACH Act officials reported
that they now know which beaches are regularly contaminated or are
being regularly tested for elevated levels of contamination. We
determined that officials at 54 percent of Great Lakes beaches we
surveyed believe that their ability to make advisory and closure
decisions has increased or greatly increased since they initiated BEACH
Act water quality monitoring programs.
However, because EPA's grant criteria and the BEACH Act give States
and localities some flexibility in implementing their programs we also
identified significant variability among the Great Lakes States beach
monitoring and notification programs. We believe that this variability
is most likely also occurring in other States as well because of the
lack of specificity in EPA's guidance. Specifically, we identified the
following differences in how the Great Lake States have implemented
their programs.
Frequency of monitoring.--Some Great Lakes States are monitoring
their high-priority beaches almost daily, while other States monitor
their high-priority beaches as little as one to two times per week. The
variation in monitoring frequency in the Great Lakes States is due in
part to the availability of funding. For example, State officials in
Michigan and Wisconsin reported insufficient funding for monitoring.
Methods of sampling.--Most of the Great Lakes States and localities
use similar sampling methods to monitor water quality at local beaches.
For example, officials at 79 percent of the beaches we surveyed
reported that they collected water samples during the morning, and 78
percent reported that they always collected water samples from the same
location. Collecting data at the same time of day and from the same
site ensures more consistent water quality data. However, we found
significant variations in the depth at which local officials in the
Great Lakes States were taking water samples. According to EPA, depth
is a key determinant of microbial indicator levels. EPA's guidance
recommends that beach officials sample at the same depth--knee depth,
or approximately 3-feet deep--for all beaches to ensure consistency and
comparability among samples. Great Lakes States varied considerably in
the depths at which they sampled water, with some sampling occurring at
1-6 inches and other sampling at 37-48 inches.
Public notification.--Local officials in the Great Lakes differ in
the information they use to decide whether to issue health advisories
or close beaches when water contamination exceeds EPA criteria and in
how to notify the public of their decision. These differences reflect
States' varied standards for triggering an advisory, closure, or both.
Also, we found that States' and localities' means of notifying the
public of health advisories or beach closures vary across the Great
Lakes. Some States post water quality monitoring results on signs at
beaches; some provide results on the Internet or on telephone hotlines;
and some distribute the information to local media.
To address this variability in how the States are implementing
their BEACH Act grant funded monitoring and notification programs, we
recommended that EPA provide States and localities with specific
guidance on monitoring frequency and methods and public notification.
Further, even though BEACH Act funds have increased the level of
monitoring being undertaken by the States, the specific sources of
contamination at most beaches are not known. For example, we determined
that local officials at 67 percent of Great Lakes' beaches did not know
the sources of bacterial contamination causing water quality standards
to be exceeded during the 2006 beach season and EPA officials confirmed
that the primary source of contamination at beaches nationwide is
reported by State officials as ``unknown.'' For example, because State
and local officials in the Great Lakes States do not have enough
information on the specific sources of contamination and generally lack
funds for remediation, most of the sources of contamination at beaches
have not been addressed. Local officials from these States indicated
that they had taken actions to address the sources of contamination at
an estimated 14 percent of the monitored beaches.
EPA has concluded that BEACH Act grant funds generally may be used
only for monitoring and notification purposes. While none of the eight
Great Lakes State officials suggested that the BEACH Act was intended
to help remediate the sources of contamination, several State officials
believe that it may be more beneficial to use BEACH Act grants to
identify and remediate sources of contamination rather than just
continue to monitor water quality at beaches and notify the public when
contamination occurs. Local officials also reported a need for funding
to identify and address sources of contamination. Furthermore, at EPA's
National Beaches Conference in October 2006, a panel of Federal and
academic researches recommended that EPA provide the States with more
freedom on how they spend their BEACH Act funding.
To address this issue, we recommended that as the Congress
considers reauthorization of the BEACH Act, that it should consider
providing EPA some flexibility in awarding BEACH Act grants to allow
States to undertake limited research to identify specific sources of
contamination at monitored beaches and certain actions to mitigate
these problems, as specified by EPA.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, EPA has made progress in implementing
many of the BEACH Act's requirements but it may still be several years
before EPA completes the pathogen studies and develops the new water
quality criteria required by the act. Until these actions are
completed, States will have to continue to use existing outdated
methods. In addition, the formula EPA developed to distribute BEACH Act
grants to the States was based on the assumption that the program would
receive its fully authorized allocation of $30 million. Because the
program has not received full funding and EPA has not adjusted the
formula to reflect reduced funding levels, the current distribution of
grants fails to adequately take into account the varied monitoring
needs of the States. Finally, as evidenced by the experience of the
Great Lakes States, the BEACH Act has helped States increase their
level of monitoring and their knowledge about the scope of
contamination at area beaches. However, the variability in how the
States are conducting their monitoring, how they are notifying the
public, and their lack of funding to address the source of
contamination continues to raise concerns about the adequacy of
protection that is being provided to beachgoers. This concludes our
prepared statement, we would be happy to respond to any questions you
may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 61972.001
Response by Anu Mittal to an Additional Question from Senator Inhofe
Question. In your report, you mention that the current pathogen
indicators, including E. Coli may not be good indicators in part
because they occur naturally in many environments. Further, the report
States, as did our colleague, Congressman Bilbray, that pathogens from
humans pose a greater risk than from animals.
GAO concludes that EPA should establish a definitive time line for
publishing new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens and
pathogen indicators. Given some of the uncertainties identified in your
report and by others, how important is that EPA develop a standard that
is scientifically sound and addresses these uncertainties?
Response. GAO recommended that EPA develop a definitive time line
for publishing new or revised water quality criteria because the Agency
has missed the statutory deadlines established by the BEACH Act of
2000. The act required EPA to complete new epidemiological studies
concerning pathogens and the protection of human health for marine and
freshwater by 2003 and use the results of these studies to publish new
or revised water quality standards by 2005. EPA has not met these
statutory requirements and could not provide us with a firm time line
for completing these actions, other than stating that it would take at
least 4 to 5 more years.
We also reported that the current pathogen indicators are over 20
years old and were based on research conducted prior to 1986. Since
that time, significant advancements in science have occurred and there
is a better understanding of pathogens in general as well as those that
pose a particular risk to humans. In light of these scientific
advances, we believe it is appropriate for EPA to review and update its
water quality standards, as necessary. To do so, EPA needs to complete
the scientific studies that will help it either support the development
of new standards and test methods or confirm the continued viability of
the existing standards and test methods. In this regard, in response to
the BEACH Act, EPA has completed some studies in freshwater and is
currently conducting other studies in marine water that will provide
valuable information on how the Agency should proceed with the
development of new or revised water quality criteria and test methods
for monitoring of coastal beaches. It is therefore critical for EPA to
complete these studies so that it can make sound decisions regarding
water quality criteria that are based on the most current and best
available science.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Ms. Mittal. We
appreciate the fact that you have highlighted some of these
shortcomings, even as we see that there has been some progress.
Mr. Grumbles, what do you say about the shortages of
activity by way of using the funds available? The grants have
been, Ms. Mittal suggests there are only $10 million worth of
grants when $30 million was available. Why does something like
that occur?
Mr. Grumbles. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we always
welcome the observations from GAO. I think we predicted some of
the questions in advance and have been working over the last
year with the States on the allocation formula for the funding
to make sure that States understand and are comfortable with us
finding a mechanism to get the most bang for our buck, the
Federal taxpayers' dollars.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that one of the key challenges
for us, and opportunities, is to continue to make progress by
getting a collection of the world's experts, scientific
experts, to identify what are the issues and barriers and to
really focus in on that. That is why I am so proud that the
Agency held this session in March, with 42 of the world's
experts on beach pathogen and beach monitoring issues, to help
us so that we can provide an updated science plan by the end of
the summer that will help us continue to make progress and
accelerate the delivery of the key tools under the BEACH Act.
In terms of the funding, it is very important for us in
partnership with the States to make sure, make clear that as
this BEACH Act is implemented, which focuses on monitoring and
public notification, that the States can then use tools such as
the Clean Water Act moneys under the SRF and other programs.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Grumbles, I hear your pride in the
delivery of the report. But the question is, where has EPA been
when the mandates as they existed propose using that money,
propose being up to date with their reporting requirements,
that reports that were due to be delivered in 2003 and 2005 are
not yet here? And now the projection, as Ms. Mittal noted, are
off to some significant time ahead.
We have lost ground in areas that we thought, frankly, that
the legislation that was passed in the year 2000 would have
been taken care of.
Mr. Grumbles. As a staffer, I was here and I saw your
leadership and that of others in passing the statute and
recognized as a staffer at the time, as did EPA, that some of
those deadlines and schedules were ambitious ones. I would say
that what we have done is we have made good use, as an agency,
after 2000, in conducting several important studies, national
studies, to get us to the point where we can issue those
additional criteria, those 304(a) criteria. That is important
to us as well.
I am not happy that we are not able to meet a congressional
deadline. We will be laying out a specific schedule, and it
will be based in part on the new information. The science, Mr.
Chairman, truly has been evolving. But that is not an excuse.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, it is, Mr. Grumbles, the fact
that you may take some satisfaction out of things that were
done. Our mission here as we approach new legislation is to see
why those things were not done, not simply for the purpose of
punishment, but to get on with the job. It has proved to be an
important element, just judging by the number of States that
have signed on. Also the fact that in most recent time that
there have been a lot more discoveries of contaminated beaches,
because we do have the mechanism to identify them.
For instance, we are going to a new funding level. It is a
bit incredulous that as we approach a new funding level to find
out that the old funding level wasn't used as it was available.
Frankly, I don't think there are any excuses, whether there is
lack of specific knowledge, et cetera, to get the States
engaged in this process. If there are insufficient funds or
insufficient encouragement, things are not going to be done.
Now, I want to go on to another part of the subject. States
not currently permitted to use BEACH Act grants to track the
sources of BEACH Act contamination. Ms. Mittal suggests that
this would be a good source for helping trace the source of the
pollutants. How do you see the States' ability to use these
grants? Is it a good idea?
Mr. Grumbles. We don't have an official position yet on the
legislation. But to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, I think
it is a good idea to be focusing increasing attention on
pollution prevention and source tracking. That is why we took
an initiative 2 years ago to develop a sanitary survey form for
Great Lakes beaches and for providing assistance to help on the
sanitary surveys to do detective work on the sources.
I would also say that I think there may be concern about
expanding the scope and mission of the BEACH program to a full
course remediation program, that we need to keep our focus on
the----
Senator Lautenberg. Well, we are not going that far. We are
saying, let's find out where the problems emanate. Then we can
talk further here about what do we do to provide the funding on
the inspiration of the knowledge to get these things done.
Please don't take a lot of satisfaction from form design or
reports. I am very practical, I come from the business world. I
know we have a lot to do, you have a lot to do, as does
everyone else.
Mr. Grumbles. It is providing, laying the foundation for
scientifically defensible criteria. That is what it really
translates into. The sanitary surveys are an important part of
that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. But the conclusion I come to is, as we
look at this, we know things have been weak, that there hasn't
been the vibrant action from the EPA that we would like to see.
Here we say GAO recommends that EPA issue guidance to ensure
that States' monitoring and notification programs are meeting
standards actually protecting the public. Well, I will ask you,
does EPA intend to follow GAO's advice in issuing that kind of
guidance?
Mr. Grumbles. We do plan to issue guidance, improved,
revised guidance. The 2002 guidance had nine specific criteria,
and we think it is very important to update that guidance.
Senator Lautenberg. When might we expect that?
Mr. Grumbles. In 18 months.
Senator Lautenberg. Eighteen months. Do you think that what
is being requested here, these guidance rules, maybe could have
been done in a lot shorter time?
Mr. Grumbles. As you know, because you helped pass the
BEACH Act in 2000, a key to success has been to have the States
support and on board that the science is defensible. That is
one reason why we didn't see progress between 2000 and 2004.
Many of the States were very uncomfortable with moving to
updated criteria, because they felt the scientific foundation
wasn't there.
So for us, promulgating the 1986 criteria for those States
that hadn't done so before November 2004 is a significant step.
I share your view, Mr. Chairman, and it is in the statute as
well, that we need to get on with updating and revising those
criteria even further. There are some significant scientific
and policy questions to making sure that the States and others
will feel those new criteria, once we do finalize them, are the
best and defensible. We are committed to getting that done as
soon as we can, and we understand the frustration on not
getting it done.
Senator Lautenberg. It is going to be different than the
record reflects if we see some reasonable amount of haste put
into this, as well as fairness.
Ms. Mittal, how do you think the rapid testing methods
might help benefit implementation of the BEACH Act in the Great
Lakes as well as other coastal States?
Ms. Mittal. The need for rapid tests was something that was
identified by just about everybody that we talk to. Currently,
the current testing method, as was mentioned by the earlier
panel, they take between 36 to 48 hours. That is a typical time
lag. So beach managers are making decisions about whether to
issue a beach advisory or to issue a beach closure based on
results that are pretty old, based on samples that are really
old, a couple of days old. So definitely rapid test methods are
something that is needed.
Senator Lautenberg. GAO recommends that EPA gives States
the specific guidance on beach monitoring programs. Does GAO
have any ideas on what those guidelines should be and have you
discussed these recommendations with EPA?
Ms. Mittal. We have discussed our recommendations with EPA
and EPA concurred that these recommendations needed to be
addressed and that they would be addressing them. The area of
guidance that we are looking for relates to four specific
issues.
We found that the frequency of monitoring that was
occurring varied among States. Some States were only monitoring
their high priority beaches once a week, even though EPA
recommends that high priority beaches should be monitored
daily.
We found that the method by which States were taking
samples varied. While they collect samples generally in the
same location and at the same time of day, the depth at which
they were taking the samples varied considerably. Some people
were taking samples at 1 to 2 inches depth and others were
taking samples at 37 to 48 inches. EPA recommends knee-high, or
36 inch as the depth for sample taking. So those kinds of
differences or variability in sample-taking can affect the
quality of the data that we are collecting.
The third area that we identified, inconsistencies in how
beach managers were using sample results to decide whether they
were going to issue beach advisories for beach closures. Some
States only issue health advisories, some States only do beach
closures and some do a combination of both. So again, that is
an area where we think that EPA can help the States be very
consistent in how they apply the sampling results.
The last area relates to the signage. It is generally
agreed that signs on the beach are the most effective manner of
notifying the public that there is a problem with pollution and
contamination. But when we looked at various signs that were
being used by the States, we found that the signs didn't have
all of the information that EPA recommends should be on a sign.
For example, what is the date that the beach closure is
effective on? Some signs are missing that information. Other
signs are missing information as to when the sample was taken.
These are pretty relatively easy things that EPA could
provide guidance on pretty quickly.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Grumbles, I hope that you listened
carefully to what GAO has recommended.
Mr. Grumbles. We think that is a good report and we concur
with them on many of the items. We will work with you and your
colleagues, too, to do what we can.
Senator Lautenberg. I will thusly excuse you both from the
table. Thank you, and that will give you time, Mr. Grumbles, to
get on to correcting these conditions that we heard about
today.
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Your full statements obviously will be
in the record if your summary isn't everything you wanted to
say.
Now for our third panel, we welcome Cindy Zipf. Cindy Zipf
is the executive director of Clean Ocean Action, worked for two
decades to preserve the coastal water of New Jersey and New
York. We welcome her and Mara Dias and Carlton Dufrechou. Mr.
Dufrechou, when you come from Lake Pontchartrain, I am reminded
of the signs in French that I used to see when I was a soldier
in World War II, beautiful recall, I think, of tradition.
Ms. Dias, you are welcome, obviously, as well.
Cindy, we worked together on so many things affecting the
ocean and I have always enjoyed our chance to get together and
your persistence and tenacity in making sure that we do what we
have to do to protect the people, the industry and the income
as a later consequence. But we have to protect the people and
we have to encourage them. Being of mature age, I can tell you
that I have known the oceans for a long time. I watched my
grandmother and my mother and her four sisters swim in the
ocean and worry about the fact that, when I was a little kid,
they were so far out. Never meant anything, they were content
to be there and I was content to follow them. So it is nice to
see you, Cindy, and I will ask you that you observe the 5-
minute rule, all of you, within reason. I will please ask you
to commence.
STATEMENT OF CINDY ZIPF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEAN OCEAN ACTION
Ms. Zipf. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a joy
and privilege to be here. New Jersey has had a lot of
excitement when it comes to ocean pollution and challenges.
Your leadership and your work has been tremendous. Our ocean at
the Jersey Shore is happier and healthier, not just for people,
but for all the critters that live there and depend on it as
well. So we want to thank you for your leadership and your
commitment to the ocean.
New Jersey's delegation is a real sense of pride for us
around the country, because it is such a gold standard for
ocean protection legislation. Mr. Pallone was here earlier, who
also is a chairman, and as we always like to say, we have our
Franks for the Jersey Shore in Congress. It is really a
pleasure to work with you all.
My name is Cindy Zipf, I am the executive director of Clean
Ocean Action. I am here with Dr. Jennifer Sampson, who is
principal scientist for the organization. We work with over 150
organizations, as you know, to improve and protect the water.
A lot of what we have heard today, I think there is a lot
of consensus, so I am hopefully going to skip through some of
that consensus, including the fact that we are on the brink of
the Independence Day weekend.
But the BEACH Act, with all the citizens that come to the
shore, is the way for citizens to know the answer to the
question, am I swimming in a sewer. I think that is very
important, and that gives citizens at least some confidence
about the beach and that they are not going to wind up with an
inconvenient or very uncomfortable ailment, as has been talked
about.
The significant progress, again, with the New Jersey
leadership in the progress, has in part its roots the terrible
legacy of 20 years ago, when we had the medical waste and the
raw sewage and the floatables all washing up on our beach. Over
a thousand beach closures occurred. While those thousand beach
closures and the beach pollution was not a proud legacy, we
were proud that at least in New Jersey, we had a testing
program at the time that resulted in those beach closures. The
leadership, again, in Congress, was to try to identify a way
for there to be national standards. Because although New Jersey
was closing its beaches, there were a lot of beaches around the
country that were not.
So in that way, it did set a national precedent, though it
did take some time. It created uniform benchmarks that we are
all relying on.
But as has been talked about so much today, there are
improvements that are needed. There are a lot of faults that
time has examined through the GAO report. I think most
importantly, that rapid test that we need to ensure that we
move forward on more quick testing really has been thoughtful.
I think that the opportunity is to speed up those tests.
So with respect to where do we go from here, we are very
heartened by the bill that has been introduced by yourself and
Mr. Pallone and others. The Beach Protection Act, which really
takes us to the next level, evolves the BEACH Act into a new
and more protective Act. It is a welcoming and strong start. To
that end, we would like to encourage the implementation of the
same day answers to ``is it safe to swim'' by 2009. We think
that is achievable.
The fact is that over 70 percent of contaminated beaches
are clean within 24 hours. Yet that current EPA system takes 24
to 36 to 48 in order to close the beach. So clearly, with the
resulting 2- to 3-day delay, beaches remain open when
contamination is at its peak. Force of closure may be after the
big crisis is gone.
So clearly, with the advance of the technology, we can
really address these problems. The current indicators of the
presence of the pathogens in surface waters is based on
extensive nationwide epidemiological study. The difference
between the currently approved method and the new rapid test,
such as the QPCR, are that the former requires the growth of
bacteria in a culture, whereas the latter directly measures the
genetic material. These new methods make it completely possible
to within 2 hours have that test, rather than in 24 hours. So
it is very important for public health.
I think what is also important to emphasize here is that
for public health safety and for good governance, it is vital
that the adoption of these rapid tests require States to
conduct the sampling in such a way that they make the decisions
for beach closures on the same day. We don't want a State to
take a 2-hour test one day and a 2-hour test the next day. We
are not getting any quicker in the test results. So it is very
important that the legislation, as it moves forward, require
that same day decisionmaking as well as the same day testing.
We are very happy that New Jersey is again stepping up to
the challenge and participating in the EPA rapid test. I will
try to move quickly now.
The second issue that we want to emphasize is that
notification speed of the results must occur without delay. We
believe that words such as instant and immediate should be
considered. Not all States have the kind of notifications that
New Jersey has with the real-time, you can go on the computer
and get that information. But there is a possibility that all
States can have that real-time information. With radios, local
emergency response teams, telephones, cell phones, we should be
able to get the word out that the beach is closed within that
same day. We don't need an additional 24 hours.
Third, we are happy that the new BEACH Act, Beach
Protection Act, would include a 50 percent reduction if States
are not compliant with the new requirements. Again, I think
everyone is talking about the funding source. We really do need
to step up the funding. While we think that the increase that
is under the Beach Protection Act is significant, the fact that
there is such a larger amount of requirements, source
reduction, more testing, additional programs, that we would
like to see that number up to about $100 million annually, and
not just authorized, but actually appropriated. I think part of
the problem is that we have to make sure that we get full
appropriation to these programs.
Finally, we would like the Beach Protection Act to allow
for the continued evolution of the program and allow for
continued new initiatives to be implemented through academia
and scientists and such. One area that we would particularly
like to see is the immediate testing after rain events.
So thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Zipf follows:]
Statement of Cindy Zipf, Executive Director, Clean Ocean Action
introduction
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify on the
implementation and reauthorization issues concerning the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, better known as the
BEACH Act (Public Law 106-284). It is indeed an honor to testify here
today. Over the years your efforts to improve and protect our Nation's
ocean and coasts have been bold, outstanding, and successful. Our ocean
is cleaner and healthier thanks to your leadership, New Jersey's
delegation, and the bi-partisan good work of Congress to safeguard our
most valuable natural asset.
My name is Cindy Zipf, Executive Director of Clean Ocean Action. I
am here with Dr. Jennifer Samson, Principle Scientist for Clean Ocean
Action. We represent a broad-based coalition of groups dedicated to
improving the degraded water quality of the marine environment off the
New Jersey/New York coast. We identify sources of pollution and mount
attacks on each source by using research, public education, and citizen
action to convince our public officials to enact and enforce measures
that will cleanup and protect our ocean. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Visit http://www.cleanoceanaction.org for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nemesis of public health and economy
This hearing could not be more timely. As the Nation is poised to
celebrate Independence Day, hundreds of millions of Americans will
enjoy our beaches. Since 2000, citizens have relied on the benefits of
the BEACH Act to help answer the question, ``Am I swimming in a
sewer?'' and to help ensure that their fun at the shore is not followed
by an inconvenient and uncomfortable ailment.
This significant progress actually has its roots at the Jersey
Shore. Twenty years ago, during the infamous summers of 1987-88, New
Jersey beaches became a national scandal, suffering from over one
thousand beach closures due to raw sewage, garbage, and medical waste
wash-ups. While the impact of these events was devastating to the
ecosystem they were disastrous to the economy. One estimate put losses
between $820 million and $3 billion (in 1987 dollars).\2\ While this
legacy of pollution in New Jersey is not a proud one, there is a sense
of pride that NJ was the first State to require comprehensive
monitoring of swimming beaches with mandatory closures when waters did
not meet health standards. Clearly, New Jersey took public health
protection seriously. Most other States chose not to conduct such a
public health program or held weaker or different standards. The quest
for a national program was launched, and this led to the BEACH Act of
2000. For its time, it was a bold and essential public health
protection program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ofiara, Douglas D. and Bernard Brown, ``Marine Pollution Events
of 1988 and Their Effect on Travel, Tourism, and Regional Activities in
New Jersey,'' referenced as an ``Invited Paper presented at the
Conference on Floatable Wastes in the Ocean: Social Economic and Public
Health Implications. March 21-22, 1989 at SUNY-Stony Brook.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By establishing and implementing a national standard for
recreational water quality, the BEACH Act provided a mandatory, uniform
benchmark for the protection of public health. The hundreds of
thousands of beach closures nationally over the years is a testament
that NJ wasn't the only State with water quality problems.
Most importantly, a closed beach is one of the most motivating
incentives to identify and eliminate the source of the pollution. As a
result, many spigots of pollution have been eliminated, improving the
entire marine ecosystem. Though progressive at the time of passage, the
BEACH Act is based on a testing protocol that takes 24 hours for
results. Thus, depending on a State's program, it can take from two to
3 days to close a beach. Recognizing this concern at the time, the
BEACH Act required USEPA to identify and adopt a faster test making the
program more protective. However the implementation of that mandate is
slothful.
Since the BEACH Act answers the question, ``Should I have been
swimming 3 days ago?'' and as there are additional concerns to be
addressed, the BEACH Act is overdue for change.
The next evolution of beach water quality protection must do the
following:
Provide same-day answers to the question, ``Is it safe to swim
today?'' by 2009.
Increase notification speed of test results and information about
closures as well as provide easy access to all data to the public.
Assure States are accountable for implementing, at minimum, the
Federal program.
Increase funding for States to implement the rapid test and
reporting systems.
Require and fund tracking, identification, and source reduction
or elimination.
Allow for continued evolution of the water quality monitoring
program with collaboration and participation of academia, scientists,
and the public. Research should include improved indicators for
protection of public health and the environment. This research should
lead to programs to assist in the track-down and elimination of
pollution sources. To assure public health, monitoring programs should
also be expanded in the future to require testing immediately after
rain events.
Mr. Lautenberg in the Senate and Mr. Pallone in the House of
Representatives are currently introducing the Beach Protection Act of
2007. This bill is a strong and welcome start toward meeting these
goals and we submit the following rationale for these above
recommendations.
usepa same-day rapid test adoption by 2009
In the interest of water quality and public health, the
implementation of a rapid test for bacteria in recreational waters must
be our first priority. The current USEPA approved methods take 24 hours
to get results, and many States, including NJ, require two consecutive
failing tests to close the beaches. Considering the fact that 70
percent of contaminated beaches are clean 24 hours later\3\, the
resulting delay allows beaches to remain open when contamination is at
its peak and forces closures after the threat may have passed. This
system fails to protect public health and causes unnecessary negative
economic effects to beach communities. Now, thanks to tremendous
advances in molecular biology, it is possible to determine the
concentration of bacteria in marine and fresh water within 2 hours.
These rapid methodologies must be swiftly adopted and utilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Leecaster, M.K. and S.B. Weisburg, (2001) Effects of sampling
frequency of shoreline microbiology assessments. Mar. Poll. Bull.
42(11): 1150-1154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite their ongoing efforts USEPA, for whatever reason, has been
unable to advance rapid methodologies at the pace necessary to
adequately protect public health. Yet, academia and the private sector
have been making great strides in the development, evaluation and
accuracy of several different rapid methodologies. In fact, the
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project recently released a
report that found two different rapid tests, including the QPCR method
currently being investigated by USEPA, that were more than 85 percent
accurate with respect to the USEPA approved method\4\. This QRCR is
within 8 percent of USEPA's current proved method. Ongoing efforts this
year continue to improve the accuracy of these rapid methods, and these
researchers expect to achieve equivalency with approved USEPA methods
by next year. The USEPA is moving forward and will be partnering with
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), which
has again stepped-up to its leadership role in beach monitoring by
being one of two States participating in the field verification of this
method this summer. USEPA must take advantage of these significant
advances through collaboration with researchers outside the Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Griffith, J.F., et al. (2007) Beta testing of rapid methods for
measuring beach water quality. Technical Report 506. ftp://
ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/PDFs/506--beta--testing.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of Enterococci and Escherichia coli as indicators of the
possible presence of pathogens in surface waters is based on extensive
nationwide epidemiology studies. The difference between the currently
approved methods and the new rapid test methods, such as QPCR, are that
the former require growth of the bacteria in culture, while the later
are able to directly measure the genetic material of these two species.
These methods provide results within 2 hours, instead of 24 hours with
the current method. For the public, the difference is same-day
notification instead of a two or 3 day delay. To be clear, to protect
health and for good governance it is vital that the adoption of the
rapid test require States to conduct the sampling in such a way as to
ensure that water quality decisions are made the same day. Essentially,
it is the whole point of the new testing measures.
Because the new rapid test methods continue to utilize the same
indicator species (Enterococci and Escherichia coli) it is not
necessary, and could even be considered irresponsible and dangerous, to
delay approval of rapid tests until additional epidemiology studies are
complete. In the interest of public health, QPCR, or an appropriate
rapid test methodology, must be adopted by USEPA once they are shown to
be statistically equivalent to currently approved methods. As stated
above, this level of accuracy can be achieved by 2009. Thus,
legislation should require same-day rapid test application and should
include the 2009 deadline.
increase speed of notification
Public notification and posting of degraded water quality must
occur without delay. With the availability of rapid testing methods
comes the ability for the public to truly know the answer to the
question ``Is it safe to swim today?'' The Internet system, phones,
instant messaging, radio, local emergency response teams, and beach
personnel (where applicable) make such instant notification real and
achievable. Current language in the BEACH Act allows up to 24 hours for
the public to be informed. This allows far too much discretion, and the
public may not be informed in a timely manner. Thus, legislation should
require ``instant'' or ``immediate'' public notification.
increase funding
A clean, healthy, and swimmable ocean is the lifeblood of the
nation's economy. According to the 2004 Final Report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blue Print for the 21st Century,
the value of the ocean and coast are ``priceless assets.'' For example,
in 2000, the ocean economy contributed more than $117 billion. The
overall economic activity within the coastal watershed counties is even
more staggering--contributing to a total of over $4.5 trillion of the
nation's Gross Domestic Product (GNP), which is equal to half of the
national GNP\5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. An Ocean Blueprint for the
21st Century. Final Report. Washington, DC, 2004 ISBN#0-9759462-0-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For such a magnificent return, we fail to adequately invest in
protecting this extraordinary asset. In recent years, grants States'
programs been paltry. For example, this year USEPA will issue a mere
$9.9 million\6\ to 35 States to implement BEACH Act programs. The
coastal economy is worth much greater investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ USEPA Fact Sheet; EPA-821-F-06-012; January 2007 ``EPA Makes
Grants Available to States to Implement Water Quality Monitoring and
Public Notification Programs at the Nation's Beaches.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assist States, the bill would double the authorization amounts
for State grants from $30 million to $60 million, which is an important
improvement. However, given the expanded charges and their importance,
additional funding is needed. While the authorization is warranted, it
is most imperative that Congress and the Administration fully fund this
appropriation in the budget each year. In recent years, funding has
been paltry. For example although $30 million is authorized under the
BEACH act, for most years Congress has only appropriated $10
million\7\. Thus, we would urge that the Beach Protection Act provide
an authorization and that future budgets appropriate $100 million
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Coast Alliance Report, 2005; Funding Our Coastal Heritage, A
Guide to Federal Investments in Our Coastal Resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
assure states and usepa are held accountable
Laws and regulations are only as strong as their accountability and
enforcement. By allowing USEPA the ability to cut funding by 50
percent, the Beach Protection Act provides a highly motivating tool to
keep States' programs in compliance. It is also important that citizens
be able to keep States and USEPA accountable to the requirements.
Establishing time lines for meeting or implementing objectives and
reporting deadlines are effective tools. The Beach Protection Act
should eliminate discretion where possible and establish time lines and
deadlines.
continued progress for the monitoring program
There are many different research efforts currently underway to
advance the science of recreational water quality, including improved
techniques for source identification and track-down, exploration of new
indicator species, and source specific epidemiology studies. As our
knowledge and understanding of bacterial contamination improves, so
must our approach to beach water quality monitoring. It is critical
that the USEPA program is adaptable and can implement necessary changes
to improve the protection of public health and the environment.
Studies show that most beach closings occur from stormwater
discharge following rain events. Indeed, Natural Resources Defense
Council's Testing the Waters 2006 stated, ``Stormwater discharges from
roads, buildings, industrial sites, constructionsites, and other
impervious surfaces are the largest known cause of beach closures and
advisories.''\8\ However, not all monitoring programs conduct sampling
during rain events. For example, samples in NJ are taken on Monday,
rain or shine, and not after rain events on the other 6 days of the
week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Natural Resources Defense Council, Testing the Waters 2006: A
Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As funding and programs evolve, it is important to link monitoring
activity to rain events. As mentioned earlier, 70 percent of
contaminated beaches are clean 24 hours later. If a State is only
sampling once a week and it rains in between, people unaware of the
threat, may be exposed to harmfully contaminated water.
We urge that the Beach Protection Act require the continued
evolution of testing techniques as well as the development of a program
to address testing following rain events.
In closing Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
and we look forward to continuing our successful collaboration to
improve and protect the health of the coast and ocean.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. If there is anything else
that you include in your written statement, please know that we
will accept those comments as well.
Mr. Dufrechou, it is nice to see you, and we welcome your
testimony. I will be as liberal as I was with Ms. Zipf, but not
a second more.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF CARLTON DUFRECHOU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAKE
PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN FOUNDATION
Mr. Dufrechou. Senator, thank you. I will try to be as
succinct as possible.
It is an honor to be here today and I appreciate the
invitation, certainly the invitation from Senator Vitter, also.
I would like to leave you with two thoughts. Monitoring, in
our opinion, in our experience with the Pontchartrain Basin, is
instrumental in the improvement of water quality. Source
identification is critical. You have to have both. In our
instance, in Lake Pontchartrain, when you think of New Orleans,
most people think of the Mississippi River. But Lake
Pontchartrain actually is an integral part of New Orleans, it
always has been. In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, Lake
Pontchartrain was a recreational haven for the metro area. As a
kid, I learned to swim in Lake Pontchartrain.
Unfortunately, in July 1962, the first ``no swimming''
signs came up on the south shore because of high levels of
bacteria. They were red, they weren't yellow or orange. But I
remember asking my dad what pollution meant and he tried to
very patiently explain it to me as a 7-year old. But what it
meant to me is I couldn't go swimming in the summer time, which
was really disheartening.
Unfortunately, over the next three decades, Pontchartrain's
waters continued to degrade from an array of sources, urban
runoff, agricultural activities, actually from some industries
also. But in the late 1980s, a group of citizens, not my
generation, Senator, but yours, people who had some sense, got
together. They remembered Pontchartrain----
Senator Lautenberg. Now you are trying to flatter me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dufrechou. No, sir, I am being sincere. They remembered
Pontchartrain in its heyday when it was strong and healthy and
robust. They actually lobbied our State legislature to create
an entity, the entity I worked for, now the Lake Pontchartrain
Basin Foundation, to focus on the restoration of not only the
lake but the entire 10,000 square mile basin. We are basically
al of southeast Louisiana. We have 20 percent of the State's
land mass, we go from rolling hills in the Florida Parish to
the highly urbanized area around New Orleans down to the coast,
to the coastal wetlands and barrier islands in the Gulf of
Mexico.
We call Pontchartrain a lake, actually, it is like
Chesapeake, it is an inland bay, because of the tidal passes to
the east, to the Gulf of Mexico. It is an interesting area,
with the rivers coming from the north, the fresh water from the
rivers mixing with the salty waters of the sea. It is actually
the largest contiguous estuarine area on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Because of these sources of pollution, though, it became
literally, it was called the brown mess in the late 1970s and
early 1980s. The State of Louisiana unfortunately discontinued
sampling of Lake Pontchartrain because the water was so bad for
so long in 1978, about the time I was in college. It was not a
good day. Because of the citizens that got together, though,
and the interest, the community started to look at what was
going on and started to address the sources of pollution sewage
bypass, as we started working with the ag industry.
When the Pontchartrain Basin Foundation came together, we
were the catalyst to try to get everyone around the table,
whether it was the local folks, the State agencies, the Feds.
By working together, we started focusing on Pontchartrain. Our
monitoring program actually started in 1994 as a volunteer
program. As we started to see the water quality of the Lake
improved, as the sewage started to be cutoff, as urban runoff
started to decrease, as we stopped the unlimited shell dredging
in the Lake, the water clarity came back.
As the water quality started to improve, actually by the
late 1990s, it looked like we were borderline swimmable again.
At that point, we started an intensive program, which actually
mirrored EPA's criteria then for fecal coliform. It went
further into E-coli and most recently into Enterococci also. We
started sampling at the historic recreational beaches, the 10
historic beaches surrounding the Lake. We were able to, within
a short period, come up with a criteria, actually reporting
criteria, which we are very pleased to announce today that
since 2002, we have been reporting on a weekly basis in the
Times Picayune, the largest regional newspaper and the four
local TV stations in New Orleans as well as the radio stations,
they all have weekend broadcasts, weather reports and beach
reports now for Pontchartrain. It is also listed on our
SaveOurLake.org Web site.
We have gone further than that, though, and you are very
right about trying to find the sources of pollution that you
were mentioning before. With the monitoring program, we were
able to actually bracket where pollution was recurring. With
that, we started to, OK, here is a bad area, we are going to go
into here and try to do more intensive monitoring. We started a
source identification with the help of the EPA about 2 years
ago for some of the north shore rivers.
With that program, in the period so far, we have
accomplished, I believe, 3,600 samples in 120 different spots.
We don't just find the sources of pollution, once we find them,
we try to provide technical assistance to get rid of it,
whether it is a wastewater facility, a private business, a
dairy, to get them back into compliance. We have provided
technical assistance to over 500 wastewater treatment plants
and over 100 dairies in that period.
The program, Senator, it amounted to more quantitative
water quality improvements from 10 stream segments to the
Pontchartrain Basin. It works. I strongly urge you and your
colleagues in the Senate, please, continue to support programs
like this, like the BEACH Program. Pontchartrain is not
perfect. We have a long way to go yet. But we urge you to
please continue supporting programs like this.
May I add one more thing? Thank you and all of your
colleagues in the Senate from all of us in southeast Louisiana.
It has been a marathon since Hurricane Katrina. We do a lot of
coastal work, too, and we are so thankful for all of the help.
There are people down there pulling themselves up by the
bootstraps, Senator, but they couldn't do it without the help
we have gotten.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dufrechou follows:]
Statement Carlton Dufrechou, Executive Director, Lake Pontchartrain
Basin Foundation
In July of 1962, the first ``No Swimming'' signs were posted
because of high levels of pollution along Lake Pontchartrain's New
Orleans shoreline. For the next three decades, Pontchartrain waters
continued to be further degraded by a multitude of pollution sources
including poorly treated and untreated sewage, agricultural runoff,
urban runoff, and several industrial operations. The water quality
became so bad that the State of Louisiana discontinued sampling of the
lake in the late 1970s. By the 1980s, Lake Pontchartrain was literally
a brown mess. Then, in 1989, as a result of public outcry to restore
Pontchartrain, the Louisiana Legislature created the Lake Pontchartrain
Basin Foundation (LPBF). The LPBF's mission is to coordinate the
restoration and preservation of the water quality and habitats of Lake
Pontchartrain and the entire 10,000 square mile Pontchartrain Basin.
The LPBF acts as the public's voice and a catalyst to build
partnerships among local, State, and Federal agencies, businesses,
agriculture, local universities, elected officials, and user groups to
focus on the restoration of the Pontchartrain Basin.
The Pontchartrain Basin encompasses 20 percent of Louisiana's area,
including 16 parishes and the State's two largest cities, New Orleans
and Baton Rouge. The Basin is home to over 2 million citizens, about 40
percent of Louisiana's population. Topography ranges from rolling
woodlands in the north to the highly urbanized metro New Orleans
surrounding Lake Pontchartrain to coastal wetlands and barrier islands
adjoining the Gulf of Mexico in the south. The 630 square mile Lake
Pontchartrain (technically an inland bay because of tidal passes to the
Gulf) immediately above New Orleans is the heart of the Basin.
As a result of numerous restoration programs and the efforts of
many, in the last 18 years, Lake Pontchartrain's health has improved
significantly. Water clarity began improving in the mid 1990s. Pelicans
began returning to the lake in the late 1990s. Blue crab harvest
increased. By 2000, Lake Pontchartrain appeared suitable for swimming
again. Record size trout and tarpon are being caught in Pontchartrain.
In the summer of 2005, just prior to Hurricane Katrina, over 20
manatees were sighted in Lake Pontchartrain Lake Pontchartrain's come
back has become an icon for successful environmental restoration in
Louisiana. Monitoring has been instrumental in Pontchartrain's
recovery. Monitoring not only indicates the health of water, it also
helps identify sources of pollution. A summary of Pontchartrain's
monitoring programs follows.
basin-wide water quality monitoring program
The LPBF began monthly sampling of the lake in 1994. By 2000, it
was apparent that water quality was improving. Thus, in January 2001,
we initiated more intensive and frequent sampling with our Basin-Wide
Water Quality Monitoring Program. The program has three goals:
(1) Provide weekly water quality reports to the public;
(2) Identify pollution sources; and
(3) Share data with local, State, and Federal agencies.
Each week, we sample 10 recreational sites utilizing EPA-approved
methods. The parameters tested include fecal coliform and Enterococci
bacteria levels, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), salinity (specific
conductance), visibility/turbidity, and pH. We sample ten additional
sites twice monthly for fecal coliform and Enterococci bacteria levels
only. All parameters except bacteria are sampled in-situ (at the site).
For bacteriological analysis, water samples are collected at each site
and transported to an EPA-approved lab.
To disseminate this information widely, the LPBF has partnered with
newspapers and television and radio stations. The Times-Picayune, the
region's largest newspaper, publishes our water quality reports weekly
on its weather page (on Fridays). Television and radio stations air the
reports during weather and fish and game programs. The reports are also
available on the LPBF Web site, www.saveourlake.org.
To date, the LPBF has collected over 3,500 water quality samples at
the 10 weekly sites. These data have shown that Lake Pontchartrain is
suitable for primary contact recreation (with high fecal coliform and
Enterococci levels observed only following rain events). With public
access to the data, there has been a significant increase in
utilization of the Lake for boating, fishing, swimming, and other water
activities. In contrast to the health of Lake Pontchartrain,
unfortunately, data indicates that many waterways on the lake's north
shore (including St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes) are impaired due
to rapid growth and resulting overloads in sewage treatment facilities.
BEACH Program.--While LPBF had been sampling the beach at
Fontainebleau State Park (north shore of Lake Pontchartrain) since
2001, we began testing for the BEACH Program (as a contractor for the
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH)) in 2004. In 2007,
the LDHH BEACH Program began preliminary water quality testing for
Pontchartrain Beach in New Orleans (another site tested by LPBF since
2001). This area was the primary swimming beach for New Orleans in the
1950s and 1960s. The BEACH Program monitoring is the first attempt by
DHH to re-evaluate the water quality status of Pontchartrain Beach and
re-examine the long-standing swimming advisory for the New Orleans
lakefront.
sub-basin pollution source tracking program
To improve the health of rivers and streams discharging into Lake
Pontchartrain (particularly those on the north shore), the LPBF
developed the Sub-Basin Pollution Source Identification/Tracking
Program in 2002. As its name describes, this program's goal is to
locate and identify specific sources polluting rivers and bayous. Once
sources are identified, we provide technical assistance to attempt to
eliminate the pollution. This program was piloted on the Bogue Falaya
and Tchefuncte Watersheds (St. Tammany Parish) and is currently
underway on the Tangipahoa and Natalbany Watersheds (Tangipahoa
Parish).
Water Quality Monitoring.--Sites are monitored every 2 weeks for
water temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH,
turbidity, and fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria year round. Using
the water quality data and land use patterns, the LPBF and its partners
(Parishes, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's (LDEQ)
Small Business Assistance Program, the LDHH and others) track down
fecal pollution sources.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Assistance.--LPBF works with WWTP
owners/operators to insure the plants are functioning properly. This
helps reduce the amount of fecal bacteria entering the waterways. We
work with the LDEQ Small Business Assistance Program to offer
education, technical support, and help with permits to the plant owner/
operators.
Dairy Assistance.--LPBF works with Natural Resource Conservation
Service for installation, maintenance, and closure of dairy waste
lagoons. This is important because it is estimated that one cow equals
about 15 people in terms of waste. We produce educational materials,
promote the use of best management practices, and provide support to
farmers with their waste lagoons.
Outreach & Education.--Outreach is provided in several ways:
Technical assistance to WWTP and dairy lagoon owners/
operators.
Public service announcement (PSA) on local television
stations.
In partnership with LDEQ and LDHH, we produced and
distributed brochures to educate homeowners on the care and
maintenance of home WWTPs.
Presentations at conferences, publications in
journals, and publications on the LPBF Web site.
To date, this program has collected more than 3,600 water quality
samples at 120 sites and provided technical assistance to more than 500
WWTPs and 100 dairies. This has led to reductions in fecal pollution on
more than 10 waterways. In 2005, the LDEQ selected the Sub-Basin
Program as a model for wastewater surveillance activities and switched
to a results-based (reduction in fecal loading) program. Most recently,
the LPBF is expanding our partnership with Tangipahoa Parish,
incorporating water quality issues into the parish's current land use
planning effort.
We intend to continue to partner with private, local, and State
entities to coordinate restoration efforts. The LPBF's ultimate program
goal is to meet the Clean Water Act's ``swimable'' criteria for all
Pontchartrain Basin water bodies. Monitoring (such as the Beach
Program) is critical to reduce pollution and achieve national
``swimable and fishable'' goals.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 61972.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 61972.005
Response by Carlton Dufrechou to an Additional Question
from Senator Inhofe
Question. During the hearing, you were asked a question about what
happened with the water in Lake Pontchartrain as a result of Hurricane
Katrina. In your response, you mentioned that after Hurricane Katrina
the toxic water from the city was pumped into Lake Pontchartrain and
that the Lake recovered more quickly than you though it would. As you
know, Lake Pontchartrain is a major fishing resource. Would you expand
on your comment about the Lake recovering quickly and describe its
suitability for recreation and fishing?
Response. Due to failures in the New Orleans hurricane protection
system, almost 120 square miles of the metro area were flooded during
and immediately after Hurricane Katrina. The floodwaters picked up many
contaminants from the urbanized areas including sewage, household
chemicals, paints, oil, gasoline, and others. The news media referred
to this mixture of floodwater and contaminants as ``toxic soup.'' Once
the storm surge receded, the only timely alternative to drain New
Orleans was to pump these polluted waters into Lake Pontchartrain.
During the month after the storm, approximately 66 billion gallons of
polluted water was pumped into the Lake from the city. Impacts to
Pontchartrain were significant along the New Orleans shoreline.
Bacteria levels climbed to almost 1,000 times higher than levels
recommended for recreational swimming. Dissolved oxygen levels dropped
to near zero. However, the majority of the Lake was not impacted. When
compared to Lake Pontchartrain's total volume, the 66 billion gallons
of polluted water amounts to less than 7 percent. Thus, because Lake
Pontchartrain was healthy prior to the storm, it was able to rapidly
assimilate the pollutants in the floodwaters. Once the pumping stopped,
the Lake's water quality began to improve. By late November 2005
(within 90 days of the storm), Lake Pontchartrain was again meeting
fishable/swimable standards.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. I think more help, it is
obvious that it is needed, but it is also coming. We want to
see a recovery down there, that historic part of our country
and the people who live there, to have a strong Government
program supporting you, trying to get some restoration.
When I hear you talking about Pontchartrain and what it was
in the early years, the 1960s, I think, where it was used as a
recreational facility and then for years, unable to be
available to the citizenry, it makes a difference in the
quality of life. We commend you for the work you do.
Mr. Dufrechou. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Dias, you had your surfer
representative here already. We are glad to hear from you. It
was very interesting. I didn't realize that Congressman Bilbray
had such an active surfing life. It is nice to see you, and I
invite you to give your testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF MARA DIAS, WATER QUALITY COORDINATOR, SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION
Ms. Dias. Thank you. Good morning, and I would like to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on how we
can best protect water quality and the safety of beach-goers
across this country.
Surfrider is a grassroots environmental organization
dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world's
oceans, waves and beaches for all people. Many of our members
are in the water daily, so poor water quality is a real concern
for us.
Surfrider operates through a system of over 60 chapters
located in almost every coastal State. Local surfers often turn
to our chapters when they believe they have become ill from
surfing in polluted waters. Along the east coast, surfers and
swimmers are noticing flu-like symptoms after being in the
water. In California, poor water quality is unfortunately
becoming far too commonplace. One study measured a 10 percent
increase in illness for each additional 2\1/2\ hours of weekly
water exposure from surfing at Orange County beaches.
The Blue Water Task Force is Surfrider's water quality
monitoring program. I will be illustrating the successes and
needs of the BEACH Act by relating some of our chapters'
experiences interacting with State and local programs through
the Blue Water Task Force. The BEACH Act of 2000 is responsible
for great improvements in beach monitoring. Unfortunately,
under-funding has prevented full State implementation and has
left public health at risk in many instances. Many State
programs are under-staffed and are unable to meet all of their
current testing requirements. Many of our Blue Water Task Force
sampling programs have thus been designed to fill in the gaps
left by State programs.
Beach monitoring is limited to the summer time only in many
cold water States. Surfers, however, are in the water year
around. Even swimming is popular into the warmer fall months.
Surfrider members in both Delaware and New Hampshire have been
working with the States to extend the beach monitoring season
beyond summer without adding further financial or staff burden
to the Agency. In Delaware, Surfrider volunteers began
collecting water samples year-round and delivering them to the
local college for analysis after the chapter received numerous
complaints from surfers who got ill after surfing in the waves
generated by a fall storm.
Inadequate funding has also resulted in geographical gaps
in State programs. In Mendocino, CA, Surfrider volunteers have
been collecting water samples from some of the more remote
beaches and delivering them to the health department to
increase the coverage of the county's monitoring program.
States are also forced to prioritize which beaches they will
sample. State and county health departments often choose to
monitor the beaches where they know there are water quality
problems, leaving the water quality at lower priority beaches
uncertain for most of the year.
Both in Oregon and New Jersey, Surfrider data has
demonstrated new water quality concerns at such beaches, and as
a result, these beaches have been added to monitoring programs,
even though they were not previously being sampled. If Federal
funding were appropriated at the levels recommended by the
Beach Protection Act of 2007, I believe many of the gaps and
problems with State implementation could be corrected.
Surfrider is also supportive of using BEACH Act funds to
investigate the sources of pollution and to take action to
correct these problems. There is certainly a great need in
every coastal State to have better information.
To speak to EPA's comments about, they weren't sure it was
relevant for this Act, I really believe it is. Because what you
have happening is, people at the beach are seeing the signs,
you can't go in the water. So they go to the lifeguards and
say, why can't we go into the water? They say, well, because
the health department put that sign there. So maybe they call
the health department and they say why? And they say, well,
because the water sample is bad. So they say, why is the water
sample bad? And the health department says, we don't do that.
We just monitor the quality. Then it is up to citizens to
really push to find out what the reasons are.
Also, I think that we need our new rapid methods. I think
there are methods that are ready to be considered seriously for
approval. I don't think we should be waiting. But EPA really
needs a sound but streamlined process to approve these methods
now.
I think the panel should consider State implementation of
these methods, though. One year after approval might not be
realistic. They are going to have to buy new, expensive
equipment and learn how to use it in many cases. So you need to
really pay attention that it is going to take some real funding
and it is going to take some time to get the States up to the
level where they are able to use these methods.
We also believe that annual reviews are a good idea and
suggest that EPA use these reviews to take a close look at how
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 getting blown away or blown
down. This is improving; however, that is just ridiculous.
Also, in Corpus Christi, TX, the city isn't even posting their
beaches, because they are afraid that it is going to hurt the
tourism industry. The Surfrider chapter there is trying to
educate the city by saying, it is actually protective of the
tourism industry. Wait until someone gets sick, because you
knew the water was bad and you didn't tell them, your tourism
is gone.
So GAO was talking about the inconsistencies in the State
program. It is huge. I have talked to Surfrider members in
every State across the country who are dealing with these
issues and the story is really different everywhere you go. So
it is in posting, it is in notification, it is in sampling, it
is in frequency, it is in coverage, there are a lot of
inconsistencies.
In closing, I would just like to thank you, Senator
Lautenberg, for taking the initiative to make a lot of much-
needed improvements to this Act. I would like to urge Congress
to consider the real cost of running comprehensive State beach
monitoring programs that are in the best interest of public
safety, environmental health of our beaches and also the
vitality of our coastal economies. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dias follows:]
Statement of Mara Dias, Water Quality Coordinator, Surfrider Foundation
Good Morning. I'd like to begin by thanking Chairman Lautenberg,
Senator Vitter and the other members of the subcommittee for the
opportunity to speak on how we can best protect water quality and the
safety of beach-goers across this country. My name is Mara Dias, and I
am here before you today on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation.
The Surfrider Foundation is a grass-roots, non-profit environmental
organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world's
oceans, waves and beaches for all people, through conservation,
activism, research and education. Our over 50,000 members come from all
walks of life. We are surfers. We are kayakers. We are moms, dads, and
10-year old kids. We are scientists, bankers and musicians. What draws
our diverse membership together is a love for the ocean and a strong
desire to protect our oceans and beaches for everyone's enjoyment. Poor
water quality is real threat that concerns everyone in Surfrider. A
recent recreational survey found that surfers spend more time in the
ocean water than any other recreational user group. I have been to
coastal management meetings here in DC where the opening slide of a
presentation from the Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program showed
the silhouette of a surfer as an indicator of water quality.
The Surfrider Foundation operates through a system of over 60
chapters located in almost every coastal State, and we are expanding
internationally. On the local level our chapters are educating school
children and members of the public on how to take care of our beaches
and coasts. Our members are participating in water quality monitoring
and scientific research programs, and we are working with local
governments to ensure that coastal development is not harming our beach
environment or taking away the public's right to access and use our
beaches.
The Blue Water Task Force (BWTF) is the Surfrider Foundation's
water quality monitoring, education and advocacy program. It is
utilized by our chapters to alert citizens and officials in their
communities about water quality problems and to work toward solutions.
The BWTF has succeeded in raising public awareness of coastal water
pollution levels and has precipitated the establishment of State and
local government water quality monitoring programs in many communities.
In my testimony I will be illustrating the successes and needs of the
BEACH Act, by sharing with the committee some of our chapters'
experiences interacting with State and local beach monitoring programs
through the Blue Water Task Force.
The BEACH Act of 2000 is responsible for great improvements in
beach monitoring programs in coastal States across the country.
Previous to this legislation, some States, such as Washington,
Wisconsin and Oregon, did not even have State coordinated beach
monitoring programs. Other States, such as New Jersey, Virginia and
California, were able to improve their already established monitoring
programs with the new Federal funding by adding beaches and sampling
more frequently. The BEACH Act also set national water quality
monitoring and reporting standards, whereas before there was
inconsistency amongst the indicators of water quality that States were
using to safeguard public health.
As State beach monitoring programs have improved, the public is
also becoming more aware of the water pollution problems that are
affecting our beaches. Public demand and political will to find the
sources of pollution and to take action to correct these watershed
problems are growing. Often the source of bacterial pollution that is
causing our beaches to fail water quality standards is stormwater
runoff that flows across dense development and impervious surfaces in
coastal watersheds. Many local governments are trying to lessen the
impact of development on water quality by requiring the principles of
Low Impact Development and Stormwater Best Management Practices to be
employed during construction and maintenance.
Unfortunately, perennial under-funding has prevented full State
implementation of the BEACH Act and has left public health at risk in
many instances. Because of inadequate funding, many State programs are
under-staffed and do not have the resources to meet all of their
testing requirements. Many of the Surfrider BWTF beach sampling
programs have been designed to fill in the gaps left by State agency
programs.
As is the case in many cold water States, Rhode Island's Bathing
Beaches Monitoring Program only conducts water sampling during the
summer months from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Surfers, however, are in
the water year-round. Even swimming remains popular into the warmer
fall months, and let's not forget the wintertime's polar bear clubs. In
order to provide year-round water quality information, the Rhode Island
Chapter has been collecting water samples from over a dozen ocean
beaches in collaboration with the University of Rhode Island's
Watershed Watch program.
Surfrider members in both Delaware and New Hampshire are working in
collaboration with their State agencies to extend the beach monitoring
season beyond the summer months without adding further financial or
staff burden to the States. In Delaware, Surfrider volunteers began
collecting water samples year-round and delivering them to the
University of Delaware's School of Marine Studies for analysis after
the chapter received numerous complaints from local surfers who got ill
after surfing in the waves generated by a fall storm. In New Hampshire,
the Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) applied for additional
funding from the USEPA to extend their sampling program into the fall
and spring seasons after the local Surfrider chapter expressed their
concerns over the lack of water quality information for most of the
year. The NHDES now provides supplies and training to the Surfrider
volunteers, who in turn collect the ocean beach water samples.
In addition to seasonal gaps, inadequate funding has also resulted
in geographical gaps in State beach monitoring programs. In Mendocino,
California, Surfrider volunteers have been collecting water samples
from some of the more remote beaches and delivering them to the
Mendocino County Environmental Health Department to increase the
coverage of the County's beach monitoring program. The County does not
have the staff resources available on their own to visit all of its
bathing beaches on a regular basis.
Limited funding for staff often forces State programs to prioritize
which beaches they will sample. While high priority beaches can be
sampled upwards of 3-4 times per week, other lower priority beaches are
only visited monthly or yearly, leaving the actual water quality at
these beaches uncertain for most of the year. State and county health
departments often choose to monitor the beaches where they know there
are water quality problems, rather than devote precious staff time and
laboratory resources sampling beaches that have not been problematic in
the past. Unfortunately this leaves public health at risk.
Local surfers often turn to Surfrider when they believe they have
become ill from surfing in polluted water. Many, if not all of our
chapters, have fielded such complaints, and have in turn voiced
inquiries to their local health departments. From Newport, Rhode
Island, along the Jersey Shore, and down to Florida, surfers and
swimmers are noticing flu-like symptoms after being in the water. In
urbanized areas of California, poor water quality is unfortunately
becoming far too commonplace. One study performed by University of
California researchers measured a 10 percent increase in illness for
each additional 2.5 hours of weekly water exposure from surfing at
beaches impacted by urban runoff in Orange County, in comparison to
surfers from the more rural watersheds of Santa Cruz County.
Because many Surfrider members have a very intimate knowledge of
the conditions of their local beaches, many State programs consult us
before establishing their sampling sites and frequencies. Both in
Oregon and New Jersey, Surfrider BWTF data have been shared with the
Agency programs to demonstrate new water quality concerns. As a result,
the agencies have added beaches to their monitoring programs that were
not previously being sampled.
If Federal funding were appropriated at the levels recommended by
the Beach Protection Act of 2007 introduced by Chairman Lautenberg, I
believe many of the gaps and problems with current State implementation
could be corrected.
Surfrider is also pleased to see language included in this bill
allowing States to use their BEACH grants to investigate the sources of
beach water pollution and to take action to correct these problems.
Currently, Surfrider is working with many local governments and
agencies to secure funding to perform these types of studies so that
action can be taken to solve our watershed pollution problems and
cleanup our beaches. In California, the San Luis Bay Chapter has
cooperated with the County Health Department and city of Pismo Beach to
submit a grant application to the California State Water Quality
Control Board to determine what has been causing Pismo Beach to
regularly fail to meet water quality standards. Likewise, the San Mateo
County Chapter has applied to the Water Quality Control Board for
funding to track the source of pollution at the impaired, 303D listed
Capistrano Beach. Further up the coast in Oregon, the Newport Surfrider
Chapter is putting up its own money and is working hard to obtain match
funding from other environmental organizations and agencies to identify
what is contributing to the bacterial contamination of Nye Beach.
There is certainly a great need in every coastal State to have
better information available on what is causing our water quality
problems, so that coastal communities can target these sources with
effective management programs and practices. Providing water quality
information to the public was a good first step. It is now time for the
Federal Government to do more to protect public health, by providing
financial assistance to help communities fix their beach pollution
problems.
The Surfrider Foundation also agrees with the authors of the Beach
Protection Act of 2007 that EPA needs to begin approving new methods
that will give beach managers water quality information within a couple
of hours. Current methods employ a 24-hour incubation period, so you
know today that the beach was polluted yesterday. Many States also
resample after receiving a result that does not meet the standards, so
it may be over 48 hours before a water quality problem is confirmed and
decisions are made to close beaches or to issue swimming advisories. We
certainly should be able to do better than this. Great advancements in
method development have been made recently in the research community.
The EPA needs to develop a sound, but streamlined process to approve
these new rapid methods.
This panel, however, should consider the time line this legislation
sets for State implementation of newly approved methods. One year after
approval may not be feasible. The new rapid methods that are now
available, would require the States to not only purchase new and
expensive laboratory equipment, but they also would either have to hire
new employees or get their current employees the training they would
need to run these highly specialized and technically demanding methods.
Additionally most agencies would likely want to run the new methods
simultaneously with their current methods for at least one season, as
many did when they adopted new standards in 2004. This would allow them
to work out any problems with their new sampling procedures and give
them confidence in their results. Perhaps, it would be would be better
to require the States to submit a plan for implementing rapid testing
methods within a year of EPA adoption.
There are rapid methods available now that the EPA should be
considering for approval. If the EPA is able to move quickly toward the
approval process, we should be able to see these methods being used at
our beaches within a few years, even giving time for State budgeting,
procurement and training needs. I would recommend that this panel seek
input from some of the State agencies on this specific provision and to
be fully aware that any change in methodology is going to take a
significant financial investment for equipment purchases and staff
training.
In the Great Lakes region some coastal States are using water
quality models to augment their beach monitoring programs . Models have
been developed that are allowing beach managers to predict water
quality based on weather and physical conditions of the water and make
beach closure decisions almost instantaneously. Frustration, however,
has been expressed from some of States because they are not able to use
their BEACH grant funds to help develop or support their water quality
modeling systems. Supporting the States in their endeavors to develop
accurate water quality models may be an even quicker route to
supporting rapid assessment of beach water quality and timely public
health decisions.
The Surfrider Foundation is also supportive of this bill's
requirements that State programs create public online databases. Many
States already have these resources but there is discrepancy amongst
States on the quality, quantity, and timeliness of information
available. The EPA should take a stronger leadership role through the
proposed annual reviews, to set the bar for some of the State programs
whose programs are not as robust as some the more experienced States
who have been coordinating beach programs for decades and putting
significant resources into their monitoring programs.
Another suggestion for the annual reviews is that the EPA should
take a close look at how beaches are being posted. This has been an
area of concern for many of our members. At Pismo Beach, California
cardboard signs that were not standing up to the elements were
previously being used to post swimming advisories. Through the
cooperation of the local chapter and a newly formed Pismo Beach Water
Quality Group, new permanent signs are now being developed.
Additionally in Corpus Christi, Texas, the City has been reluctant to
post beaches even when directed to do so by the Texas Beach Watch
Program. This reluctance stems from fears by the commerce and tourism
industries that posting beaches will have negative economic impacts.
The Texas Coastal Bend Chapter has been trying to educate the City on
how issuing swimming advisories and posting beaches actually protects
the tourism industry from the certain economic disaster that would
occur if a number of tourists become ill and the proper warnings were
not in place.
In closing, the Surfrider Foundation would like to thank Senator
Lautenberg and his cosponsors for taking the initiative to make much
needed improvements in the BEACH Act. We also urge Congress to consider
the real costs of running comprehensive State beach monitoring programs
that are in the best interests of public safety, the environmental
health of our beaches, and the vitality of our coastal economies.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, each one of you. Because
this confirms the fact that there is, if we don't do this,
there is terrific cost involved, not just the personal trauma
of going swimming and coming home or winding up at the doctor
the next day or even worse. But there is, to put it bluntly, it
is a loss of income, expense. One of the reasons that I was so
vigorous in writing the first BEACH law was because I felt New
Jersey was more diligent about reporting problems than some of
our neighboring States. Frankly, we didn't want to lose the
business for being good actors.
So I think that message has to get through to the States:
if you don't do it, they are all liable to find easier places
to get to that are cleaner or other places to get to that are
cleaner and abandon their interest in being in your State or on
your coast. That would be a terrible blight. That is as bad as
having a natural disaster come along. You are an expert now,
Mr. Dufrechou, about natural disasters, what happened there.
I am curious about something. What happened with the waters
in Lake Pontchartrain as a result of Katrina?
Mr. Dufrechou. After Hurricane Katrina, 120 square miles of
the New Orleans metropolitan area were flooded, 120 square
miles behind the levees, sir. Because of the topography,
because most of New Orleans is, well, half of New Orleans is
literally below sea level, all that 120 square miles is behind
the levee system. So once the water was inside the levee
system, the only feasible way to get it out in the near term
was to pump it out. The pumping had to go into Lake
Pontchartrain.
And by gravity, also, the topography, the little bit of
relief we had, the highest point of the city is actually the
Mississippi River, which is the south side of the city. It
slopes gradually to the lakefront, which used to be a swamp, a
cypress swamp, along the shoreline. The 120 square miles that
were pumped out over a period of 4 weeks amounted to 66 billion
gallons of water. There was a lot of hype in the media of toxic
soup. It was not hype, it was true. It was everything from
sewage to oil and gas and automobiles, household chemicals,
anything that was in the urban area.
The reality, however, is that Pontchartrain, fortunately,
had gone into the storm very healthy. It was back to 1950
conditions as far as water quality. We were fishable-swimmable
prior to the storm. By volume, Lake Pontchartrain is a large
body of water. It is 630 square miles. Still, that 66 billion
gallons is a lot of water. When it was discharged, it hugged
the south shore, basically the New Orleans shoreline. By
volume, it was less than 7 percent of the Lake's volume.
So we are not advocating this, but what happened is, Mother
Nature stepped in and the solution to pollution is dilution.
That is exactly what happened. Over a period of about 6 weeks,
we knew the Lake was going to recover, frankly, it recovered
more quickly than we thought it was. But Christmas of 2005, the
Lake again was suitable for primary recreation, which was
amazing.
Senator Lautenberg. That is excellent.
Mr. Dufrechou. However, we are not suggesting that----
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. No, no. We don't stop there. When
something is good, you always want more of it.
Mr. Dufrechou. Yes, sir. Thanks for asking.
Senator Lautenberg. Cindy, what benefits might evolve from
more rapid testing for bacteria at the beach? Will the faster
testing turnaround promote local agency and citizen groups such
as Clean Ocean Action? What kind of benefits are derived from
quick action on these things and more thorough testing? What
are the practical effects? We know that people might develop
less illness or less reaction to it. But are there other
benefits? Are people waved off when they see these things, not
to return? What is the effect?
Ms. Zipf. I think that one of the primary effects is that
we will catch more of the actual water quality problems. Right
now, 70 percent of the beach closures happen within the first
24 hours. Well, it lasts about 24 hours. So if your test takes
2 to 3 days, you are not going to be able to get to some of
those closures. Because of the link to track-down, you are not
going to have an incentive to track down those sources of
pollution.
So faster testing means we are going to have better water
quality testing programs. Public health will be protected. We
will find more areas that are of concern, which will lead to
more track-down, which will lead to more reduction of those
sources, which then will improve the habitat, not just for
people, but for all marine life as well. I think that is one.
And then of course, I think that the other practical
application is that there will be more confidence in the system
by citizens.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. Funny, the ancillary things that
are happening. A specialty of mine is transportation. We now
have better train service down to the surf communities. So keep
the water clean and keep them coming, get them off the roads at
the same time, stop the congestion. Wow, just one good world.
Ms. Zipf. Perfect.
Senator Lautenberg. Surfrider, I didn't realize how
extensive the interest is, or the organized interest in
surfing. You talked about cold water surfing. I have been to
the South Pole in my interest in the environment. I don't know
how cold people go into the water, but I can tell you, what we
are missing is a sufficient amount of cold water in places
around the world, and to use it when it is clean recreationally
to me is a great idea. Because it brings home the peripheral
value of cold water. It is not just for a day of surfing if you
are waved, but it brings home the reality of what is happening
to our earth and our waters. I am also taking on that fight
when we get finished with this.
But the quality of State monitoring and testing programs, I
think you did say that it varies significantly in your own
organization. Does your organization, the employees, have a
presence all over?
Ms. Dias. No, we don't have employees all over. I am an
employee of the Surfrider Foundation. We probably have over
50,000 members and activists and volunteers. We have a staff of
about 20, maybe 25. On the east coast, we have two people, one
in New Jersey, one in Florida. I am the only environmental
staff on the east coast. Our headquarters are in California.
But you have a lot of people who go to the beaches, they go
to the beaches every day and they see things happening to the
beaches that they don't like, and they want to be involved in
what is happening in their communities and at the beaches and
in the water quality. So we have Surfrider volunteers going out
teaching school kids how to take care of water and the beaches.
You have volunteers going to city planning board meetings and
talking about coastal development and making sure that the
public is still able to get to the beaches.
It is really grass roots, you have a lot of people out
there.
Senator Lautenberg. They are acting in some way, and I am
sure they might not like this characterization, but like the
canaries in the coal mine, an early warning about what the
water is like, because they get out there at some distances as
well.
Ms. Dias. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. So we congratulate each one of you.
Your testimony was excellent. You have provided the answers
before I asked the questions, which was the best way. We are
once again saying that all of the statements that you would
like to furnish will be recorded in the record.
With that, we compliment the staff here who helped me, not
my usual staffers but the committee team. They are very
diligent about their work and I appreciate their support.
So we say good surfing, good fishing, good swimming, good
health to all of you. Thank you very much and the hearing is
over.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Thank you Chairman Lautenberg for holding this hearing. While my
State of Oklahoma is not required to comply with the Beach Act of 2000,
Oklahoma did adopt EPA's 1986 bacteria criteria for recreational
waters. Therefore, I am quite interested in EPA's progress in
developing new criteria which it was mandated by the Beach Act to have
done by October 2005.
The Beach Act has been very successful in increasing the public's
awareness of potential problems at their local beaches. In 1997, 1,000
beaches were monitored for pathogen indicators. Thanks to the Beach
Act, 3,500 of the Nation's 6,000 beaches are now regularly monitored
providing potentially valuable information to the public about the
safety of these recreational waters.
However, the information we are getting may not be accurately
predicting the risk to people swimming in the water. According to a
recent Government Accountability Report, local officials at 96 percent
of the beaches in the Great Lakes States indicated it took between 18
and 36 hours to get test results back. By the time the beach is closed,
the contamination has likely cleared up negating the need to close the
beach but potentially having left the visitors from the previous day
exposed. EPA is in the process of developing rapid response testing
procedures. Further, our Chairman, as well as our two colleagues from
the House each have bills that include provisions addressing real time
testing. While having access to quick information is important, we need
to be sure we are testing for the right indicators.
The Beach Act required EPA to finalize new criteria because of
significant concerns raised about its 1986 criteria that all coastal
States and many inland States have now adopted. It is important to look
at some of the issues raised regarding the criteria so that similar
mistakes are not repeated.
In its 2002 water quality assessment report to EPA, Oklahoma had
more than 5,300 miles of rivers and streams impaired by pathogens. It
is the State's No. 1 cause of impairments to rivers and streams and
yet, like many inland States, Oklahoma has not seen a level of illness
consistent with the impairments. Part of the problem may be that
gastrointestinal illnesses often go unreported to health officials and
an individual may assume the illness was brought on by something he ate
as opposed to the day at the beach. However, the States have questioned
the applicability of the criteria to all waters as well as whether the
criteria adequately reflect daily exposure risks.
Furthermore, As GAO noted in its May 2007 report on the Beaches
Act, according to EPA scientists, E.Coli may not be a good indicator
because it occurs naturally in many environments. Additionally, on many
remote coastal beaches, the bacteria are from animals which are largely
believed to pose much less risk to humans than those from other humans.
With so many questions and concerns about the current criteria, it
is critical that the new criteria be correct. Beaches across the
country are being closed every day and as one of today's witnesses
points out, it is costing States and local governments significant
recreation dollars. To test, monitor and treat for the wrong bacteria
will not only cost time and resources but it will not result in an
improvement in public health. While Agencies should absolutely meet
their statutory deadlines, I am quite concerned about rushing the
process and sacrificing science in order to more quickly develop new
criteria.
The Government Accounting Office recommended EPA develop a
timeframe for the completion of these much needed studies and for the
issuance of the new criteria. EPA has indicated that it may take as
many as 5 years to complete the studies. The Agency recently convened a
panel of 40 experts to determine the best path forward and I believe
EPA is heading in the right direction. While we may all want answers
tomorrow, we need to give the Agency the time it needs to develop
scientifically sound criteria.
I look forward to working with the Agency and my colleagues as we
look at whether the Beach Act should be reauthorized and how to ensure
the nation's recreational waters are safe.
__________
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from the
State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing today. We have a
number of important witnesses to hear from, so I will keep my opening
statement brief.
This hearing is especially timely. Today the high temperatures in
Maryland are expected to be in the 90s. The sun is out. School children
are on summer vacation. For many Marylanders, that means it's time to
head to the beach.
Earlier this week I was in Ocean City, Maryland, one of the premier
beach spots on the mid-Atlantic coast. On our drive back home, as we
crossed the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, we could look down on Sandy Point
State Park, which is one of the most popular beaches in the Chesapeake
Bay.
Both of these vacations spots were crowded with families, swimming,
surf fishing, and just getting their feet wet on a long, sandy walk.
Across the State, people are enjoying some of the beauty of our State.
In every instance, these beachgoers have a right to know that the water
quality meets all EPA standards. Unfortunately, that's not always the
case.
Yesterday, with the temperatures above 90 degrees, two Maryland
beaches were closed because of high bacteria counts in the water. The
Charlestown Manor Beach and the Buttonwood Beach, both in Cecil County,
were closed by the local health department, which advised the public to
stay out of the water.
The day before yesterday, two additional beaches were closed
because of excessive bacteria levels. The Great Oak and Gregg Neck
beaches in Kent County had to be closed to protect human health.
These closures, unfortunately, are not new and they are not
uncommon.
The Maryland Department of the Environment monitors 81 beaches in
the State. Last year 18 of them, or 22 percent, had at least one
advisory during beach season.
A total of 31 beach notification actions were reported. Half of
them lasted more than a week, including persistent problems with high
bacteria counts at Sandy Point State Park.
Clearly, we need to continue the monitoring programs for the
valuable information they provide us. But as the data reveal, we still
have a long way to go to provide beach-goers in Maryland and around the
country with water quality they have every right to expect on these hot
summer days.
The Federal grants to States under the 2000 BEACH Act are being put
to good use. We need to continue and expand that effort. But we also
need to make some key improvements, including a provision to make these
funds available to investigate and mitigate contamination sources.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and to working
with you, Mr. Chairman, in taking some additional steps to deal with
this important issue.
People in Maryland and across the Nation are ready to hit the
beach. Let's make sure that they can actually go into the water.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 61972.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 61972.003