Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
BEACHES AND OCEAN LEGISLATION
THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 1998
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment,
Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood Boehlert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Good afternoon and welcome to the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. Today we will consider legislation aimed at providing greater protection for our Nation's beaches and oceans. Specifically, we will be hearing testimony on H.R. 2094, a bill designed to improve water quality at our Nation's beaches, and H.R. 3445 and S. 1213, two measures aimed at establishing a coherent, long-term ocean protection policy for our Nation.
We are honored to have with us this afternoon four of the most outspoken advocates—three of the four are here already—for ocean protection in the United States Congress: Congressman Brian Bilbray, a persistent voice for ocean protection who has worked closely with me over the last several months to make today's hearing a reality; Congressman Jim Saxton, a good friend, a partner, a member who is committed to environmental protection as the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, and Wildlife, and Oceans, Congressman Saxton has developed an Oceans Commission bill that I believe will draw a broad, bipartisan support on the House Floor; good friend from New Jersey, Congressman Frank Pallone, another long-time advocate for ocean protection year in and year out; and Congressman Sam Farr, who will join us shortly, a member who I've worked closely with on a variety of water quality issues, including the development of the conservation title of the Farm Bill.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As I hope is evident to all, protecting our ocean resources is not a partisan issue; it is a priority issue. We are also honored to have with us Charles Fox from the EPA Office of Water. Mr. Fox has worked closely with me and my staff over the years on a variety of water quality issues and, though it is somewhat premature, I look forward to his confirmation as the new Assistant Administrator for Water. Joining the acting Assistant Administrator for Water on our second panel is Ms. Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at NOAA.
On our third panel, we will hear from Mr. David Rosenblatt with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Ms. Linda Eichmiller, with the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and Mr. Chris Gonaver with the San Diego County Department of Health.
And on our final panel, we will hear testimony from Mr. David Younkman of the American Oceans Campaign; Mr. Gary Sirota with the Surfrider Foundation, and Mr. Michael Nussman of the American Sport Fishing Association. A very impressive array of witnesses.
I would now like to say a few words about the legislation that we will be discussing this afternoon. First, on the beaches bill drafted by Congressman Bilbray and Congressman Pallone. We have long recognized the problems associated with poor coastal water quality. In the State of New York alone, there were 273 beach closings and advisories issued just last year. Better monitoring of coastal pollution and more uniform standards for determining the swimability and fishability and surfability of coastal waters makes sense to me. Establishment of a national oceans policy as advocated by Congressman Saxton and Congressman Farr should be widely supported, given the fact we live on a planet with two-thirds of its surface covered by water.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Finally, I would like to note that testimony from several witnesses not with us today will be included in the record. The Coastal States Organization, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Heinz Foundation, and the American Association of Port Authorities will all be providing specific comments on the legislation before us and on the need to protect coastal water quality and promote consistent ocean policies.
This is the official Year of the Ocean, but for me and I think many in this room, particularly those on the panel and Mr. Borski, every year is the year of the ocean. Now we've had a lot of reports in the recent days about an outbreak of pfiesteria, again, once again, in North Carolina. And this is serious business and I think we all recognize that.
Let me now recognize my colleague, the distinguished representative from Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORKSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me first commend you for calling the second hearing on ocean related issues. Protecting water quality and public health, whether it be oceans and coastal waters or inland lakes and rivers, is a primary concern and should be a primary concern of this committee. And I know that it's a primary concern of yours, Mr. Chairman.
I also wish to acknowledge the tireless efforts of our colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, and my friend Mr. Saxton and, of course, the people from California as well, Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Farr. I expect Mr. Farr is a little tied up on the Floor with the campaign reform bill, but perhaps he'll be joining us shortly. But their legislative proposal, H.R. 2094, better known as the beaches bill, will, obviously, better protect public health.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, that this bill has strong bipartisan support that might lead up to 50 cosponsors, including myself. This bill was originally proposed by our former colleague Phil Hughes in 1990. So we have approved prior measures in this committee, even seen the bill across the House Floor twice. Unfortunately, the bill never made it to the President's desk. Hopefully this time it will different.
The beaches bill advocates three simple principles. Beach water quality should be monitored. You cannot know whether the waters are safe unless the waters are tested. Water quality criteria should be uniform. Just as we provide assurances to the public that water supplies are safe for drinking no matter which State a person happens to be in, just as we ensure that interstate highways will meet certain design standards, and just as the Federal Government ensures that airline safety is uniform, the public should feel confident that public health standards of beaches meet certain minimum requirements.
And, finally, if there is a health problem at a beach, the public has the right to know. No potential health risk should not be kept from the public [sic]. These are issues of fundamental protection of the citizens of the Nation, not issues that are detrimental to States rights. This bill will create a partnership with the individual States to ensure the protection of health of the citizens of all States. This proposal will provide a certainty for the traveling public and the multi-billion dollar tourism and recreation industry which they support.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, let me commend you for holding this hearing and I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. I know our colleagues know this, but for everyone else in the room, you should appreciate that the reason we have sparse attendance up here right now is that we're in the closing minutes of a debate on one of the most important amendments to the campaign finance reform bills. So a number of our colleagues, including Mr. Farr, are over there. Mr. Borski and I would be too, but we give higher priority to this issue.
Our first panel consists of our three distinguished colleagues: Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Saxton. I would ask that you proceed in the order announced and we will not be severe with the time limitation, although you respect the challenge we have to try to get everything done in a reasonable period of time. Mr. Bilbray, you open it up.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Poshard follows:]
[Insert here.]
TESTIMONY OF HON. BRIAN BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA; HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW JERSEY; THE HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW JERSEY; AND HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you giving us this hearing opportunity today, allowing Mr. Pallone and I and the supporters of this bill to articulate not only the need for, but the common-sense approach of this piece of legislation. I'm grateful for the subcommittee's interest in this important issue. I would ask that my complete statement be entered into the record, along with the attached articles and letters for the record.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, not too long ago, I was lucky enough to have a son who wanted to spend his tenth birthday surfing at Assateague Island in Maryland and at the Indian River inlet in Delaware, a west coast boy who wanted to experience this activity on the east coast. We were greeted by interesting waves. Water that was a little cooler than we thought, but, actually, we had a great time and we enjoyed it.
Sadly, a few weeks ago, my son and I ended up paddling—actually going to the beach to go surfing in our own beaches in our own neighborhood but, instead of being greeted by blue waters, we were greeted by these warning signs. I guess what goes around comes around. I actually was the county supervisor who required that all these signs be bilingual in San Diego County. The fact is, this was frustrating as hell, as a father and especially as somebody who also grew up with the pollution problems that we've had in the border region.
But the big difference was, as a parent and as a surfer, as a user of water, I was given the greatest tool possible when it comes to addressing environmental problems—the knowledge that there was a problem in my neighborhood. And I think that this is the number one tool that we're trying to propose today. We're looking ahead with an outcome-based, public health strategy to try and move beyond the old command and control, process-oriented approach to the ultimate outcome-based strategy. That is, is there a public health threat and if so, inform the local community of those local conditions, and allow the local community to do what's most cost-effective and most beneficial to the environment. In the words of those of us who were involved in the environmental community in the 1970's, allowing us to think globally, but acting locally.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The strategies that we're proposing here are still in progress. I think that one of the things we've tried to address is, though over the decades point-source pollution has been the focus of Federal legislation again and again, we have basically attacked the easy, low-lying fruit of pollution problems and avoided the very, very deep social problems of nonpoint sources: urban runoff and the issues of storm drain problems. With this legislation, we'll be able to address the outcome problems and identify true problems, not perceived, problems of what's out there in the real world.
Now I'm grateful for the bipartisan approach to H.R. 2094, because I think that it really points out that it is the outcome that we all care about. We care about making sure our neighborhoods are safe and I think that it's really becoming a consensus that Democrats and Republicans can work across the aisle at saying the community should be empowered. The community has to be the lead agency when it comes to addressing their local environmental problems. Because the community are the ones that have the most at stake. It's their children that are being exposed around this country.
Now we have two witnesses; Chris Gonaver, who's in charge of ocean testing programs in San Diego County in the Environmental Health Department there, and Gary Sirota, who is the immediate past president of a group that I feel strongly about and that is Surfrider Foundation. They're working together in San Diego to show that there are not only environmental activists who are interested in being involved with this, but also local health officials, whose number one job is to protect the public health and whose direct knowledge of the immediate threats to the public health is second to no one anywhere in the world.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think the main goal that we're looking at, again, is be it Surfrider, be it County inspectors, or be it Congressmen in Washington, our main goal has to be to reduce the risk to the public. The challenge is to develop a criteria that, not in theory, but in reality, does that. And I would ask all of us to remain flexible, to help improve this piece of legislation, and to continue to be available to finetune these strategies and make sure that the letter of the law doesn't preempt our stated purpose of the law.
I think that we're going to need to develop policies that allow enough flexibility, things like, you know, there is a difference on this issue that I want to point out. That when we talk about standards, we're not just talking about—I agree strongly with the ranking member about, we ought to have standards that protect the health. But there are different standards of salinity, thermal impact, how much exposure the public's getting, and all these other things, need to be plugged in. And because of that, it's essential that we sensitize our process here to the local activities.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on this. I think our real goal is to make sure that we clean up the ocean. After all, our children should not be the canaries in the coal mine. I've grown up being one of those canaries and I want to make sure that Briana and Patrick and Shannon and Kristin and Scotty do not have to this and that their children shouldn't have to do this. I think that the best legacy we can pass onto our people is not only clean water, but a process of working together to actually take care of a problem and allowing and working with the communities to make sure they can monitor and protect their children's future too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for a very excellent statement.
Mr. Pallone.
Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the rest of the members of the committee. Let me say that I want to thank you for having this hearing today. I think it's really appropriate that we're having it just before we go back to our districts for the summer. And I'm looking forward to going back to the beaches that Brian is mentioning here today
I wanted to first, if I could, mention the Oceans Act, because, as a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife, and the Oceans, we watched this bill make its way through the Resources Committee and I feel very strongly that, in commemoration of the International Year of the Ocean, we should pass the bill. As you know, the protection, conservation, and effective management of our oceans and the coastal and marine environment are very complicated issues, and ones that deserve thorough review and consideration, so I do want you to know that I support that bill completely.
Now let me move on to the beaches bill. I'm going to try not to repeat anything that my colleague from California mentioned. I do want to mention, though, increasingly we know that people use the beaches for recreation. About 82 percent of all travelers this summer will be going to the beaches nationwide. But the problem is that it's not always safe to swim in the water. And we know a lot of the reasons for that, the pathogens that make their way into recreational waters and cause all kinds of serious illnesses and, particularly, for children and senior citizens and people with weakened immune systems. Last summer, you mentioned the impact of outbreaks of the pfiesteria microbe in the Chesapeake Bay area. In fact, this morning I was listening to the radio when I got up and I heard that there might be potentially a new outbreak of pfiesteria, either in the Chesapeake or nearby.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I believe that we need this beaches bill because beachgoers, basically, have a right to know that the waters they are swimming in or surfing in, in the case of my colleague from California, are safe. It's essentially a right-to-know issue. According to a report issued this past July by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which we have here, called Testing the Waters, last year only 8 out of the 29 coastal States comprehensively monitored all of their beaches and notified the public if the water was not swimmer-safe. Now I'm proud to say that New Jersey is one of only a few States that not only monitors all of its beaches on a regular basis, but also consistently closes its beaches when bacterial water quality standards are violated. But with enactment of this beaches act, anyone going to any beach in the United States would be able to know whether the water they are swimming in is safe.
I introduced the beaches act last June with my colleague Mr. Bilbray. We have strong bipartisan support. Over 50 cosponsors and, as Mr. Borski mentioned, this bill, sponsored by Mr. Hughes, was actually passed twice in the House of Representatives. So there's a lot of support for this.
Basically, to just talk quickly about what the bill does. It amends the Clean Water Act to establish a national uniform beach water quality testing, monitoring, and posting program, providing adequate protections for swimmers and flexibility for the States. There are four major components. I'll just list them briefly. First, it requires States to adopt water quality criteria that are consistent with Federally established criteria and adequate to protect the public from disease-causing pathogens in coastal waters.
Second, it requires the EPA to establish procedures for monitoring and posting coastal recreational waters. My colleague gave an example of the kind of posting that you would get. Third, the beaches bill requires the EPA to conduct studies on potential health risks associated with water contact activities. And, finally, the bill provides grants to States to help them implement their beach water quality testing and monitoring so that we can help out in implementing this.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that the beach bill is supported by 65 environmental, conservation, religious, and public interest groups across the country. We have a letter here that basically outlines all the different groups that have endorsed the bill. If I could submit that for the record, Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PALLONE. And they're all basically saying the same thing, that they want to be able to know whether the waters that they're swimming in or surfing in are safe. That's essentially what this is all about.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, if I could say that, from our own experience in New Jersey, the benefits of this program far outweigh the costs. We're always cost conscious. Let me give you an example. In New Jersey, we spend about $400,000 a season on this program. Yet, according to the State, New Jersey receives about $14 billion in coastal travel and tourism revenues. I've never seen a better benefit-to-cost ratio in terms of the return on our investment.
So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Borski, and the others in trying to get this bill through the committee and thank you very much for the hearing today.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. What we're going to try to do is get both Mr. Saxton and Mr. Farr in. Is that agreeable to you?
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
All right, Mr. Saxton, you're up.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much, and I think it is extremely helpful, that you have set aside time to have this hearing today on these two bills.
Looking around the room, I appreciate something the Speaker recently observed, at Mr. Fossella, Mr. Gilchrest, and you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Borski and my friends here on both sides of me and the people who are sitting behind us. The Speaker recently observed that everyone on Capitol Hill is entitled to a passion and I think this is a good example of a group of people who have a passion for something that is extremely important, we think is extremely important. And I think that the American people generally do too, as observed by Mr. Pallone in his statement that such a high percentage of people choose to associate themselves, in one way or another, with the ocean during their spare time. And so I think it is important for all of those reasons that we're here today to talk about these two bills.
Let me direct my comments specifically to the Ocean Commission bill, which my partner to my left, Mr. Farr, and I have worked hard together on a bipartisan basis to bring forward. If I may steal a quote from Mr. Farr. I'm not quite sure how it goes, but it's something like: We know more about the surface of the moon or we know more about outer space than we do about that part of the surface of the Earth that's covered by the ocean waters. And that is true and it is not something that anyone meant to have happen, but it is something that has a great deal of truth inherent in it.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And so Mr. Farr and I have worked together and first we observed that we have no national ocean policy currently, but that we tackle problems in kind of a piecemeal fashion and it's the best we have been able to do. Mr. Pallone and I have worked on the New Jersey shore in a piecemeal fashion for the entire time that we've been in Congress tackling one issue after another. The fact of the matter is that we have no national ocean policy.
So Mr. Farr and I looked back at our efforts in this regard over the last several decades and we noted in the 1960's, there was a commission formed to study the ocean. It became known as the Stratton Commission. In 1965, the Congress got serious about having that commission formed and in 1969, the commission reported to the Congress and, subsequently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is represented by some of the folks behind us, was formed and has operated in a very successful fashion ever since and the Coastal Zone Management Act was passed as a result of another recommendation of the Stratton Commission.
And so Mr. Farr and I said, that was a success in terms of the study the Stratton Commission did and the recommendations that it did. It's been 30-plus years since we have entered into that kind of an activity and we ought to do it again. And so we cosponsored a bill which would create a bipartisan commission which we believe would end up with eight Republicans and eight Democrats on a commission, nominated and appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, with final appointment by the President, but we believe it would end up being eight Republicans and eight Democrats, to enter into an 18-month study at the conclusion of which time, a report, similar to the Stratton Commission report, would be issued to the President and to the Congress for the purpose of making recommendations as to what we ought to do in terms of the establishment of a national ocean policy.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now we think the commission idea is extremely important and that's because all four of us sitting at this table and all of the folks sitting behind us can each make a list of dozens of things that ought to be done with regard to the ocean. Whether it's fisheries and resource management, which we're not very good at, frankly, which I deal with at least half of my time here in Congress, or whether it's the environmental issues that Mr. Pallone and Mr. Bilbray have just outlined so eloquently, we don't seem to be very good on a piecemeal basis of dealing with these issues.
And, therefore, we think a better approach, or a helpful approach, at least, would be the establishment of this commission and, to the extent that we can use this process to learn more about the surface of the Earth covered by the ocean's waters and to the extent that we can better deal with the issues that we're having a difficult time dealing with today, we believe that this approach is a good one.
The bells are ringing and there are a lot more things that I could say, but I'll cut my testimony short at that point and just say two more things. (a) Certainly I support the Bilbray-Pallone, Pallone-Bilbray bill, whichever way it is. And, secondly, I know that you're having this as kind of an oversight hearing; yet, I also know that it is within your right to request sequential referral of this bill. Having said that, Mr. Young, I believe, has made arrangements with the Speaker or with the Majority Leader, or both, to have this bill considered our first week back in September. A sequential referral would not work particularly well in that process. And so, unless there's some overriding, overwhelming need that you have to make that request, we implore you to give this to us.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Saxton, and I usually listen to you. You're a partner of longstanding.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Farr.
Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be very quick. Let me just go into the politics of it. The politics of it are that two-thirds of the American population lives in the coastal zone or Great Lakes region. The most populous States are in the coastlines or in the Great Lakes. Secondly, the most economic development in the county's in those same coastal zones.
We, as a country, as the Chairman said, Chairman Saxton said, we haven't done anything for 30 years in looking at the whole, comprehensive issue. We kind of deal with fisheries over here. We deal with coastal zone management over there. We deal with pollution, on nonpoint source runoff. We deal with boating and harbors. And what we find is that there's a lot of conflicts at sea. And how do you resolve all of this?
So this, the bipartisan bill that we passed out of our committee, sets up the Commission, gives it a life of 18 months, and says that the Commission has to report back to the President and to the Congress at the same time, and then nothing goes forward unless we jointly act. So it's a very, I think, very conservatively-drafted Commission and would afford the same thing.
We'd like to get a bill on this out and signed this year. Why? It's sort of Congress is the only one that hasn't done anything yet. We've got the International Year of the Ocean. We have an American pavilion in Lisbon. We've had Codel going over and look at it and speak at it. We've had the oceans conference in Monterey, where the military and resource agencies were there. The only entity that hasn't yet done anything about the Year of the Oceans is Congress. And so this is a way to say that we're going to be a partner along with everyone else and this bill is a symbol of that. And I would ask that the committee allow us to have that vote when we get back.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And then, lastly, I would just like to say that I think that this beaches issue that Bilbray and Pallone are tackling is absolutely essential to us. That's where America—you know the biggest number one attraction in America, the number one attraction, bigger than anything here in Washington, bigger than any Disneyland, is the southern California beaches and they're all publicly owned. And we have the responsibility to do something about that.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, all of you. And I want to assure you that we're going to be facilitators, not impediments. We're going to move this thing through. Now we have 5 minutes to go and we'll stand in recess for approximately 15 minutes. When we return, Mr. Fossella will assume the Chair. I've been called to the Intelligence Committee. I'll be back as soon as I can.
[Recess.]
Mr. FOSSELLA [presiding] Surf's up.
[Laughter.]
We have our second panel, joined by Mr. Charles Fox, who's the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water for the Environmental Protection Agency, and from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ms. Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, based here in Washington. Thank you.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Fox, if you'd like to proceed.
TESTIMONY OF J. CHARLES FOX, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; SALLY YOZELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Charles Fox. I'm the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water at the U.S. EPA. I will focus my comments this afternoon on the beach safety bill and defer to my colleague from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to discuss the Ocean Commission bill.
We all recognize the importance of this Nation's ocean and coastal waters and the resources they contain. Coastal waters support about 28 million jobs and generate over $50 billion in goods and services every year. The coastal recreation and tourism industry is the second-largest employer in the Nation, serving 180 million Americans visiting the coasts every year. Because so many people are drawn to or dependent on ocean and coastal waters, restoring, maintaining, and enhancing their health and sustainability are of great importance to this Administration.
As you know, we are celebrating the International Year of the Ocean. Countries around the world are examining their responsibilities as stewards of ocean and coastal resources. At the recent National Oceans Conference in Monterey, California, President Clinton again pledged to implement the Clean Water Action Plan. This action plan contains several important actions directed to marine and estuarine protection, including specific actions to assure attainment and protection of healthy and safe beaches. This committee's support for the Clean Water Action Plan implementation is important to the successful protection of our beaches and coastal waters.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Before discussing the specific provisions of the Beach Assessment, Closure, and Health Act, I would like to note for the record that a description of some of EPA's current efforts to strengthen beach protection are contained in my written testimony. Of particular note is a program of the same name, announced by EPA Administrator Carol Browner in May of this year. Consistent with the purposes of this bill, the goal of our program is to significantly reduce the risk of infection to users of the Nation's recreational waters through improvements in recreational water programs, communication, and scientific advances.
Let me now turn to the provisions of the Beach Act of 1997. EPA supports this legislation and believes that it complements and enhances beach safety efforts now underway. We applaud the bill's proposal to ensure State adoption of EPA criteria. We note that the bill also includes a proposal to apply EPA's recommended criteria without requiring further promulgation by EPA. This approach may be the most cost-effective and expeditious route to ensure adequate protection of coastal and recreational waters. However, we look forward to working with you further on this provision of the bill.
We also need to supplement the national criteria with guidance to allow for flexibility in the State-to-State application of the criteria. This flexibility is necessary to account for the diversity of geographic and aquatic conditions nationwide, while assuring a consistent level of protection for public health.
EPA also supports the studies identified in section four of the bill to develop a more complete list of potential health risks, better indicators for directly detecting or predicting the presence of pathogens, and more expeditious methods for detecting the presence of pathogens. EPA agrees that revised criteria should be developed following completion of the research needed to support them.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
EPA believes that coastal recreational waters should be monitored. The President's budget for 1999 requests a 90 percent increase in section 3.19 grant funds and a 20 percent increase in section 1.06 grant funds to support State efforts. Water quality monitoring at beaches is eligible for both of these funds.
EPA agrees with the provision in the bill calling for nationally consistent monitoring protocols for State and local governments and EPA has established a research agenda to develop them. The development of these monitoring protocols constitutes a significant research program which will take several years to complete. EPA suggests that the period for the development of monitoring protocols in the bill be extended for four years to allow completion of this critical research program.
EPA also supports provisions of the bill providing for States and local governments to select which recreational waters to monitor. We believe that the bill would allow States to monitor only those waters staffed by lifeguards and that the bill provides the flexibility to limit monitoring to those beaches with health risks. Localities have demonstrated that predictive tools can be successfully used to determine the need for beach advisories, significantly reducing the need for incurring the costs of monitoring a beach. EPA recommends that the bill specifically allow the Administrator to approve the use of appropriate predictive tools in lieu of monitoring.
In conclusion, EPA support H.R. 2094, the beach act, and would like to work with this committee to improve it and make it more consistent with the President's Clean Water Action Plan. We believe that distinct grant programs should be incorporated within the authorities for Clean Water Act sections 3.19 and 1.06 grants. We believe this bill complements and enhances the beach safety efforts EPA has committed to undertake in the Clean Water Action Plan. We believe that strengthening water quality standards and criteria for recreational waters is critical. We agree that EPA research efforts need to be focused on developing new indicators for non-gastrointestinal diseases and improving monitoring protocols for recreational waters.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. And I would ask that my written statement be included in the record.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Without objection.
Thank you, Mr. Fox.
Ms. Yozell.
Ms. YOZELL. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Sally Yozell. I'm the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at the Department of Commerce. Thank you for giving me the opportunity today to testify and I ask that my full statement be placed in the record.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Without objection.
Ms. YOZELL. Mr. Chairman, America's coastal waters are in trouble. An alarming 40 percent of the Nation's waterways are unsafe for swimming and fishing. Pollution caused over 4,000 beach closings and warnings last year and adequate monitoring is still lacking at many of the Nation's most popular beaches. Last year, fish kills in the Chesapeake Bay from toxic pfiesteria cost the area over $40 million in lost revenue and, Mr. Chairman, as you're aware, there is a pfiesteria outbreak on the Neuse River in North Carolina and we are beginning to see signs of a new outbreak in the Chesapeake again.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As Administrator Fox noted, last year President Clinton and Vice President Gore launched a 5-year, $2.3 billion Clean Water Action Plan to tackle these problems head on. This initiative seeks to knit together many successful water-related programs and projects into one comprehensive proposal to clean America's water. Under the initiative, NOAA would receive $22 million in Fiscal Year 1999 to help States implement their nonpoint pollution plans and to conduct research, monitoring, and assessment to help control toxic algae blooms and related problems affecting our waters.
I respectfully ask that information on NOAA's Clean Water initiative be submitted into the record at this point.
[The information referred to is attached to Ms. Yozell's prepared statement.]
Ms. YOZELL. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for your vote yesterday and others on the committee on the Commerce Appropriations bill with regard to the nonpoint source pollution program. And, although it wasn't successful, I strongly urge that when the bill gets to Conference that we do all we can to fully fund this important program.
The Clean Water Action Plan is just one step in the right direction. In June, the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Navy sponsored the first-ever National Oceans Conference. Over 750 representatives from industry, constituent groups, academia, and Federal, State, and local governments assembled in Monterey, California. Never had such a diverse group of ocean users gathered together to exchange ideas. There were shippers speaking to environmentalists, fishers talking to experts from the biotechnology and tourism industry. It was truly a remarkable experience.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At the conference, the President and the Vice President proposed an additional $224 million through 2002 to support several initiatives related to ports, fisheries, coral reefs, underwater technology, ocean monitoring, declassification of Navy data, toxic algae blooms, beach advisories and closings. In addition, the President called on all the Federal agencies involved in the ocean policy arena to report back to him within one year with recommendations for a coordinated long-term Federal oceans policy. He also pledged to work with Congress to create an oceans commission like the one in the Oceans Act we're discussing today.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration cannot accomplish these goals alone. We need help from Congress. And H.R. 2094, the beaches bill, seeks to address a recognized gap in coastal and environmental protection by establishing, nationwide, a comprehensive process to monitor, detect unhealthy coastal waters, ensure their prompt assessment and testing, and provide for a timely public notice of the health and safety hazards of our Nation's beaches.
NOAA has a small role in this legislation, to study, in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency, several aspects of coastal recreation water quality. NOAA currently conducts a broad range of coastal ocean monitoring assessment activities and this legislation will enhance our current programs. In addition, NOAA supports State and academic research on these and other marine inclusion issues through programs such as the sea grant program, coastal zone management, and the national estuarine research preserve system.
Our research focuses on living marine resources. Impacts on human health, such as those addressed in this legislation are primarily the responsibility of other Federal agencies such as EPA. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will defer to my colleagues at EPA for further elaboration on the bill.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With regard to the Oceans Act, the establishment of a national oceans commission would be an excellent step towards assuring future health of our oceans. It has been more than 30 years since legislation was enacted calling for a comprehensive national program to explore and protect ocean and coastal resources. The well-known Stratton Commission, established in 1996—I mean, excuse me, 1966, has shaped and influenced U.S. domestic policy for three decades. Much has changed during the last 30 years and the time to pass legislation to reexamine the ocean's issues is now. The Administration continues to support passage of an oceans act and I applaud action by the Senate to pass S. 1213 last November and I would like to submit for the record a copy of the letter from Secretary Daley to the Senate Commerce Committee which outlines the Administration's views on the Senate bill.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Without objection.
[The information referred to is attached to Ms. Yozell's prepared statement.]
Ms. YOZELL. We are also pleased that the House Resource Committee recently reported out H.R. 3445, which I strongly urge the full House to consider before the end of this Congress, and I was heartened by Chairman Saxton's comments earlier. Mr. Chairman, I have copies of the administration's views on previous versions of H. 3445 to submit also for the record.
Mr. FOSSELLA. No objection.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information referred to is attached to Ms. Yozell's prepared statement.]
Ms. YOZELL. And I would like to take a moment today to point out some changes the Administration would like to see in the legislation. Most importantly, we urge that all States fall under the purview of the Commission. The exemption of States with coastal watersheds is a serious flaw in the current bill and will not allow the Commission to conduct its studies fully. Mr. Chairman, there are other changes the Administration would like to see, which are addressed in my written statement. We look forward to working with the Congress to ensure that any oceans act sent to the President this year meets the needs of Congress, the Administration, and, most importantly, the oceans committee—community—excuse me.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me remind the subcommittee that the role of government in how they administer programs has changed dramatically in the last three decades. The establishment of a national oceans committee will help highlight and prioritize the direction of our future national efforts to reap benefit to the ocean and its resources while preserving them for the future.
This completes my testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Oh, thank you, Ms. Yozell and Mr. Fox. And I particularly want to thank the members who preceded you in the first panel: Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Farr. I know all members in this committee share their goals and concerns with trying to implement the policy that protects the public health and really reinforces and underscores how important the oceans are and waterways and coastal areas as well. And Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. Menendez here share their concerns as well.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I have some specific questions that are unrelated to the bill, but, while I have you here, Mr. Fox, if I may, this is an issue that regards Yonker Kill and if you may not be familiar with it, I understand. Yonker Kill is a waterway that separates New Jersey from Staten Island, the area that I represent. And, you know, we've seen in recent years, as members of this committee, how waterways have come back and fishing is thriving—some of the best bass fishing in the country actually takes place in the Raritan Bay. Our beaches, believe it or not, are coming back in Staten Island. And people are really and truly enjoying the beaches and the coastal areas.
We've been working—I just mentioned to Congressman Menendez—on an issue that concerns illegal, possible illegal, dumping of raw sewage into the Yonker Kill and, on its face, it appears that the situation could constitute violations of the Clean Water Act. In an effort to be constructive, I've already written to Ms. Fox, who's the regional Administrator——
Mr. FOX. No relation, I would add.
[Laughter.]
Mr. FOSSELLA. Without objection. If she can evaluate that and if you can do something because—I would like to ask one question now, with that as a background, our concern about illegal sewage flowing into the Yonker Kill. It's estimated that almost 1 million gallons a year flow into the Yonker Kill, acknowledged by the State Department of Environmental Protection for the State of New Jersey that it's a serious concern. And, you know, we would hate to have the waterways polluted if it can be protected, so—are there normally Federal funds available to fix sewage problems such as these and, to your knowledge, has New Jersey apply for these funds in the past?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOX. Mr. Chairman, those are all very good questions and I will follow up on the specific elements of the waters near Staten Island.
The specific answer to your question is: Yes, there are Federal funds available to help abate sewage treatment problems, to the States. This primarily comes through what we call the State Revolving Loan Fund program. Congress authorizes roughly in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion a year, which is available to the States which they in turn can loan out in the form of low-interest loans to municipalities to help address some of their sewage problems. So, yes, there are Federal funds available for that. And New Jersey and New York both are States that very effectively use these SRF programs. In fact, New York's program is one of the most highly leveraged programs in the country.
Mr. FOSSELLA. There is an issue about granting waivers to the Clean Water Act. I would like to know what are the qualifications for granting a waiver for the Clean Water Act and if it would apply to this situation.
Mr. FOX. I will look into specifics of this. If you are referring to what we call section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act, which is the waiver from secondary treatment requirements, I don't personally know of any waivers that we have granted in that part of the country, but I will have to look into that. In general, this part of the Clean Water Act applies in cases where you can demonstrate that will not be a significant impact on the marine environment and there's other conditions that apply in terms of monitoring requirements and the like. I'm aware that we have some of these waivers into Southern California waters and some of the trust territories, some in Alaska, but I'm personally not aware of any in that area, but I will look into that.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOSSELLA. On it's face, does this appear to be a violation of the Clean Water Act?
Mr. FOX. I'd have to learn more about it.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Okay, fair enough. Now what are the—this is the last question—what are the oversight abilities of the EPA to guarantee that, in general, State and localities are complying with the standards of the Clean Water Act?
Mr. FOX. It is primarily a State responsibility. Under the Clean Water Act, we delegate authorities to the States to implement the Clean Water Act and then the States have primary enforcement authorities in circumstances like you are discussing. In some cases, EPA will work with the States on individual enforcement actions and, in very, very rare cases, EPA will actually take independent enforcement actions. But, by and large, that is a State responsibility.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Okay. Again, and this is all in an effort to be constructive. We'd hate to see the progress we've made be reversed. To the extent that they can, I'd be willing to work with Congressman Menendez and with the EPA to try to limit the number of illegal hookups and, thus, the flow of raw sewage into the Yonker Kill. At this point, Congressman Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just follow up on that, Mr. Fox, and urge you to keep us advised as well as Mr. Fossella since the community that he's concerned about resides in my district and I clearly would like to know what the issue is as well. If, in fact, the allegations are true, how we can successfully overcome it.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I'd like to ask you some direction questions about the legislation which you're all testifying on. And my sense of your testimony, both that which I listened to and I was reading through, would assume that you're in essence supportive of this legislation. Is that fair to say?
Mr. FOX. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Okay. When you state that the EPA's improving science and water quality standards, may very well lead to more beach closings and advisories, the fact of the matter is, obviously, that would mean that some current standards are not sufficient to protect the health of those who bathe at public beaches?
Mr. FOX. That statement generally refers to the fact, Mr. Menendez, that, as we increase the amount of monitoring that is going on, we anticipate that that monitoring will show that there are, in fact, some beaches that might need to be restricted or closed. And so, as this bill becomes implemented and more and more monitoring takes place, we anticipate that might be one of the outcomes. It has less to do with the strength and the rigidity of the standards themselves.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Okay, so that, in and of itself, is not a reason not to be moving forward with this legislation.
Mr. FOX. That's correct.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. Now, let me ask both of you. There is a body of opinion here that suggests that, in fact, the legislation, which many members before—I was reading through their testimony because I wasn't here when they testified—were supportive of, may very well be, in their view, either unconstitutional or unworthy of public policy in the context of mandatory monitoring and notification requirements. That's not my view. But it seems to be the view of some who sit here in this body. What's your view of that?
Mr. FOX. This issue was raised to me, also, for the first time this morning. I did talk with our General Counsel's office at EPA before coming before you and I think I would pledge to work with the committee and this bill's sponsors to address any structural issues that they might find in the bill. It is certainly not our reading that it would lead to an issue of constitutionality.
In general, when you structure legislation that suggests that certain activities have to be undertaken by the States, as a condition of a grant being received by a State, that does not raise constitutional questions. That is, in essence, how we read this bill being constructed. One could also imagine that, if a State failed to take certain actions, that the Federal Government would, in fact, take those actions. Again, if a bill was structured that way, it would likely not meet those constitutional problems. But our reading of the bill was that it did not raise those issues. If the committee would like us to work with them to address some of that, we'd be happy to do that.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, we're concerned that there are those who, under that guise, who would attempt to undermine the whole focus of the bill. It seems to that if you want—you know, bodies of water flow onto each other and it is very difficult to rely simply upon whether or not a State would enforce certain standards as to whether or not we would preserve or protect both the oceans and protect those citizens across the country, along coastal regions, who would use these bodies of water and, ultimately, who would have the right to be informed. So I raise that because I'm concerned about those who would seek to undermine the legislation by raising what I feel is a false claim.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me ask you: Is current law adequate to perform and promote uniform water quality standards among the States?
Mr. FOX. The agency has adopted some water quality criteria for indicator species to—specifically, we have an E. coli water quality criteria and an enterococci water quality criteria that is used by many States in terms of making their own decisions about whether or not to close or restrict swimming at beaches. Some States have chosen to use other criteria. There is a certain basis of standard and uniform criteria around the country and the agency believes that we could do better than we're currently doing and that we could strengthen this further by encouraging more adoption of E. coli and enterococci type standards, as opposed to some of the traditional fecal coliform type standards.
This is a subject that's particularly difficult to talk about, but at least it's after lunchtime. But, by and large, we are talking about indicator species for pathogens that can be present in waters and the more information that we have and get that to the public, the better off we are.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Thank you very much. And to a member of the committee who's devoted much of his career to improving the quality of coastal areas around his great State of New Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo.
Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes. I thank my colleague from New York. Mr. Fox, thank you for being here, and this is not on the legislation for the oceans and beaches, but since the distinguished chairman brought up an issue that had to do with a sewage problem, I'd like to take the opportunity to ask you something about the comments you made that there was $1.5 billion that's available to States to go to municipalities for sewage problems.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOX. That's correct.
Mr. LOBIONDO. That money has to be applied for specifically by a State through a municipality or—
Mr. FOX. Typically, the way this works is the Federal Government, we give money to the State that goes into an SRF fund that is managed by the State. The municipalities, in turn, apply to the State. Many States have a priority system for deciding which municipalities will get the money and then the State can make determinations about the loan rate, for example, that the municipality might get or which municipalities may or may not get the money. Those are typically State decisions.
Mr. LOBIONDO. They're State decisions as far as an emergency situation for a State to act more promptly if there is mitigating circumstances?
Mr. FOX. Under the SRF, yes. Those would be State decisions. The Federal role—we just simply capitalize these State funds by giving them monies based on a formula established, in fact, by this committee.
Mr. LOBIONDO. All right. I would appreciate it if—not to dominate with this topic—but afterwards, if you could refer someone from your office that my office could talk to about specific questions about frequent problems that I'd like to follow up on.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOX. We'd be happy to do that.
Mr. LOBIONDO. Additional question, and I think it was referenced earlier in comments about pfiesteria breakout, and what may be on the horizon as far as EPA, in dealing with this program, number one, there was reference made to we're seeing the first edges of this at the Chesapeake Bay at this point. What are the possibilities for this problem moving farther north to the Delaware Bay or further up the coast?
Mr. FOX. I'll let my colleague, perhaps, follow up on this. And, first, I think it's important to state that we do not know for certain whether or not it was, in fact, pfiesteria that was identified on the Nanikott River yesterday in Maryland. They will still be doing some tests and that takes some time.
In general, though, it is fair to say that there has been a very significant increase in what we call harmful algal blooms taking place throughout the United States, but particularly on the Atlantic coast up to at least including Delaware waters. In general, these harmful algal blooms are the result, scientists say, of increasing nutrients to the water. And, while we think of nutrients as being a good thing, in excess they actually create significant pollution problems. These nutrients come from sewage treatment plants, from agricultural runoff, from city streets, and they are believed to be contributing to the increased problems associated with harmful algal blooms.
EPA and my colleagues here at NOAA, we are working together to help States respond in an expeditious manner to potential outbreaks of pfiesteria. There are some emergency response funds we have made available to some States so that they can do some very rapid testing and make some determinations about whether or not there are potential public health threats in addition to obvious aquatic life problems.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LOBIONDO. Do you know, is there any way to do any testing to determine if conditions are ripe for this outbreak to—in other words, to catch it in a right at the front end or that—we don't have the technology for that?
Mr. FOX. I'll give that one to you, Sally.
Ms. YOZELL. Let me respond in couple ways. First let me say, when you think of harmful algal blooms, they aren't just pfiesteria. There's a whole host of them and you do have them in the northeast: red tides, brown tides, paralytic shellfish poisoning in the northwest. Pfiesteria is just one of many and, as Mr. Fox said, nutrient overloading is one that contributes and, basically, the best way to address it, is by attacking the problem, which is polluted runoff.
And, for example, the Clean Water Action Plan, which the President and the Vice President put forward earlier this year, does that in a number of ways. We at NOAA and at EPA, we have a joint program problem called ECOHAB. Some of its work takes place in the New York area to look at the brown tide there and other red tides. It is for research and monitoring. We're trying to learn as much as we can. And I think the bottom line is we need to address polluted runoff. We need to continue to do the research on it.
Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Thank you very much, Mr. LoBiondo. This is a question for Ms. Yozell, but perhaps Mr. Fox would like to answer as well. In your opinion, should the ocean commission address marine quality—marine water quality issues as well as oceanography, fisheries, and the management or use of the ocean and coastal resources?
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. YOZELL. Absolutely. The oceans commission should address all of the issues related to this committee, relating to shipping, transportation, oceanography, fisheries, the multitude of issues that affect our ocean. One has to just think that, at the moment, 95 percent of our oceans have yet to be explored. And, in the next decade, we're going to have the technology to access every inch of the ocean floor. And if we aren't prepared in a cooperative and coordinated approach, we're going to see ourselves in a lot of trouble. And so I urge that we develop this commission, that we include all of the interests that work in the ocean, and that Congress pass it as soon as possible.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Nothing to add. What about marine transportation and coastal issues such as shore protection and storm damage reduction?
Ms. YOZELL. Absolutely. Both of those should be considered by a commission.
Mr. FOSSELLA. I guess the last question, unless anyone else has another for you, would it be feasible for Congress to require NOAA to undertake the monitoring required by H.R. 2094?
Ms. YOZELL. Well, under the current system, NOAA primarily focuses on the living marine resources and EPA on the health of humans and I think the way that the bill is currently structured, that's the best approach to take.
Mr. FOX. Mr. Chairman, if I could comment on that provision. There's been a considerable amount of appropriate attention on the monitoring provisions of this bill. It is our reading of this bill that the States would have the flexibility to decide which beaches needed monitoring and which ones didn't and if the State chose to only monitor those beaches, for example, that were staffed by lifeguards on a full-time basis, that would be the State's decision to do so and it would not be our intent to second-guess those State decisions in that regard.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOSSELLA. Okay. Well, thank you again. And on the matter that we discussed, if you would keep us informed, recognizing it's a local and regional issue, it'd be greatly appreciated. And, again, with my colleague, Mr. Menendez, we'd appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Mr. FOX. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. FOSSELLA. We will now be joined, speaking of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, by Mr. David Rosenblatt, supervisor of the Local Shore Programs; Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, represented by Ms. Linda Eichmiller, Deputy Director; and, from the County of San Diego Department of Health, Mr. Chris Gonaver, the Assistant Director.
Thank you for joining us today and we'll begin with Mr. Rosenblatt.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID ROSENBLATT, MANAGER, COOPERATIVE COASTAL, LOCAL SHORE PROGRAMS, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, TRENTON, NJ; LINDA EICHMILLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATORS; AND CHRIS GONAVER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, SAN DIEGO, CA
Mr. ROSENBLATT. Thank you. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is David Rosenblatt and I have managed the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program since it began in 1986. I thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony related to H.R. 2094.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This bill has similarities to New Jersey's program and that is good. It requires testing, monitoring, and posting of recreational beaches to protect public health and improve environmental quality. New Jersey performs these activities now and also requires beach closings to further protect public health. And we do so within a reasonable budget. I can say, uncritically, that since 1986, our monitoring program has resulted in improved quality of our recreational waters, with corresponding decreases in risk to public health.
I must emphasize that a comprehensive beach program should, as H.R. 2094 suggests, consist of more than routine water testing by a State. This program, like New Jersey's, should consider beach conditions, continually identifying and evaluate all potential pollution sources, and actively seek their control or elimination. This program, like New Jersey's, should ensure that those governmental agencies and private organizations responsible for sewage collection infrastructures and treatment works in the coastal areas understand that they are also responsible for coastal water quality. And this program, like New Jersey's, should continually review, sponsor, and conduct research that could lead to better analytical procedures, better pathogen indicators, and better understanding of the health risks these pathogens present.
Our program has been designed to meet the needs of our States. This summer, our local health agencies are sampling and surveying 177 ocean beaches and 139 bay beaches every week. These local agencies also perform the water quality analyses and enforce the mandatory beach closing requirements. The DEP and the Department of Health and Senior Services guide the program policy and provide technical and limited financial support. The Department has, since 1988, also preformed daily surveillance flights over coastal waters to find illegal discharges and visually assess water quality and beach conditions.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The program requires the beach to be closed when the water quality exceeds the standard of 200 fecal cloriforms on two consecutive days. Local health officials retain the discretion to close beaches at any time when the public health is threatened by, for example, sewage infrastructure failure or nonpoint source discharges after rainfall. This local discretion has created automatic closures at one of our bay beaches for 24 hours following rainfall. We encourage and applaud this type of vigilance to protect public health.
The story in the late 1980's in New Jersey was a sad story. It was highlighted by 803 beach closures in 1988 due to bacteria contamination of the waters and floatable debris washups. As of today, only one ocean beach of about 75 yards wide out of a total 127 miles of ocean shoreline has been closed for 1 day this summer. There are many parties that have claim to a part of the improvement of these closing numbers: environmental groups, wastewater treatment facility operators, legislators, and governors, and the regulating agencies. But the cooperative posting and monitoring program provided data and the insight to direct much of these efforts for the past 13 years and reported the results of these efforts.
New Jersey began testing its coast and recreational waters in 1974 to monitor the effects of those sewage treatment facilities discharging to the coastal waters. In 1986, at a conference with our State and local environmental and health agencies, we determined that that monitoring would be the basis for a more comprehensive program to protect public health and we also added mandatory beach closing procedures. Also in 1986, EPA published the results on an extensive research project as recommended guidelines to be used by the States to assess recreational water quality as it relates to public health. New Jersey reviewed that research and invited the researchers, EPA, and the Centers for Disease Control to present their conclusions and other relevant ideas at our conference.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At the 1986 conference, we determined that we would not be adopting EPA's recommended guidelines, anticipating that EPA or independent researchers would soon be able to provide improved guidelines more applicable to conditions in New Jersey's waters. Although New Jersey has sponsored and conducted its own research into the indicators of the presence of pathogens and their effect on public health and, participating with EPA in similar studies, further research is necessary in this area at a national level.
Based on New Jersey's 12 years of coastal monitoring experience, I offer the following suggestions as you consider this bill. One, the flexibility to apply sound science from wherever and whenever it arises to our State's Pacific coastal conditions and pollution problems is critical to its continued success. The science must be applicable to the State's situations.
Two, any State program must also realistically consider the resources that are available to it. The science that may be suitable for intensive research projects may be difficult to apply and fund as a routine regulatory program that must be sustained over many years. The States must be able to adapt research results to fit their particular needs and abilities.
And, finally, provide the States with better scientific information so that we can make our programs better. We believe that more advanced, more conclusive research will allow for more agreement than currently exists among the States and EPA on what beach programs should look like.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We are pleased that the issues related to the science of beach monitoring are being considered at the national level and are looking forward to participating in future discussions. Thank you and I request that my written testimony be in the record.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Without objection.
Thank you very much, Mr. Rosenblatt.
Now we look to Ms. Eichmiller.
Ms. EICHMILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Deputy Director of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators and those are the State officials that implement the Clean Water Act and, of course, have a unique perspective on this issue.
The goal of the coastal bill, H.R. 2094, we believe is very laudable. It's very important to protect recreational uses and public health. Our recommendation for you is that at this stage of the program where you can play the most useful role is to place for States and in the Federal Government a higher priority—and you've heard this several times—on better science and better methodologies.
And the reason for that is that we're just not there yet in terms of water quality standards criteria, nationally. And one reason we're not is this community right-to-know that you've heard about. It is very important. What we need are surrogate tests that can be conducted very quickly, analyzed and interpreted, and then get that information out to the public, quickly, whenever the problem is occuring rather than days later. We are not there yet and it's very important that that innovation occur.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
To do that, what do we need? We need, at the State and Federal level, more funding for monitoring. The reality is, in terms of States—whom I work for—our funding is, in real dollar terms, not much more than we had before the 1972 Act was passed. It's been amended three times. The mandates are astronomically more.
That is a reality. We do want to monitor. We want to monitor more. But it's not cheap. It takes a lot of money and cooperation, which is my third point. Monitoring is not just a EPA or State water program responsibility. There are many agencies, federally and in State and local governments, that are involved. One of the most valuable things that this bill could do is to promote that cooperation to work together and to try to push the state-of-the-art to come up with better tools to serve the public's interest. Lastly, we need more pollution control. One reason we're here is we have these problems. We need to continue to do our jobs and tackle the problems that are out there. And, to the extent that we can, we obviously will be successful.
We think this bill has very legitimate concerns. However, we think that many of them can be addressed under current law. We need and want better national guidance. What we do not need and will find very difficult to operate within is a highly prescriptive piece of legislation. I'm glad to hear from Mr. Fox that he sees flexibility in this legislation. I just want the Committee to know that, from the reading of many States, it's very prescriptive in how things must be done and very cookbook in terms of standards and monitoring. As my peer from New Jersey has said, we need a lot of flexibility because circumstances are different; pollution problems are different and we would like to see that built into the legislation better.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We would like to see it focus on where the problems are. We don't want to see ourselves going out, doing a lot of monitoring where we know that the public health is protected. We need to work on the state-of-the-art before we're able to apply prescriptive language. In other words, right now, unless we update EPA standards, it doesn't make much sense to have States have standards reflecting something that's really of out-of-date in terms of the science.
Lastly, one problem with prescription here is the funding. As you know, $4.5 million is in this bill for States and $1.5 for EPA to do the kinds of things you're envisioning. We really need to see if we can increase that level of commitment and we're willing to work with you all on that. It's just, quite frankly, going to take a whole lot more money than what's envisioned in the bill. And, as we read the bill, those funds are only available to States that already are able to fully implement all this prescription. And, I think, there are States that want to have better programs that would like to become eligibile for those funds and I see that as a major impediment to accomplishing the goals that you have envisioned there.
And I would put out our offer to work with you to perfect this bill, to overcome some structural problems, and to get the most we can from these protections, out of the technologies that we have and will have in the future and out of the resources that become available. Thank you.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Well, thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Eichmiller, and thank you for your offer. I'm sure staff or other members of the committee will be taking you up on your offer.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We've been called for a vote, but what I want to do is go to you, Mr. Gonaver, and we'll finish up with you and then we'll recess this hearing and bring back the next panel.
Mr. GONAVER. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to testify before this subcommittee on a very important hearing on one of our Nation's most valued assets and that is our beaches. My name is Chris Gonaver and I'm with San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. I am the local person responsible for protecting the public health by monitoring our beaches and informing our citizens and visitors when we do have problems that occur on our beaches as far as contamination. One of the signs that Congressman Bilbray held up previously is one of those ways that we do inform the public about those problems.
The County of San Diego Recreational Water Quality Program coordinates the ocean and recreational water monitoring for the entire 70-mile coastline of San Diego. This includes all of our 18 cities, as well as the unincorporated area. Now this monitoring activity is a cooperative partnership among all of the local monitoring agencies—and by those other local monitoring agencies, I mean our cities as well as our publicly owned treatment works who discharge their sewage effluent offshore of San Diego, as well as the many stakeholder groups. Certainly Surfrider Foundation and Surfers Tired of Pollution or STOP are two of our local groups that we've worked most with. This program has become a centralized resource for the monitoring data for all of San Diego County. And, together, we cooperatively monitor in excess of 100 locations along our coastline.
When our test results do not meet the water quality standards, we do inform the public immediately. This public information takes the form of being provided to them through media releases, through a 24-hour hotline that it is updated as soon as any new information becomes available, also on the weather page of our local newspaper, the San Diego News Tribune, contains a box that indicates those beaches that should be avoided. We also have an ocean illness reporting form that is available at our local surf and dive shops where surfers or swimmers or whomever, if they suspect that they may have contracted an illness from using one of our recreational waters, can report that fact to us.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think we all know, as with other urbanized areas in the United States, coastal water quality has really become an increased public health issue in San Diego County. The sources of contamination, as Congressman Bilbray pointed to earlier in his testimony, to our coastal waters do vary considerably and can be quite difficult to manage and to identify. We used to spend most of our efforts on point-source discharges into our waters where those point-sources coming from sewage spills and sewage treatment plants were traditionally targeted as being the cause of all of our problems along the coast.
However, what we're finding now is that urban runoff is really the largest problem that we're dealing with. This form of nonpoint-source pollution accounts for one half of the beach closures that we find in San Diego County and, without a routine monitoring program, those beach closures would not have been made and we would not have known about those particular problems at our beaches.
Following the release of the study results of the Health Effects Study of Swimmers in Santa Monica Bay in 1996, the Department of Environmental Health began a program to monitor some of those storm drains and post warning signs where, indeed, we did find additional problems. This effort was accomplished by partnering with the coastal cities and local environmental organizations to inform the public about the risks that were identified in that study of swimming near storm drains that flowed onto our beaches, especially during the peak use summer months. Because of this problem, and obviously it was a very public problem, many of our coastal cities have now taken actions to divert those dry weather flows into our sanitary sewer systems. So during the summer months, we no longer have those flows coming across our beaches.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Despite the persistent threat of pollution, though, many of the counties in California have not had standardized beach water monitoring programs in place to provide adequate protection to our beachgoers. This concern prompted the drafting and passage of State legislation last year to establish statewide beach water quality monitoring and public notification requirements to protect public health. By the end of this year, new regulations will be in place to implement the new law and amend our current 40-year-old regulations.
The draft regulations are currently considering a group of health risk based tests and standards to provide statewide consistency for beach closures, reopening, and public notifications. And, as Mr. Fox from EPA previously noted, the current standards typically focus on an outcome of a gastrointestinal illness and so this suite or series of tests that we're looking at in the State of California do take into consideration some of the other health effects, other than gastrointestinal problems.
Effective partnerships have been established and dialogues have already begun to develop these regulations through a consensus-based process involving stakeholders. As contained in H.R. 2094, similar requirements will be put into place at the Federal level. I can't stress enough the need for obtaining additional information to more fully understand the potential human health risks of exposure to contaminated water.
Additionally, better indicators and better—and by better I mean faster—methods need to be developed to help all of us at the local level do our job more efficiently and effectively. Many of these procedures and indicators have been in place for a decade and it is extremely appropriate for Federal oversight in the development and implementation of these new technologies. To assist that process, I would encourage you to continue to build on the effective partnerships that exist at the State and local level to achieve a broader national success.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would also like to stress the importance of utilizing a watershed approach to effectively address the problems that are identified in coastal waters. As I mentioned previously, current sources of contamination into our coastal waters are difficult to identify and manage, but, by using a watershed approach that involves all stakeholders, I think efficiencies can be realized to help those problems.
While the proposed revision of water quality criteria to provide national consistency is warranted, I want to stress, again, the importance of striking a balance between Federal guidance and allowing some local flexibility. There are many excellent monitoring programs currently in our coastal States whose input needs to be considered when recommending any modifications to existing water quality criteria for pathogens or their indicators. And I believe some of the proposed processes contained in this bill will allow that decisionmaking to be assisted by local, State, and Federal stakeholders.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before you today to improve the quality of our coastal waters. I look forward to continuing the growth of our partnerships to ensure safe use of all of our recreational waters and the opportunity to participate in any of the efforts to revise existing water quality criteria.
Those are my comments and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Well, thank you very much. Let me correct what I said before. We're going to keep you folks on if you don't mind for questions when we come back. As I indicated, I am going to vote right now and will be back in about 15 minutes or so. So this committee is in recess for about 15 minutes. Thank you.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[Recess.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. We'll resume. A series of votes back and forth on the floor, so we've got members tied up in route, and with other commitments.
Let me start with Mr. Gonaver. What kind of information do local health departments need to ensure safety of recreational uses of beaches?
Mr. GONAVER. Obviously, the main part of the information is, what are the test results of the water quality? And once we have that information, certainly, we can advise the public of those conditions. But more deeply, we need to be able to get to the source. If it's a sewer spill, we know what caused it. If it's some contamination that's coming out a more generalized or watershed runoff from storm drains, then that's a little bit more difficult of an answer to achieve.
Mr. BOEHLERT. And would the local officials do the testing?
Mr. GONAVER. Oh, absolutely. Yes, we do in San Diego. We monitor all of our 70 miles of coastline, almost all of it on a weekly basis. So, yes, currently, we do collect quite a bit of information as far as what our beaches are looking like at any given point.
Mr. BOEHLERT. So the science is clearly there?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GONAVER. The science to do the testing is there, but whether the science is clear enough as far as how that, those test results to, relate to health risks, that's the piece that's missing. So the standards we have in the State of California, the regulations have been on the books for the last 40 years, and they haven't changed until this past year, when we had a State bill that passed requiring us to take a look at some of these other standards. Some of the other standards, federally, have been in place for not quite that long, but certainly decades.
And so I think we need to be able to have the nexus between what are we looking for, what are the test results, and how does that really relate to human health.
Mr. BOEHLERT. All right. So I ask the next question of all three.
No one disputes the importance of clean coastal waters and monitoring to ensure public safety. I mean, there's no argument about that. The question is how best to achieve these goals. What should be the role of the Federal Government in this effort, and how can we provide the incentives to make sure we achieve this goal while staying within the limits of congressional authority?
That's sort of a broad question. Mr. Rosenblatt, do you want to try it first?
Mr. ROSENBLATT. I would like to see EPA really start researching this again. As I said earlier, when they first came out with their guidelines in 1986, we really anticipated more research to follow, more results that we could use. But we've been waiting, and, in the meantime, we have conducted our own research. But we need verification at a national level and support that a national project could give us. So I'd like to see EPA play a bigger role in the research.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. EICHMILLER. I would support that. I would add that I think they're going to need—and this is at EPA—other Federal agencies, State and local experts, because they're all very involved in monitoring on the coast, to try to develop these technologies collaboratively.
I think they need to bring together some experts. What we really need, as was stated earlier in answer to your question, a way to do the tests, to determine the risks, and to quickly be able to tell the public. That's the whole chain we don't have right now.
So I think they need to convene some experts to advance that science. And obviously, I'm a State—and I have to tell you this, but I'll tell it for the locals too—there's money involved here. And we need to place a higher priority on that funding.
Mr. BOEHLERT. A higher priority at what level? I mean, for the partnership?
Ms. EICHMILLER. Yes, for the partnership. If this is really important to Congress, and I agree it's a very important to the public, more funding for these sorts of activities is really important.
The other thing that it sends is a signal that you are saying, nationally, we think this is important. Then, State legislatures are more likely to come to the table and do their fair share, too.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. So you would imagine a matching share?
Ms. EICHMILLER. Oh, yes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Okay. Mr. Gonaver?
Mr. GONAVER. As far as the role of the Federal Government, I think the real role again is in the science, and in developing the tools to be able to do the research, to find better and faster ways to monitor our beaches.
Mr. BOEHLERT. If I may interrupt? If I'm hearing you correctly, you're sort of disappointed that there hasn't been more activity from the EPA on that?
Mr. GONAVER. Yes. I think with technologies in other fields that we have experienced such vast growth and change in over the last 10 years, we have not seen that in ocean water monitoring, probably for a number of reasons. So, we're still using the same indicators that we have used for quite some time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, I don't want to take a cheap shot at them. Mea culpa, you know, because I think overall EPA is doing a good job——
Mr. GONAVER. It's all of us. It's not just—yes, it's not just EPA. It's those of us at the State and at the local level, who we could be doing a better job as well. But—so I think together there is a solution there. And I don't mean to point a finger at anyone.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. So, obviously, you would argue that Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Pallone are performing a valuable service, because they're determined to get our attention on this issue.
Mr. GONAVER. Absolutely. And I would—as far as the incentives, since in most cases this is a local problem, in other words, it's our storm drains or sewage lines that are spilling, I think the solution really is a local. And one of the important components of being able to provide effective public information is if you begin to find—or we began to find that the more you tell the public about all these problems along the beaches, the more the public will then tell us we have to fix that, and we're willing to play a role in fixing that. And so I think, again, together is that we were able to build a very effective partnership, not only to understand that there's a problem, but then to find a solutions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, several of today's witnesses have referred to a health effects study in Santa Monica Bay. I'd ask that a copy of a summary of that study be made a part of the record.
[The information follows:]
[Insert here.]
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all of the witnesses' testimony. I want to ask Mr. Rosenblatt, coming from my home State, which I think does a very good job in this regard. What does—is it fair to say that, in part at least, economic self-interest was among the impetus that prompted New Jersey to implement beach monitoring and notification programs?
Mr. ROSENBLATT. Yes. I think, I mean that's a fair statement. Our problems really began in about 1985, and with some failures of some treatment plants. And you know the impact that had on tourism. And the focus was on us to do something, and monitoring was the first thing we could do as we upgraded our treatment plants and such. But I think that by having a very tough program, with mandatory beach closings, we were able to regain public confidence in our beaches and waters.
Mr. MENENDEZ. No question about that. Let me ask you this: I understand New Jersey conducts daily water quality, beach water quality testing. Is that true?
Mr. ROSENBLATT. No, it's weekly testing: daily surveillance flights.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Okay. And what's your sense? Is that enough? Is weekly testing necessary? Daily testing more desirable? I know it's subject to limitations. But what would be the more desirable if we were looking strictly in the context of public health and safety?
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ROSENBLATT. On the average, weekly testing is fine. But if I was going to look at all three hundred and some stations that we have or we monitor, I would say that, well, some stations could be monitored less, and some stations should be monitored more. We do what we do in some cases as the best compromise given available resources.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Ms. Eichmiller, let me ask you a question. I heard you several times in your description of the legislation raise the concern of it being overly prescriptive. But I've also heard all the panelists—I think you'll agree that you want the EPA to spend more resources in improving the science in providing you greater scientific bases for your overall testing and monitoring. If we were to do that and depend only upon voluntary applications of all of the resources that we would generate to develop the science to bring it to a level that you could all implement, but only dependent upon voluntary applications. Would that really be in the best interests of the country?
Ms. EICHMILLER. Well, first of all, we are obligated under the law to have water quality standards that protect the uses, and that includes fishing. That's not voluntary. We're obligated to do that. And if we don't do the job, EPA will. So that's just one example of this. There's a lot of statutory mandates in the Clean Water Act that aren't exactly voluntary. Besides the fact, I think we all agree that these are the right things to do.
Pollution control is not voluntary. It has to be done. So I think it's how all these things fit together in the tapestry of the Clean Water Act, and then you get a little voluntary, and some mandatory. And between the two of them, you get the job done. But I don't consider coastal protection a voluntary issue. It has to be done. And we just need better tools to do the job.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, when I heard you describe it, and it may be, correct me if I'm wrong, as overly prescriptive. You're not suggesting that there should be no prescriptive elements of the law?
Ms. EICHMILLER. No. No. No, it's just that how things should be done vary from place to place. And it's just a matter of you telling us what you want, but not exactly how to do it because scientifically, there's no one right way to do something. There's a menu of options. So it's the detailedness of the Bill, and not the goal, that can cause problems.
Mr. MENENDEZ. So if we give you the standards that we want you to achieve, you're suggesting that some flexibility in achieving those standards is what's necessary?
Ms. EICHMILLER. Right.
Mr. MENENDEZ. But you would have to live up to the standards?
Ms. EICHMILLER. Oh, absolutely. And the Clean Water Act has a lot of tools that will be beneficial.
Mr. MENENDEZ. One last question of Mr. Rosenblatt. I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we have a multi-faceted beach program which includes bi-weekly waste water facility inspections to comprehensively protect public health. Do you think New Jersey would support extending such regular inspections to other potential sources of pollution, especially non-point sources?
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ROSENBLATT. It's a little more difficult with non-point sources, because they're so spread out, diverse. There's no one place to go. But there are—depending on what you call non-point source. Sometimes lake discharges to the ocean waters are called point discharges. Sometimes they're called non-point because they really are just a collection of storm water discharges. There are—there are times, there are ways that we do frequently monitor—and I don't mean by test, but I mean by, I mean inspect, all these difficult sources more than just once a week or so. The local health agencies that are responsible for testing the waters also conduct sanitary surveys of the potential pollution sources along their coastlines. They know when these pollution sources could be trouble for them, even the non-point sources. And they do go out and inspect these fairly frequently. It's not the same regular schedule that DEP inspects its sewage treatment plants, but the local agencies are very aware of their pollution sources, which is a very key part of a comprehensive program. Knowing what to expect and when will give you a heads up. No water testing alone is going to be able to provide you with the information you need.
Mr. MENENDEZ. So clearly, as a final comment—so clearly if it is being done by some of those departments that are responsible now, it obviously has a value, so it's worthy of pursuing.
Mr. ROSENBLATT. Sure.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. Mr. Fossella?
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FOSSELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rosenblatt, on a positive note, thank you—thousands, as you probably know, thousands of Staten Islanders flock to the Jersey shore each summer, and they enjoy it. And it seems to get better every year. So I think you're doing a wonderful job.
I don't know if you were here earlier, we talked about a situation in Yonker Kill and raw sewage was alleged to be flowing from some sources and caught already. Are you aware of any situation?
Mr. ROSENBLATT. No, I just became aware of it today.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Then we'll talk at a later date then. I guess you heard me ask of Mr. Fox and Ms. Fox at the EPA in working with Mr. Menendez to try to figure out a way one, if it is true, to what extent there is a problem; and a positive and constructive way how we can fix the problem.
Mr. ROSENBLATT. Sure, absolutely.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The fourth panel for today from the American Oceans Campaign, Mr. David Younkman, Executive Director; Gary Sirota, immediate past President of the Surfrider Foundation, and Michael Nussman, Vice President for Government Affairs, American Sport Fishing Association.
Gentlemen, you're welcomed, and your entire statements will appear in the record at this point. We would ask that you try to summarize, knowing the ways of Capitol Hill, to make life a little bit easier for all of us, and to afford opportunity for questions. Although I don't see the panel up here going to grill you. But, in any event. Mr. Younkman, you will go first, then Mr. Sirota, and finally Mr. Nussman.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID YOUNKMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN OCEANS CAMPAIGN; GARY L. SIROTA, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, SURFRIDER FOUNDATION; AND MICHAEL NUSSMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION
Mr. YOUNKMAN. Thank you very much, and good afternoon.
My name is David Younkman. I am the Executive Director of the American Oceans Campaign. American Oceans Campaign, or AOC, is a national, non-profit organization based in Santa Monica, California, and dedicated to protecting our nation's oceans and our coasts.
On behalf of AOC and our members, I'd like to thank Representatives Boehlert and Borski and other members of the House Water Resources Environmental Subcommittee for inviting me here today to testify on the beach bill and the Ocean Act of 1997.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
American Oceans Campaign strongly supports H.R. 2094, the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health Act of 1997, the beach bill, introduced by Representatives Frank Pallone and Brian Bilbray. We thank Congressmen Pallone and Bilbray for their leadership on this bill.
Beaches are the leading tourist attraction in the United States. In 1997, California's beaches alone attracted almost 116,000,000 visitors.
But many of our beaches are polluted. According to a recent study published by the Natural Resources Defense Council, there were at least 4,153 individual beach closures and public health advisories at U.S. beaches in 1997. That's the bad news.
But there's even worse news. This summer, thousands of adults and children will swim, snorkel, surf, or wade in beach waters that are contaminated, unbeknownst to them, by pathogens.
Pathogens are disease-causing microorganisms that are found in animal and human waste. These pathogens may cause a variety of illnesses, ranging from gastroenteritis, dysentery, hepatitis, and various nose, ear, and throat infections. Bouts with these ailments can quickly ruin a family vacation or a weekend getaway, and can cause a person to miss work or school.
To protect themselves from harmful pathogens, swimmers must rely on local public health agencies to conduct beach water quality tests. Beachgoers must also depend on proper, timely notification about unhealthy beach waters. Unfortunately, the testing standards an the monitoring practices used by coastal States and localities vary significantly, and often vary within a single State.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Several States do not regularly monitor their beach water for pathogen contamination, and only a few States and local communities consistently notify the public about poor beach water conditions.
I believe the public deserves better protection. The members of the American Oceans Campaign believe the public has a right to know about the quality of the water they're swimming in. To improve the information about polluted recreational waters and to provide consistent protection for Beachgoers, American Oceans Campaign, along with other public interest organizations, including Surfrider Foundation, strongly support the beach bill as a common-sense solution to the shortcomings mentioned above.
It's time for a comprehensive national program to protect beachgoers from potential health risks associated with swimming and surfing in polluted waters. The BEACH bill will ensure Beachgoers receive the basic information they need to protect themselves and their families from harmful pathogens and possible illness.
Since the beach bill was introduced last summer, the number of co-sponsors of the legislation has steadily grown. Currently, the beach bill enjoys bipartisan support from over 50 U.S. Representatives and 6 U.S. Senators.
We encourage this Congress to pass the beach bill and increase the public's right to know about unhealthy beach waters.
I wish to spend a moment here to talk about the Oceans Act of 1997. The primary, and our hopes and our concerns about it.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The primary objectives of the Oceans Act of 1997, as originally introduced, was to reassess U.S. programs and policies that affect ocean coasts and marine life. An examination would be conducted by a commission on ocean policy, a non-partisan commission of experts, which would develop recommendations for a coordinated vision for the future of our oceans and their resources. We believe such a vision is greatly needed, especially if we are to truly build sustainable fisheries, minimize the impacts of pollution, provide meaningful protections to our marine areas of special significance, and fully care for and utilize the many benefits our marine environment provides.
I'm afraid that the bill, as reported out of the Resources Committee last week, will not achieve this vision. In its present form, it falls far short of our expectations and hopes. Several amendments were added to H.R. 3445 that severely weaken the scope of issues the commission can consider in making its recommendations. Alaska's State waters and all U.S. military activities are now exempt from consideration. Consideration of the effects of adjacent shore lands on ocean and coastal resources have been removed. In addition, the Act's findings regard the purpose—findings regarding the purposes for enacting the Oceans Act have been deleted, and the presidential recommendation for a national ocean policy are no longer requested.
We believe that attempts to limit the scope of the review of the commissioners undermines the central purpose of the bill—to provide a comprehensive examination of U.S. policies and to provide comprehensive vision for our marine environment's future.
We want to work with Congress to pass this legislation, but weakening provisions recently added to the bill by the Resources Committee must be reversed. In the International Year of the Ocean, Congress has the opportunity to demonstrate concern for the oceans and provide national leadership on ocean policy.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for holding this hearing about important ocean and coastal issues. The place where most of us go to enjoy the ocean is the beach, and it is not being currently monitored with any consistency. To make our experiences and our children's experiences healthy ones, we would urge you to pass the BEACH bill.
I thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. You know, what I should have done at the beginning of this is clarify some of the terms were use, because in metropolitan New York, only a very few people go to the beach, but millions go to the shore.
Mr. Sirota.
Mr. SIROTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's indeed an honor to be able to address you here today concerning an issue that I am very passionate about. The beach bill will dramatically impact my life, and provide benefit for every person that comes in contact with our nation's coastal waters.
My name is Gary Sirota, and I've been invited to testify today on this most worthy issue due to my involvement in both drafting portions of the proposed legislation, and promoting ocean care in this International Year of the Ocean, and, in fact, everyday.
I'm the immediate past president of the Surfrider Foundation. The Surfrider Foundation is an international, non-profit organization whose 25,000 members are dedicated to the preservation and rehabilitation of the world's waves, oceans, and beaches through conservation, activism, research, and education. The Surfrider Foundation has advocated for the types of protections addressed by the BEACH bill for many years.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As a representative of the Surfrider's membership, who as a result of their enthusiasm for ocean recreation come in contact with coastal waters on an average of 250 days a year, I can tell you that I am, as Congressman Bilbray said, the canary in the coal mine. But, in fact, we like to refer to ourselves more as the new indicator species.
Not to diminish the importance of the pfisteria issue that's been raised before the committee today, I want to let you know that surfers have been dealing with statistically significant increased health risks associated with a broad range of adverse health effects, including coughing with phlegm, respiratory diseases, gastroenteric disease with nausea and diarrhea, for years and years and years.
This issue is not whether we have infrastructure problems throughout this country that contribute to or result in episodes of contaminated water. That issue is clear.
The issue is whether we can assist the public in recognizing and evaluating the hazards associated with water contact. For the general public who may venture into the coast on a vacation once a year or for the experienced ocean enthusiast, the ability to evaluate the health risk of water contact at most locations in this country is an impossible task. Lack of standardized testing methods, no consistent method of providing public notice, and the lack of a national criteria for evaluating water quality all work to frustrate and confuse the concerned public.
As a life-long surfer, I can tell you there's one question that I'm often asked. It's ''what do you do if you see a shark?'' Well, my answer always is, ''it's the one that you don't see—that is are the one you have to worry about.''
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This provides a fine analogy to the matter at hand. First, it is outside the general public's ability to evaluate the condition of the ocean water beyond what they can see and sometimes smell. And what you cannot see is what you have to worry about. It is within the ability of local health agencies, however, who are familiar with local conditions, to conduct testing and to create a consistent, understandable, and accessible method of providing timely public notice of ocean water quality.
We've had some testimony today that focuses on a lot of the comments that are contained within my written statement, and I won't reemphasize them. But we did have some comments a moment ago about increasing the funding for this bill. We had testimony from the EPA about the fact that ocean water recreation is a $30 billion industry in this country, and, in fact, all aquatic recreation in this country is a $380 billion industry, second only to health care as an employer of people in this country. The request that there be funding increases in this bill at least to me seems a very important issue that can be dealt with positively.
The beach bill specifies in section 2(a)(8) that the effective identification and elimination of contamination episodes should be addressed using a watershed approach. Only mandatory testing and posting of contaminated coastal waters, followed by source identification and elimination will ensure public health and the long-term financial well being of local economies.
Application of promulgated standards by the EPA, mandatory testing, and public notification, together with watershed approach to source identification and elimination, actually builds in a balance that evens the playing field between large cities and small municipalities. The incentives created by posted beaches, whether at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, or Huntington Beach, California, are the same. But more importantly, it's the public, which has a right to know whether their health is at risk beyond acceptable levels.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Throughout the committee's consideration of H.R. 2094, I respectfully request that you not lose sight of the value of local input. It is local agencies and municipalities, accomplished at water testing and notification of the public, that can provide important details and experience that can turn a Federal mandate into working public health legislation. Likewise, the experience of NGO's, such as the Surfrider Foundation, which has conducted a nationwide program of coastal water testing and public outreach, must also be considered. The scientists and laboratories of the Environmental Protection Agency surely can provide leadership in determining proper standards and methods. However, I would hope and I guess we're beyond the time to be able to do this—the experience of the Surfrider Foundation, in cooperation with the County of San Diego and the State of California, indicates that reasonable scientific consensus currently exists regarding preferable testing standards and methods. I believe that the time has come for this legislation.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to address you, and since its introduction, I have continued to review and analyze H.R. 2094 and have made additional comments that are not contained within the body of my written statement. I'd like to offer them for inclusion today.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. SIROTA. Thank you. I'd like to also talk for a moment. What we've heard here today so far has been the what and the how. I'd like to talk about the why, because I think, as I sit here representing surfers and people who are in the water as much as we are, we are the why for this bill.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We've seen estimates that 19 out of a 1,000 swimmers is an acceptable limit. We've seen other estimates that 11 out of 1,000 swimmers is a reasonable estimate. We're usually the 19th. We're those 11. We're the ones that are going to be sick. And what I can say is it would be best for the posting issue to really be a notification issue, because posting sometimes doesn't work. But notification, if we have the ability to have an understandable, concise, and accessible method of understanding water quality, we will use it.
The other thing that I'd like to address—and the Chairman hit right on it—is that coastal recreational waters are what—are at issue here, not beaches. Many times we surfers paddle off rocky points. We go into bays. We do other things of that nature. We're not always at beaches. I can only say—well, I'd like to conclude with saying that the only thing worse than seeing one of those red signs that Congressman Bilbray held up at the beginning of this hearing is to go to the beach when it should be posted and not see one of those red signs.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And before we go to Mr. Nussbaum, we're going to have substantive questions a little bit later, but give me the straight scoop. Is Bilbray as good as his reputation?
Mr. SIROTA. Well, if you ever have an opportunity to hang around with surfers, you'll find that we do something that's called talk story. And well, have you ever gone fishing with him? Does he catch big fish? There you go.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. That's a very diplomatic answer.
Mr. SIROTA. He can—let's put it this way: he's the best surfer in Congress.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Even Rohrabacher admits that.
Mr. Nussman.
Mr. NUSSMAN. But is he the best fisherman?
Mr. Chairman, I'm Mike Nussman. I'm here today on behalf of the American Sport Fishing Association and the Coastal Conservation Association.
I'm very pleased to have this opportunity.
ASA is a non-profit trade association representing nearly 500 members of the sport fishing industry. CCA is a grassroots fishery conservation organization, with over 60,000 members in the Gulf and Atlantic coastal States.
So I'm here today testifying on behalf of the sport fishing industry, and on behalf of thousands of salt water anglers in the southeast and on up to Maine.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
You know, in addition, Mr. Chairman, I'm here today testifying before some folks that are even more important to me. I'm here for Will and Henry Nussman, two young boys who are seven and four years old, whose dad rented a beach house on North Carolina's Outer Banks for next week.
Will and Henry want to make sure that the most dangerous thing they face in that water are jellyfish, and so I'd urge the committee to take that into consideration.
Mr. Chairman, anglers and the industry they serve have a significant investment in the bills you're considering today. In 1996, over 12,000,000 anglers took more than 100,000,000 trips to fish in our salt waters. And while I'm sure they went fishing to enjoy the sport, the activity has significant economic impact as well.
These anglers spent nearly $9 billion on a variety of goods and services related to recreational fishing. And understand that while there are number of reasons that people go fishing, the primary reason that these anglers spent their $9 billion was to relax and to enjoy nature. Anything that threatens that enjoyment jeopardizes the bottom line for the sport fishing industry.
Let me if I could turn to the legislation. With regard to the Oceans Act, we think this effort is long, long overdue. The primary difference that I can see between the Senate bill and the House bill is first, the Senate bill has an Oceans Council; the House bill does not.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Second, the House bill authorizes $3 million. The Senate bill authorizes $6 million for the activity.
Third, the House bill is more narrowly focused, both with respect to the subject matter for review as well as with geography. They have restricted that a bit.
With regard to our recommendations, I would say we don't feel strongly about the Oceans Council, one way or the other. With funding, it seems to us that since the House bill is more narrowly focused than the Senate's, the bills perhaps aren't that far apart on the dollars necessary to get the job done.
But let me say that if you're going to undertake this effort, don't be penny wise and pound foolish. Figure out what it takes to conduct a quality, independent investigation, and spend the money. The agencies you're overseeing, NOAA has a budget of around $2 billion a year. Coast Guard has a budget of nearly, I believe, $4 billion a year. EPA has a huge budget.
If we right-size and right-direct these agencies, the savings can be far more than any money you would spend on this commission.
With regard to the focus of the effort, I'm not sure how you conduct a comprehensive, narrow review. All of the oceans and all of the programs are interrelated in some fashion. Our advice would be to make sure that you appoint a well-balance, bipartisan commission, and then let them do their work without artificial constraints.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One more thought on the Oceans bill, and I would say, from looking at it from the private sector, if in 1966 a group had come together and said, well, we need to create this organization, NOAA, and we need to have all these bills passed, like the Magnusson Act and like the Marine Mammal Act and the various other legislation, the private sector wouldn't begin to wait 30 years to go back and look and see how it's actually working. This is much like asking a big five accounting firm to go back and say, okay, we started this effort. Is it on track? Or are there ways we could do more with less? Or do more with more? And I think it's high time that we get on with effort.
Now let me move to the Beaches and Shore bill, if I could. We strongly support the concept behind this bill. You only have to pick up the Washington Post today and look at the second page to understand why folks who care about clean water and abundant fish want to see a bill like this become law. It seems to me the testimony you've had today, and I don't claim to be an expert on this matter, but your testimony today has given you fairly good guidance about where you need to go. I would urge the committee to work hard and put the effort in that's necessary to move this bill along and to get it enacted into law.
You know, the $9 billion spent by recreational anglers on our coasts each year is but a small part of all the dollars that come from that coastal economy. In many ways, our coasts are like a goose that lays a golden egg. And I guess from our perspective, it makes great business sense to keep that goose very, very healthy.
With that, I'll conclude, and be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thanks very much. Thank all three of you, because you gave excellent testimony. And I think all of you probably noticed that the red light went on before you finished, and we allowed you to continue because, I'm really sincere when I say the testimony was excellent. And one of the things that always offends me about Capitol Hill is we have people come from far and wide, all over the country, then we're sort of rude to them. We don't intentionally be rude. But we are interrupted by votes. They sit around for four hours, and then we tell you to sit down and testify for a grand total of 300 seconds. So, this committee operates a little bit differently. We give you a little more leeway.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
First of all, Mr. Nussman, I couldn't agree more that we've got to do a better of oversight. I mean, we shouldn't say, well, it's always been that way, and it's always going to be that way; and let's not think any more about it, because we're going to do something else. And one of the things I would suggest is I would—I would bet a good dollar that the majority of members of Congress don't hear from your members on these issues. And now, Mr. Bilbray, I'm sure hears. And I'm sure Mr. Pallone hears. But I'm talking about some guy from Iowa, somebody from Montana, who probably doesn't have it on their radar screen and no one ever thinks to the guy from Iowa or Montana. Guess what? They go to the beaches, and they go to the shores, and they enjoy America's waterways. So, one of the things you can do, and you're very constructive with your testimony, I would suggest make sure you get your members to have that testimony. And urge them, in their own words, write to members of Congress to let us know how important it is.
I can't promise you that we're going to do something right away, because, as you know, we're—first of all, we're going to wrap up the summer session sometime in the wee hours of the morning, and then we're going home until Labor Day. Then we're coming back, only to be here for about four weeks because we've got something called the election that's going to intervene. That's very important to all of us.
But I personally, and I think I can speak fairly for Mr. Borski on this, we are committed to doing something. I can't tell you when, but we are serious about this. This is not just a courtesy hearing so that we make you feel good that you've told us your story. We do really want to follow through. And I'm convinced we will. I anticipate being back next time. I anticipate Mr. Borski will be back. I anticipate Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Pallone will back. And Mr. Saxon, so we can get out with a job in 1999, the next Congress as we do it.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I have a question. It's sort of a long one, convoluted. But let me just share it with you. There may be controversy with legislation mandating States to adopt Federal monitoring standards. We also into a battle when we do that. Can the same goals be achieved through incentive-based programs? For example, some have suggested that we have a beach rating program that could give EPA approval only to beaches that are regularly monitored and measure up. Swimmers and surfers could then chose to go only to beaches that have received this approval, sort of like the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. I'm not saying I embrace this. I'm just advancing a concept. Communities that were losing tourist dollars would quickly act to receive the Federal stamp of approval because they have a vested interest. The Federal Government could engage in a public information campaign to ensure that everybody knew about the system. Do you think this is a feasible approach?
Mr. SIROTA. If I could address that?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Sirota.
Mr. SIROTA. Actually, currently, right now, this is a good opportunity to watch this. Last year, the European Union instituted a program of awarding something called blue flags to beaches or vacation areas on coasts that provided all the amenities that the average traveling European would want—beach access, cafes, night life, whatever those things were; and provided a blue flag to, you know, whatever town had that stuff, Bearitz or things of that nature.
What happened over there is that the Surfrider Foundation Europe, which is centered in Bearitz, started issuing something called black flags. And the black flags got as much press as the blue flags. What they did last year is they essentially identified areas that they thought were questionable. This year, the black flags came out a lot more specifically with, ''this beach is contaminated.''''We have been testing it for this long, and this is what we've found.'' Of course, the local governments went ballistic. Well, that's my point.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. That was the intention?
Mr. SIROTA. Of course, and so you can look to that, I think, as a good indication of what would happen if we did have the Good Housekeeping seal of beach quality or water quality. And, yes, when it really comes right down to it, we are talking about economic—local economic issues. Look at Imperial Beach, California, essentially Congressman's Bilbray's district.It's in ac county that has county that has the sixth largest city in the United States. If you go 15 minutes north of downtown San Diego, you have La Jolla, you have homes on the beach front that are worth $4 million and $5 million. If you go to Imperial Beach, you can buy a house on the beach in Imperial Beach for under $300,000, and yet it's the same distance from the sixth largest city in the United States. And why? Because the beach is permanently closed. It has a stigma of being contaminated. So it may be possible to do that.
The problem is whether or not the agency that gives these seals is going to get sued by every municipality that gets a black flag. That's probably number one.
And number two if there's some type of voluntariness involved, because there's so much pressure on the local municipality to not close their recreational unit, their beach, at the time of high tourist revenue, it won't work.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Anybody else care to comment on that one?
Mr. NUSSMAN. I would. First off, I think the incentive-based ideas are great, because people don't want command and control. It's tough to do now. Is that going to work everywhere, all over the country? I don't necessarily know that's the case, but I certainly think you could design a program that would be helpful. And I believe it would do some good. But you could do it as a demonstration project, as such, and try it in some areas and see if it works. I mean, I think it's a creative idea that just may, just may produce some possible results for very few Federal dollars.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Did you have any comment, Mr.? Who do you think is responsible for ensuring the safety of beaches? I mean, when it boils right down to it—is it local government? Is it State government? Local and State government? Is it the Federal Government? Where do you think the responsibility really lies? Or is it a combination of the three? I mean, that's the easy answer. But give me some thinking on it, if you'd like to.
Mr. YOUNKMAN. I think it is a combination, and I think the problem we're seeing with unclean waters is that people aren't aware of them. I think that if people knew some of the quality of the water they were swimming, that you would see a societal response that would be very strong at all three levels—local, State, and Federal.
And I think that's one of the things—going back to the incentive program, I like that. I'm questioning who would do the testing and how immediate could the response be and what are the efficiencies of that. But I think incentives are very good. And I think this kind of testing that we're proposing in this beach bill, you'll see some incentives coming out of that will go to the proper level, all three proper levels.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Sirota?
Mr. SIROTA. Can I address that?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Sure. Yes.
Mr. SIROTA. Well, a typical attorney response, it depends. It depends primarily on two things. The first thing being if you look at pollution in the United States right now, at least coastal recreational water pollution, there's really two sources. We are not seeing an incidence of private sector coastal water pollution at the level that we were seeing 10 years ago. In other words, the EPA and the Clean Water Act and private citizen suits have done a good job of going after the corporate polluter. That's why they've taken their businesses offshore, and just are polluting where our laws can't reach them. Unfortunately, for my constituency, it's all one ocean, and so we're just as pissed off about it.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But, on the other hand, what we're looking at is government polluters and government polluters kind of represents all of us in the sense that our wastewater facilities, our point sources, are sources that we need to keep a close watch on. And those sources should probably be—the responsibility for keeping those sources in compliance with their NPDES permits or things of that nature certainly falls upon the jurisdiction under which that facility is being operated.
The biggest problem that was mentioned by many of the panelists today is this issue of urban runoff. And certainly the more urbanized the area, you have a much greater problem.
Who's responsibility is that? Well, it might be a Commerce problem; it might be a Department of Transportation problem. It might be a local problem with respect to design of the infrastructure or maintenance of the infrastructure. It depends on what the source of the source is.
And that's why the watershed approach is so important. And then, of course, the watershed approach is only as good as the testing method. And the testing method seems to be what we need to throw the money at.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Is there anyone else that has any additional comment for the good of the cause. I know we've kept you a long time, and I thank you for your patience. Really appreciate it. And we'll get on with our job. We'll try to do it to the best of our ability, and I hope we measure up.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:57 p.m, the committee was adjourned, subject to the call of the chair.]
[Insert here.]