BEACH Act

Last updated

The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000, or BEACH Act, is a United States federal statute that sets national standards for recreational water testing and authorizes grants to pay for beach monitoring programs at state and federal levels. The Act was signed by President Bill Clinton on October 10, 2000. [1] The law amends the Clean Water Act and requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set standard criteria for testing, monitoring, and notifying the public of possible pollution within coastal recreational waters. Water pollution levels are required to be monitored regularly for bacteria, such as Escherichia coli (E.coli), and other pathogen indicators. Agencies at local, state, and federal levels report and monitor the levels and post warning signs as necessary.

Contents

Background

Congress passed the BEACH Act based on the concern for public health and water quality. It was originally known as Beach Bill (H.R. 999) when it was presented to the House of Representatives on March 4, 1999. It was proposed a second time to the House on April 19, 1999 as the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Cleanup, and Health Act of 1999; the BEACH Act was amended and passed through the House on April 22, 1999. Numerous changes were made to the draft before being passed through the Senate, including deadlines on publications and studies for the EPA, the clarification of waters covered, the inclusion of territories and Indian Tribes, and implementation of monitoring programs. The Senate passed the act on September 21, 2000 and President Clinton signed the act into law on October 10, 2000. [2]

The BEACH Act covers 35 coastal recreational waters near coastal states and territories. Supporters of the BEACH Act argue that without the support of environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Center for Marine Conservation, and American Oceans Campaigns, the BEACH Act would not exist.

Timeline of events: [2]
March 4, 1999BEACH Act introduced to the House of Representatives
April 19, 1999Act amended by the Committee on Transportation
April 22, 1999Act agreed to and passed in House
August 25, 2000Committee on the Environment and Public Works comments
September 21, 2000Act agreed to and passed in Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent
September 26, 2000Process of resolving differences between the House and Senate
September 28, 2000Act presented to President Clinton
October 10, 2000President Clinton signs the BEACH Act, officially becomes Public Law No: 106-284
This map shows the regions covered by the legislation of the BEACH Act of 2000. Source: EPA Areas Covered by the BEACH Act of 2000.jpg
This map shows the regions covered by the legislation of the BEACH Act of 2000. Source: EPA

Surfrider Foundation Involvement

Members of the Surfrider Foundation and other activists carried a Sign-the-Surfboard petition in support of the BEACH Act through Congress when the act was proposed to President Clinton; they gained over 100 signatures from members of the House of Representatives and Senate. The Surfrider Foundation continues to fight for the implementation and funding of the BEACH Act by emphasizing the importance of public health. Surfrider also has many alliances with other organizations and programs, such as the Clean Ocean Action, Riverkeeper, NRDC, Waterkeeper Alliance, Heal the Bay, and Alliance for the Great Lakes. These organizations have been active in supporting federal funding for the BEACH Act grant program. [3]

Water Quality Criteria

Initially, the coastal recreation water quality criteria stated that every state adjacent to coastal recreational waters must submit their pathogen and pathogen indicator criteria no later than 42 months after the enactment of section 303(i) and section 304(a). [4] The revised standards of coastal recreation water quality criteria under section 304(a)(9) states that every state adjacent to coastal recreational waters must submit to the revised water quality criteria of pathogen and pathogen indicators set by the Administrator no later than 36 months after the Administrator's publications. [5]

Provisions as a result of the BEACH Act

The BEACH Act added numerous amendments to the Clean Water Act. For example, section 303(i) requires that states, territories, and tribes along the coasts implement new water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators. The addition of Section 303(i) also authorizes the EPA to regulate states to abide by health standards. [6]

Under the addition of Section 104(v) and 304(a), the EPA must perform studies on the effects pathogens and pathogen indicators have on human health, and publish new or revised pathogen indicator criteria based on prior studies. Section 303(i)(1)(B) requires that states, territories, or tribes along coastal recreational waters must adopt any new, or revised, EPA water quality standards based on Section 304(a) criteria within three years of publication.

Section 502 defines key terms in the BEACH Act. For example, coastal recreation waters are defined as "Great Lakes, marine coastal waters, coastal estuaries designated under the Clean Water Act Section 303[c] by a State for swimming, bathing, surfing, and any other water contact activities," and exclude waters, waters upstream of a river, or stream's mouth which have access to the open sea. [7]

Section 406 of the Clean Water Act had the largest revisions. Under this provision, the EPA is required to:

  1. Publish a document containing performance criteria within 18 months from the date of enactment for the following:
    1. Monitoring program and assessment of the coastal recreation waters, and water quality standards of the pathogens and pathogen indicators.
    2. Process of notifying the public, local government, and federal government on any possibility of water levels exceeding quality standards.
  2. The EPA also has authority to award grants to state and local governments for the implementation of their beach monitoring and assessment programs. Grant recipients must submit a report to the EPA that outlines their water quality monitoring methodologies, data recorded, and actions taken to notify the public about the water quality standards. Grants for any state or local government are expected to be used for establishing a monitoring and notification program that meets the following EPA criteria:
    • Identifies all coastal recreation waters in the states and territories.
    • Outlines methodologies for implementing the monitoring program.
    • Outlines procedures for detecting the ecological effects of pathogen and pathogen indicator levels.
    • Describes how frequent monitoring and assessments should be performed, (factors for this are based on the periods of recreational use of the waters, the nature and extent of use during these periods, the proximity of the water to point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution, and any effects storms have on the water).
    • Communication measures that will be taken to inform the EPA, local government and public of "the occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent of any exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators" [4]
    • Procedures for distributing public notices with information about the safety of coastal recreation waters and if they are not meeting (or are not expected to meet) water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators.
    • Measures to inform the public of the potential health risks of exposure to pathogens and pathogen indicators. The grants for the federal programs follow the same guidelines above, except the federal programs aim to protect overall public health and safety and have a deadline of three years from the date of enactment.
  3. Establish a public database that provides all available data on pathogen and pathogen indicators in any coastal recreation water.

Funding

When the BEACH Act became federal law, the federal government had to step in and take responsibility of providing funds to individual states and governments. Congress was provided $30 million for the BEACH Act, but Congress did not use nearly the amount of money for its programs. In 2007, Congress funded $9.9 million for water quality monitoring. In 2008, however, funding decreased to $9.75 million. [8] Difficulties within the economy have led to stringent budgets for the BEACH Act funds. There has been a $10 million cut in grants for testing, which has led local governments to fund pollution monitoring activities. [9] The decrease of federal funds caused testing to become less frequent.

In 2007, U.S Representatives gathered to discuss the issue of the undercut of funding. They proposed a $60 million fund for water testings at a national pollution level. In conjunction to the BEACH Protection Act of 2007, most of the water quality testings may could have been put into play. However, Congress never passed the BEACH Protection Act, leaving beach testings extremely under-funded.

In 2015, federal funds of $9.5 million have to be distributed among 35 coastal states. These funds have to protect the lives of 100 million people who are active beach-goers. Beach programs help protect public confidence in pristine beaches, eventually attracting tourists and jobs.

The BEACH Act Grant Program

Coastal and Great Lake states are eligible for funding if they fall under the requirements of CWA section 406 (b)(2)(A). Eligible "states" include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In order for tribes to be eligible for grants, they must be nearby coastal recreational waters that are accessible to the public. The tribe must also show that it abides by the "treatment in the same manner as a state." [10] Once granted funds, states and tribes must use these funds for programs for comprehensive monitoring or notifying. EPA has set aside approximately $149 million in grants for implementation of beach programs. When allocating grants, EPA considers several factors such as the length of the beach season, shoreline miles, and coastal county population. The EPA wants Great Lakes and coastal states to apply for the 2011 BEACH grant.

The first grant allocation was issued on March 31, 2003. To apply for a grant, applicants must report an outline of methodologies, data, and steps taken to notify the public about water quality standards. The state and local government must abide by different steps. These steps include identifying all coastal recreation waters, methodologies implementing programs, outlining steps for how to move forward. [11]

Fiscal YearGrant Total
2016$9,462,000
2015$9,486,640
2014$9,549,000
2013$9,349,000
2012$9,864,000

State Implementation

Once a state is granted funds for the BEACH Act, they must comply to the EPA Administrator(s) and what they deem appropriate. The Administrator writes up a report that describes two aspects. One, the report must consist of data collected as part of the program for monitoring and notifying. Second, the report must address the actions needed to alert the public when water quality levels exceed national levels. If states do not adopt the water quality criteria of pathogen and pathogen indicators that the Administrator has proposed, the Administrator will immediately propose new, revised regulations that allow state to better meet its standards.

Indiana implemented grant funds for the Lake Michigan Beaches Program. [12] The funding increased monitoring of the bacteria, E.coli, at Indiana's Lake Michigan Beaches. The presence of E.coli is potent, because the bacteria symbolizes sewage or waste contamination. To comply with the BEACH Act, the state of Indiana developed a Beach Monitoring and Notification Plan (BMNP). Prior to Indiana's BMNP, Indiana's coastal beaches were overseen once or twice a week. After supplying funds for the BMNP, communities came together to monitor pollution levels five to seven days out of the week. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management also allocated its resources to share the importance of beach monitoring. Beach managers and park departments developed a system of kiosks to inform the public when there are signs of E.coli contamination in recreational waters.

BEACON 2.0

Under the BEACH Act, the EPA is required to publish a report every four years that outlines recommendations for water quality improvement, the actions that have been taken to enhance the quality of coastal recreation waters, an evaluation of the efforts taken to implement the BEACH Act at the federal, state, and local level; and the recommendations to improve monitoring systems for coastal recreation waters. To meet this requirement, the EPA created the Beach Advisory and Closing Online Notification (BEACON) system. The BEACON system is a public database that shows the pollution within coastal recreational waters. Recently, it has been upgraded to BEACON 2.0 with a new mapping interface, report creation wizard, and RSS feed generator. [13] The EPA databases are the data sources for the BEACON 2.0 system. Data is gathered from all states, tribes, and territories that receive grants from the BEACH Act.

There are four main databases that BEACON 2.0 supplements its information from. The Reach Address Database (RAD) provides geographic data, defining a beaches location and the locations of water monitoring stations. The STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database and Water Quality Exchange (WQX) provides updated data from the monitoring stations. The PRogram tracking, beach Advisories, Water quality standards, and Nutrients (PRAWN) database provides information on any beach closings or advisories.

Post 2000 BEACH Act Movements

The BEACH Act jumpstarted numerous water related, health-based movements such as the Beach Protection Act of 2007, Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act of 2009, and the EPA's 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria.

EDC vs. EPA (2003) [14]

Following the passing of the BEACH Act, the EPA failed to comply to the provisions made to section 104 and section 304(a) by the specified deadline, and the NRDC sued for inaction. EPA has made promises to update their storm water protections, but they have not acted upon this. The EPA settled to publish a new standard in 2012.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Environmental Protection Agency</span> U.S. federal government agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States government tasked with environmental protection matters. President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970; it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial waste</span> Waste produced by industrial activity or manufacturing processes

Industrial waste is the waste produced by industrial activity which includes any material that is rendered useless during a manufacturing process such as that of factories, mills, and mining operations. Types of industrial waste include dirt and gravel, masonry and concrete, scrap metal, oil, solvents, chemicals, scrap lumber, even vegetable matter from restaurants. Industrial waste may be solid, semi-solid or liquid in form. It may be hazardous waste or non-hazardous waste. Industrial waste may pollute the nearby soil or adjacent water bodies, and can contaminate groundwater, lakes, streams, rivers or coastal waters. Industrial waste is often mixed into municipal waste, making accurate assessments difficult. An estimate for the US goes as high as 7.6 billion tons of industrial waste produced annually, as of 2017. Most countries have enacted legislation to deal with the problem of industrial waste, but strictness and compliance regimes vary. Enforcement is always an issue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water quality</span> Assessment against standards for use

Water quality refers to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water based on the standards of its usage. It is most frequently used by reference to a set of standards against which compliance, generally achieved through treatment of the water, can be assessed. The most common standards used to monitor and assess water quality convey the health of ecosystems, safety of human contact, extent of water pollution and condition of drinking water. Water quality has a significant impact on water supply and often determines supply options.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coastal Zone Management Act</span>

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is an Act of Congress passed in 1972 to encourage coastal states to develop and implement coastal zone management plans (CZMPs). This act was established as a United States National policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Act</span> 1972 U.S. federal law regulating water pollution

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Its objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters; recognizing the responsibilities of the states in addressing pollution and providing assistance to states to do so, including funding for publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment; and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Concentrated animal feeding operation</span> Type of American intensive animal farming

In animal husbandry, a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is an intensive animal feeding operation (AFO) in which over 1,000 animal units are confined for over 45 days a year. An animal unit is the equivalent of 1,000 pounds of "live" animal weight. A thousand animal units equates to 700 dairy cows, 1,000 meat cows, 2,500 pigs weighing more than 55 pounds (25 kg), 10,000 pigs weighing under 55 pounds, 10,000 sheep, 55,000 turkeys, 125,000 chickens, or 82,000 egg laying hens or pullets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Safe Drinking Water Act</span> Primary federal law in the United States intended to ensure safe drinking water for the public

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the primary federal law in the United States intended to ensure safe drinking water for the public. Pursuant to the act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to set standards for drinking water quality and oversee all states, localities, and water suppliers that implement the standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonpoint source pollution</span> Pollution resulting from multiple sources

Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution refers to diffuse contamination of water or air that does not originate from a single discrete source. This type of pollution is often the cumulative effect of small amounts of contaminants gathered from a large area. It is in contrast to point source pollution which results from a single source. Nonpoint source pollution generally results from land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage, or hydrological modification where tracing pollution back to a single source is difficult. Nonpoint source water pollution affects a water body from sources such as polluted runoff from agricultural areas draining into a river, or wind-borne debris blowing out to sea. Nonpoint source air pollution affects air quality, from sources such as smokestacks or car tailpipes. Although these pollutants have originated from a point source, the long-range transport ability and multiple sources of the pollutant make it a nonpoint source of pollution; if the discharges were to occur to a body of water or into the atmosphere at a single location, the pollution would be single-point.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972</span> American environmental legislation

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), Ocean Dumping Act is one of several key environmental laws passed by the US Congress in 1972. The Act has two essential aims: to regulate intentional ocean disposal of materials, and to authorize any related research. While the MPRSA regulates the ocean dumping of waste and provides for a research program on ocean dumping, it also provides for the designation and regulation of marine sanctuaries referred to as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. The act regulates the ocean dumping of all material beyond the territorial limit and prevents or strictly limits dumping material that "would adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities". The MPRSA authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate ocean dumping of materials including, but not limited to, industrial waste, sewage sludge, biological agents, radioactive agents, NBC, garbage, chemicals, and biological and laboratory, as well as other wastes, into the territorial waters of the United States through a permit program. The EPA can issue permits for dumping of materials other than dredge spoils if the agency determines, through a full public notice and process, that the discharge will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health or welfare or the marine environment. The law also has provisions related to creating marine sanctuaries, conducting ocean disposal research and monitoring coastal water quality.

A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is a regulatory term in the U.S. Clean Water Act, describing a plan for restoring impaired waters that identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive while still meeting water quality standards.

Indicator bacteria are types of bacteria used to detect and estimate the level of fecal contamination of water. They are not dangerous to human health but are used to indicate the presence of a health risk.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water testing</span> Procedures used to analyze water quality

Water testing is a broad description for various procedures used to analyze water quality. Millions of water quality tests are carried out daily to fulfill regulatory requirements and to maintain safety.

Indicator organisms are used as a proxy to monitor conditions in a particular environment, ecosystem, area, habitat, or consumer product. Certain bacteria, fungi and helminth eggs are being used for various purposes.

To protect the environment from the adverse effects of pollution, many nations worldwide have enacted legislation to regulate various types of pollution as well as to mitigate the adverse effects of pollution. At the local level, regulation usually is supervised by environmental agencies or the broader public health system. Different jurisdictions often have different levels regulation and policy choices about pollution. Historically, polluters will lobby governments in less economically developed areas or countries to maintain lax regulation in order to protect industrialisation at the cost of human and environmental health.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nutrient pollution</span> Contamination of water by excessive inputs of nutrients

Nutrient pollution, a form of water pollution, refers to contamination by excessive inputs of nutrients. It is a primary cause of eutrophication of surface waters, in which excess nutrients, usually nitrogen or phosphorus, stimulate algal growth. Sources of nutrient pollution include surface runoff from farm fields and pastures, discharges from septic tanks and feedlots, and emissions from combustion. Raw sewage is a large contributor to cultural eutrophication since sewage is high in nutrients. Releasing raw sewage into a large water body is referred to as sewage dumping, and still occurs all over the world. Excess reactive nitrogen compounds in the environment are associated with many large-scale environmental concerns. These include eutrophication of surface waters, harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, acid rain, nitrogen saturation in forests, and climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water quality law</span>

Water quality laws govern the protection of water resources for human health and the environment. Water quality laws are legal standards or requirements governing water quality, that is, the concentrations of water pollutants in some regulated volume of water. Such standards are generally expressed as levels of a specific water pollutants that are deemed acceptable in the water volume, and are generally designed relative to the water's intended use - whether for human consumption, industrial or domestic use, recreation, or as aquatic habitat. Additionally, these laws provide regulations on the alteration of the chemical, physical, radiological, and biological characteristics of water resources. Regulatory efforts may include identifying and categorizing water pollutants, dictating acceptable pollutant concentrations in water resources, and limiting pollutant discharges from effluent sources. Regulatory areas include sewage treatment and disposal, industrial and agricultural waste water management, and control of surface runoff from construction sites and urban environments. Water quality laws provides the foundation for regulations in water standards, monitoring, required inspections and permits, and enforcement. These laws may be modified to meet current needs and priorities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California State Water Resources Control Board</span> Branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency

The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is one of six branches of the California Environmental Protection Agency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonpoint source water pollution regulations in the United States</span>

Nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution regulations are environmental regulations that restrict or limit water pollution from diffuse or nonpoint effluent sources such as polluted runoff from agricultural areas in a river catchments or wind-borne debris blowing out to sea. In the United States, governments have taken a number of legal and regulatory approaches to controlling NPS effluent. Nonpoint water pollution sources include, for example, leakage from underground storage tanks, storm water runoff, atmospheric deposition of contaminants, and golf course, agricultural, and forestry runoff.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States regulation of point source water pollution</span>

Point source water pollution comes from discrete conveyances and alters the chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of water. In the United States, it is largely regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). Among other things, the Act requires dischargers to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to legally discharge pollutants into a water body. However, point source pollution remains an issue in some water bodies, due to some limitations of the Act. Consequently, other regulatory approaches have emerged, such as water quality trading and voluntary community-level efforts.

Water in Arkansas is an important issue encompassing the conservation, protection, management, distribution and use of the water resource in the state. Arkansas contains a mixture of groundwater and surface water, with a variety of state and federal agencies responsible for the regulation of the water resource. In accordance with agency rules, state, and federal law, the state's water treatment facilities utilize engineering, chemistry, science and technology to treat raw water from the environment to potable water standards and distribute it through water mains to homes, farms, business and industrial customers. Following use, wastewater is collected in collection and conveyance systems, decentralized sewer systems or septic tanks and treated in accordance with regulations at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) before being discharged to the environment.

References

  1. United States. Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000. Pub. L.   106–284 (text) (PDF) Approved October 10, 2000.
  2. 1 2 106th Congress (10 October 2000). "Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000". congress.gov. Retrieved December 10, 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  3. Howe, Angela. "The BEACH Act at 15 years" . Retrieved December 1, 2016.
  4. 1 2 "Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000" (PDF). Environmental Protection Agency. October 10, 2000. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  5. EPA, OW, US. "Microbial (Pathogen)/Recreational Water Quality Criteria". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2016-12-10.
  6. "Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000 - Beachapedia". www.beachapedia.org. Retrieved 2016-11-30.
  7. EPA, OW, OST, US. "About the BEACH Act". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2016-12-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. "Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000 - Beachapedia". www.beachapedia.org. Retrieved 2016-12-04.
  9. "Beach Testing: The Dangers of State Control". University of Southern California Dornslife College. Archived from the original on December 20, 2016. Retrieved December 3, 2016.
  10. "Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act". Federal Registry. Retrieved December 7, 2016.
  11. EPA, OW, OST, US. "Beach Grants". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2016-12-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. "Indiana BEACH Program" . Retrieved December 1, 2016.
  13. "BEACON 2.0". Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  14. "Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency - Environmental Law". Environmental Law. 2007-03-07. Retrieved 2016-12-12.