Overview
Title
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to grants for beach monitoring, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 7203 aims to help keep beaches cleaner by giving money to state and local governments to find and fix pollution in water; the bill says they will use up-to-date technology for better monitoring until the year 2029.
Summary AI
H. R. 7203 aims to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by focusing on grants for beach water quality monitoring. The bill proposes extending grants to identify and address sources of pollution in coastal waters, including shallow upstream waters, through 2029. It also emphasizes the importance of using modern testing technologies to help states and local governments better monitor and maintain water quality at beaches, ensuring safer recreational environments for the public.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The legislation, titled the "Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2024", aims to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Its primary focus is to improve funding and guidance related to monitoring water quality at beaches and coastal recreational areas. The bill seeks to authorize $30 million annually from fiscal years 2025 through 2029 to improve and extend the scope of water quality monitoring programs. Notably, it includes provisions allowing states and local governments to use grants not only for existing coastal recreation waters but also for nearby shallow upstream waters. The bill further mandates that guidance for these programs incorporates the latest innovations in water contamination testing technologies.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several critical issues arise from the bill's proposals. Firstly, the expansion of monitoring to include "nearby shallow upstream waters" introduces potential challenges. Without clear criteria on what constitutes "nearby" or "shallow," there could be inconsistencies in how the programs are implemented, possibly leading to inefficiencies in resource allocation. Another issue is the ambiguous language used in phrases like "or present on," which may cause different interpretations, risking uneven application of the law.
The bill allocates a significant budget of $30 million annually for the monitoring program, yet does not establish specific accountability measures for the funds. This absence could lead to ineffective use of taxpayer money. Furthermore, there is no explicit method outlined to evaluate the success or impact of the additional funding and expanded monitoring scope.
Additionally, the language in the guidance section concerning "innovations in testing technologies" is vague. Without detailed criteria, states and local governments might face challenges in consistently implementing the required technology updates. This could also inadvertently benefit certain technology providers if the guidance process lacks transparency and impartial assessment criteria.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, the general public would benefit from improved water quality monitoring, as cleaner and safer beaches contribute to public health, environmental protection, and local economies dependent on tourism. However, the potential for increased complexity and cost in monitoring may strain state and local resources, especially if the guidelines aren't clearly defined or if the required technology is expensive.
Specific stakeholders, such as state environmental agencies and local governments, might experience both positive and negative impacts. Positively, they receive substantial funding and support to enhance their monitoring efforts. On the negative side, they may encounter challenges in implementing the new regulations, particularly if clarity and consistency are lacking in the criteria for monitoring and guidance on adopting new technologies.
Technology providers and environmental consultants could potentially see an increase in demand for their services as states and local governments work to comply with updated requirements. Nevertheless, without clear guidance, these stakeholders might face difficulties in providing consistent and effective solutions.
In conclusion, while the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2024 presents opportunities for improving coastal water quality monitoring, its success largely depends on careful implementation and clear, consistent guidance for all parties involved. The bill proposes significant changes and funding to address water pollution but must address identified issues to ensure effective application and positive outcomes for public and environmental health.
Financial Assessment
The bill, H. R. 7203, proposes amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with a focus on grants for monitoring the quality of beach waters. Central to the bill is a financial commitment that involves appropriating funds to support water quality monitoring programs.
Financial Summary
The bill outlines an annual appropriation of $30,000,000 for the fiscal years 2025 through 2029. This allocation aims to support state and local government efforts in monitoring coastal recreation waters, including identifying specific sources of pollution. This financial commitment extends an existing provision for grants initially set at the same annual amount for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
Relation to Identified Issues
Extension and Use of Funds: The proposed appropriation is significant yet allocates the same amount yearly as previously set two decades ago. This could raise concerns about whether the funding is sufficient in light of inflation and expanded program scopes. Additionally, the lack of specified accountability measures or performance criteria, as mentioned in the issues, underscores potential inefficiencies in this financial use. Without clear guidelines, the effectiveness of these funds in achieving the intended improvements in water quality monitoring and contamination source identification is questionable.
Scope of Monitoring: The expansion to include "nearby shallow upstream waters" potentially adds complexity and financial burdens to the monitoring programs. With no clear guidelines on defining “nearby” or “shallow,” financial resources might be inconsistently utilized as different states could interpret the terms variably.
Lack of Specific Financial Oversight: An absence of defined review or assessment procedures highlights another financial oversight issue. While $30 million annually is allocated, the lack of performance assessment measures means there's no structured framework to evaluate if the financial resources are leading to effective water quality monitoring activities.
Flexibility in Innovations: Section 3’s emphasis on "innovations in testing technologies" introduces flexibility that might influence financial outcomes. While innovation can drive efficiency and effectiveness, without explicit financial criteria or guidelines, states may adopt costly or unproven technologies, impacting how funds are used.
Absence of Detailed Guidance: The undefined role of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in providing guidance could lead to inefficiencies in how funds are utilized. If the EPA does not establish clear directives for technology assessment, financial resources could be disbursed on varied and inconsistent technology purchases or applications.
Overall, while H. R. 7203 earmarks substantial funds towards improving water quality at recreational beaches, the ambiguity in definitions, lack of specific performance criteria, and absence of a structured review process may limit the effectiveness and efficient use of these financial resources.
Issues
The amendment in Section 2 expands the program to include 'nearby shallow upstream waters,' potentially increasing the complexity and cost of monitoring without providing clear criteria or guidelines on what qualifies as 'nearby' or 'shallow.' This lack of clarity may lead to inconsistent interpretations and applications, affecting the effectiveness and efficiency of the monitoring programs.
Section 3 uses the vague term 'innovations in testing technologies,' which could lead to varied interpretations across states and local governments regarding acceptable technologies. This lack of specificity may result in inconsistencies and inefficiencies in implementation and could favor certain technology providers if clear criteria or assessment methods are not established.
The language 'or present on' in Section 2 related to locations adjacent to coastal recreation waters is ambiguous. A clearer definition or example of 'present on' is necessary to prevent misinterpretation and ensure consistent application.
Section 2 provides substantial funding ($30,000,000 annually) for the program but lacks specific accountability measures or performance criteria for states and local governments. This absence may result in ineffective use of funds, with no structured way to assess or ensure that the funds are effectively contributing to monitoring and identifying contamination sources.
There is no mention of a review or assessment procedure in Section 2 to evaluate the effectiveness of the introduced changes. This omission could pose challenges in measuring outcomes and making necessary future improvements, potentially leading to continued inefficiencies.
Section 2 does not specify any particular methods or technologies for identifying contamination sources, allowing for varied interpretation and implementation, which may result in inconsistencies in how states and local governments address water contamination issues.
The guidance process outlined in Section 3 could potentially give an unfair advantage to certain technology providers if impartial criteria and assessment methods for innovations are not clearly established.
The role and authority of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in formulating and disseminating guidance, as described in Section 3, is not clearly defined, potentially leaving states and local governments without clear directives and oversight.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act provides its short title, which is the "Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2024" or simply the "BEACH Act of 2024".
2. Coastal Recreation Water Quality Monitoring And Notification Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow states and local governments to use grants for identifying pollution sources in coastal and nearby upstream waters, and updates funding authorization for these grants to $30 million per year from 2025 to 2029. Additionally, it amends the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 to align with the new funding years.
Money References
- is amended— (1) in subsection (b)— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) by inserting “, including nearby shallow upstream waters,” after “coastal recreation waters”; and (ii) by inserting “or present on” after “adjacent to”; (B) in paragraph (3)(A)— (i) in clause (i), by striking “and” at the end; (ii) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and (iii) by inserting after clause (i) the following: “(ii) in the case of a State that uses such grant to identify specific sources of contamination pursuant to paragraph (5), any data relating to such identified sources of contamination; and”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “(5) IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION.—A State or local government receiving a grant under this subsection may use such grant to identify specific sources of contamination for coastal recreation waters, including nearby shallow upstream waters, adjacent to or present on beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public.”; (2) in subsection (g)(1)— (A) by inserting “, including nearby shallow upstream waters,” after “coastal recreation waters”; and (B) by inserting “or present on” after “adjacent to”; and (3) in subsection (i), by striking “$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005” and inserting “$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029”. (b) Authorization of appropriations.—Section 8 of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–284; 114 Stat. 877) is amended by striking “2001 through 2005” and inserting “2025 through 2029”. ---
3. Guidance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The guidance provided by the Environmental Protection Agency to States and local governments, who receive grants under a certain section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, must incorporate the latest advancements in testing technologies for detecting water contamination.