27 



with initiatives being undertaken now as Congress reauthorizes the 

 Clean Water Act. 



In conclusion, we believe that the Beach Act makes an outstand- 

 ing contribution to reducing the beach debris problem by encourag- 

 ing citizens, businesses and local governments to become part of 

 the solution. The Center for Marine Conservation fully supports 

 H.R. 31 provisions for beach testing, monitoring and public notice 

 to help protect public safety. We are concerned, however, that ade- 

 quate financial support be provided to State and local governments 

 to help them implement the testing and monitoring provisions of 

 the bill. 



We thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward to 

 working with the Subcommittee as you continue your deliberations. 



Mr. Ortiz. Thank you very much. 



[The statement of Ms. Schrader can be found at the end of the 

 hearing.] 



Mr. Ortiz. At this time I would like to ask a few brief questions, 

 and then open the floor so that Members can ask if they have any 

 questions. But this is for Ms. Stasikowski — and that is the Mexican- 

 American pronunciation — and other witnesses. 



I understand that only eight States have adopted the EPA 1986 

 criteria. Why have States been so reluctant to use this criteria, and 

 why aren't these criteria mandatory? And once you can answer our 

 question — my question, maybe the other members of the panel will 

 also answer this same question. 



Ms. Stasikowski. You are right. There are only eight States and 

 several tribes and territories that have adopted our criteria as 

 standards. EPA has been working with the States on implementa- 

 tion of the toxic pollutant criteria. That has now been completed 

 with our issuance of the national toxics rule. 



During the next triennium, we plan to concentrate on working 

 with the States to implement other criteria, including 1986 micro- 

 biological criteria. Some of the States are still using the 1976 crite- 

 ria, which we feel is inadequate. 



States — in speculating on some of the reasons why States are not 

 moving to implement our 1986 criteria, it means additional moni- 

 toring, it means purchase of equipment. 



Mr. Ortiz. Is there anybody else that would like to tackle these? 

 We won't charge you a penny. 



Ms. DooLEY. In New Jersey we haven't adopted the standard. We 

 use fecal coliform testing, and I think we use the fecal coliform in 

 part because we have years of experience with it, feel that it is ap- 

 propriate. And our health department and the State feel it is an 

 appropriate indicator for New Jersey. Most of our recreational 

 bathing beaches are affected more by storm drains which have 

 animal and human waste. 



But I also note that we do test at 65 stations with the entero- 

 cocci, and use the EPA standard, and that our tests have shown 

 that we are within the EPA standard along with the other stand- 

 ard. There hasn't been a great difference between the two that we 

 have been able to notice. 

 Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Mauro. 



Mr. Mauro. Mr. Chairman, what we are doing in Texas, candid- 

 ly, is we have been more concerned about the oysters than we have 



73-065 0-93-2 



