170 



will fit all conditions. Therefore, a considerable amount of 

 atata flexibility would seem to be essential. 



Attempting to estimate the coats associated with implementing 

 this program is difficult without knowing the type of monitoring 

 that will be required. Many factors including the frequency, 

 whether virus monitoring is included, number of locations needed 

 to be sampled, etc., would significantly affect the coat of the 

 program. Even using minimal frequencies, no virus monitoring, 

 and using selected locations would cost California in excess of 

 $1 million per year. This cost would fall primarily on 

 California counties which conduct most of the bathing water 

 monitoring and carry out the necessary posting and closure of 

 beaches. This presents concerns since the bill only calls for 

 federal funding up to a maximum of 50% of the program coat. Dua 

 to budgetary problems, California has had to reduce many of its 

 routine water quality monitoring programs. Wa would like to see 

 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency work closely with the 

 affected states to carry out an accurate cost assessment of the 

 proposed regulations and requirements before these are mandated 

 upon the states. 



While California has not conducted any studies or recent surveys 

 with respect to recreational health effects in marine waters, wa 

 would be interested in providing input to the study to be 

 conducted by EPA should this bill become law. 



