182 



Representative OrUi 

 July 6, 1993 

 Page 2 



short time frame proposed by the legislation for state adoption of new criteria. Specifically, our 

 concerns are that (1) this would move our state away from an accepted bacteria indicator for 

 which we have collected data for 30 years; (2) we do not yet have much data on natural 

 concentrations of the new indicators in Texas waters; and (3) the new indicators do not apply 

 to oyster protection, which would require us to monitor and assess compliance for oyster waters 

 using fecal coliform, in addition to monitoring the new indicators to protect contact recreation. 



The definition for "coastal recreation waters" contained in Section 3(a)(9)(B) is somewhat vague 

 and would benefit by including additional detail. Specific activities should be listed that are 

 intended to be covered by the phrase "primary contact purposes". 



Section 4, entitled Coastal Beach Water Quality Monitoring indicates that states must comply 

 with recreational beach monitoring requirements to be published by EPA. It is not possible to 

 estimate the level of effort this would require, because the guidelines for monitoring identified 

 in this Section address only frequency and not the geographic coverage. With states such as 

 Texas that have long stretches of open beaches, the level of effort could be extensive. 



A solution to the above problem could be the inclusion of a provision for exemptions should 

 certain stretches of shoreline, whether Gulf or bay shoreline, not meet criteria for minimum use 

 for designated recreational activities. Past experience with many areas of the Texas coast have 

 found few significant problems related to the health and safety of recreationists. Without an 

 exemption clause, the success of a coastal recreational waters monitoring program would hinge 

 on either increased resources within the Texas Water Commission or action by the state 

 legislature to establish clear authority to require local authorities to perform the monitoring 

 activities. Local entities may now conduct limited monitoring of recreational waters along the 

 coast; however, because of the lack of specificity in the proposed bill, it is difficult, if not 

 impossible to estimate the impact to their programs. 



Sections 7 and 9 address the potential for state grants and appropriations to develop the 

 monitoring program, yet the funds to be shared by eligible stales is very limited. The program 

 will require a significant financial commitment by the state to implement. Because of the vast 

 expanse of Gulf and bay shoreline and the general nature of the proposed legislation, it is 

 impossible for the TWC to estimate the required effort and financial support necessary to 

 implement such a program. 



In summary, the basic concept of evaluating and monitoring coastal recreational waters is a 

 positive step towards protecting the health of millions of people who utilize our beaches. But 

 we need a better handle on the scope of the legislation and what the potential cost will be for 

 each of the coastal states. Just as federal programs are looking for 



