Surfrider Foundation: MAKING WAVES, The Surfrider Foundation Goes to Washington!


Gary Sirota, on the left, in Washington, DC	The Surfrider Foundation Goes to Washington! MAKING WAVES, Aug./Sept. 1998

On Friday, July 31, Gary Sirota, immediate past President of the Surfrider Foundation, received two pieces of great news. The Summer's first big New Zealand South swell was on its way, promising overhead, warm, lined up conditions to fire on the reef within walking distance of his home. Second, he was invited by the Chairman of the House Subcommittee for Water Resources and Environment to come to Washington D.C. to testify on the importance of the BEACH Bill. It was a tough decision to make: Surf or testify?
    For Gary, it was really no question at all. "It is a dream come true, Surfrider has gained immeasurable credibility to be asked to testify to Congress" said Sirota of this opportunity. The House Subcommittee was taking testimony on the Beaches Environmental Assessment Closure and Health Act of 1997, or BEACH Bill. The BEACH Bill, if signed into law would create a National Water Testing Standard, and require testing, and public notice of unhealthy conditions.
    Sirota testified after the introducers of the Bill, Congressmen Brian Bilbray (R-CA) and Frank Pallone (D-NJ), together with sponsors Sam Farr (D-CA) and Jim Saxton (R-NJ) spoke in favor of the Bill. It is possible that the Subcommittee will vote to approve the Bill before the close of the 105th Congressional Session. About 50 Representatives have announced support for the Bill, and it is gaining momentum in the Senate. According to Sirota, "if it clears the House and Senate, you can bet I'll be going back to see it signed into law. If not, we need to continue to work to get it passed in the 106th."
    Joining Sirota at the hearing were representatives from the EPA, NOAA, and the American Oceans Campaign. "It was the best stoke I've had outside the water in a long time," commented Darryl Hathaway, Co-Chair of Surfrider's National Board, who was on hand in Washington; "It was a historic event to witness Surfrider's name becoming part of the Congressional Record in support of this issue."
    "For me, it was exciting and fun, and an honor to represent Surfrider on this level", said Sirota upon his return. "While all the other witnesses were there to discuss the "what, where, and when, and how much" of the Federal legislation, we were there to address the "who and why." The Chairman must have gotten it, as he brought the Subcommittee back into session after a short break by tapping the gavel and proclaiming a hearty "surf's up!"

The following are excerpts from Sirota's speech:

"Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the Sub-committee,
It is indeed an honor and a privilege to address you here today concerning an issue that I am passionate about. The BEACH Bill will dramatically impact my life, and provide benefit for every person that comes in contact with our Nation's coastal waters....
    The Surfrider Foundation has advocated for the types of protections addressed by the BEACH Bill for many years. As a representative of Surfrider's Membership, who as a result of their enthusiasm for ocean recreation contact coastal waters on average of 250 days per year, I can state unequivocally that the health and safety of all who venture into coastal waters whether daily or infrequently, are at stake.....
    Lack of standardized testing methods, no consistent method of providing public notice, and the lack of a National criteria for evaluating water quality all work to frustrate and confuse the concerned public. As a life long surfer, I can tell you that one question that I am often asked is, "what do you do if you see a shark?" Well, my answer always is, it is the ones you can not see that you need to worry about.
    This provides a fine analogy to the matter at hand. First, it is outside the general public's ability to evaluate the condition of the ocean water beyond what they can see, or sometimes smell. And, it is what you can not see that you must worry about. It is, however, within the ability of local health agencies, who are familiar with local conditions, to conduct testing, and to create a consistent, understandable, and accessible method of providing timely public notice of ocean conditions.
    H.R. 2094 recognizes in its Findings that "the Nation's beaches are a valuable public resource used for recreation by millions of people annually." It has been reported that water related recreation is an annual $380 billion dollar industry. Employing 6 million people, it is the second largest employer in America, second only to health care. We Americans truly love our seaboards. Clean and safe water is good for local economies, and good for America. The BEACH Bill is the right kind of regulation. It does not impose any restrictions upon the public, but does provide them with the ability to evaluate the conditions and choose for themselves.
    Amid the backdrop of voluntary testing programs, and spotty public notice programs, comes the cry, "we do not need mandatory testing or mandatory posting, it will upset the voluntary programs in place." I am a living witness to the fallacy of that logic. Even in California, where testing and posting of contaminated beaches is mandatory, government agencies only reluctantly comply when beach closures would impact local economies. The BEACH Bill specifies in Section 2(a)(8) that the effective identification and elimination of contamination episodes should be addressed using a "watershed approach." Only mandatory testing and posting of contaminated coastal recreational waters, followed by source identification and elimination will insure the public health, and the long term financial well-being of local economies....
    Application of promulgated standards, mandatory testing, and public notification, together with the watershed approach to source identification and elimination builds in a balance that evens the playing field between large cities and small municipalities. The incentives created by posted beaches, whether at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, or Huntington Beach, California are the same. More importantly though, the public has a right to know where ever their health risk is beyond acceptable levels.
    Throughout the Committee's consideration of H.R. 2094, I respectfully request that you not lose sight of the value of local input. It is local agencies and municipalities, accomplished at water testing and notification of the public, that can provide important details and experience that can turn a Federal mandate into working public health legislation. Likewise, the experience of NGO's, such as the Surfrider Foundation, which has conducted a nationwide program of coastal water testing and public outreach, must also be considered. The scientists and laboratories of the Environmental Protection Agency surely can provide leadership in determining proper standards and methods.
    Although, I would hope that representatives of the E.P.A. could comment on the relative merit of the lengthy time indicated in the body of the Bill, and whether that amount of time is necessary to identify standards and methods. The experience of the Surfrider Foundation, in cooperation with the County of San Diego, and the State of California indicate that reasonable scientific consensus currently exists regarding preferable testing standards and methods. The time has come for this legislation.

Surfrider Foundation USA:
122 S. El Camino Real #67
San Clemente, CA 92672
tel. (949) 492-8170
fax (949) 492-8142

Email addresses:
Membership: mmate@surfrider.org
Chapter Issues: emazzarella@surfrider.org
Envir. Issues: ekliszewski@surfrider.org
Legal Issues: mkremer@surfrider.org
Catalog: jwright@surfrider.org
Website Staff: mbabski@surfrider.org
Other: info@surfrider.org

See our feedback page.
Surfrider Website INDEX