PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 24, 2017
Beach Act of 2017
This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to revise and reauthorize through FY2021 a grant program for monitoring, and notifying the public of, any pathogens in coastal recreation waters bordering public beaches.
The bill reauthorizes through FY2021 the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill establishes requirements with respect to: (1) using rapid testing methods to detect unsafe levels of pathogens or pathogen indicators in such coastal recreation waters, and (2) notifying governmental agencies when pathogens exceed water quality standards. Those methods must provide testing results within four hours of receiving a sample. The applicable state or local government must communicate the presence of any pathogens within two hours of receipt of a water quality sample.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must assess state and local compliance with coastal recreation water quality monitoring and notification legal requirements and grant conditions. The bill limits federal share of grants to non-compliant state or local governments. The Government Accountability Office must review the EPA's compliance assessments and corrective actions.
States with coastal recreation waters must adopt the most protective water quality criteria and standards practicable for pathogens.
The EPA must: (1) update the national list of beaches that are used by the public regardless of the presence of a lifeguard within 12 months and biennially thereafter (currently, periodically); (2) study the long-term impact of climate change on pathogenic contamination of coastal recreation waters; and (3) study the impacts of excess nutrients on coastal recreation waters.
People & committees
Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1622 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1622 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1622 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1622 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.