The EPA says the BEACH Act established "a uniform criteria for testing, monitoring, and notifying public users of possible coastal recreation water problems." Surfrider worries that reductions in federal support will weaken the standards used to measure coastal quality. "The levels that raised advisories or closures prior to [2000] were different in every state. It made it hard to know what the signs meant," Nelson stated. "We fear the standards will fall apart."

BEACH Act money allowed previously unprotected coastlines to be maintained, and its nationwide guidelines meant equivalent safety levels from Washington to California, Maine to Florida, the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast. (Nelson cited a National Resources Defense Council survey declaring 24,901 beach closures and advisories occurred in 2010 alone.) Money already allocated for 2012 water monitoring totaled $9.8 million to qualifying states. States and territories with recreational waters next to beaches or similar public access points were eligible. The length of the beach season, total miles of shoreline, and coastal population factored into the amounts allocated by the EPA. Florida and California received the most, each more than $500,000 for 2012. "In California," said Nelson, "federal money is about a third of the monitoring program."

However, the EPA is confident the precedent set by the BEACH Act will continue to serve as the paradigm for monitoring efforts undertaken by regional municipalities. "States and local governments now have the technical expertise and procedures to continue … without federal support," an EPA representative told ESPN.com. And the EPA claims that is because of the guidance and financing the agency provided.

But the President's plan is just the first step in the budget negotiations. Congress will examine the recommendations before the Senate and House reach a final budget resolution. That means Surfrider's petition is its opening move. As congressional budget proposals emerge, said Nelson, "where we have chapters, we'll raise the issue with congressman to get them to advocate for [restoring funding]."

Surfrider is also stressing the economic benefit of coastal upkeep. "It's a good investment to build trust with your coastal tourism policy because it generates so much revenue," declared Nelson, who concluded by simplifying Surfrider's objective: "What we want to know is, when you go down to the ocean, is it polluted?"