Federal Beaches Must Use Local Lifeguards During Shortages, Mandating Full Reimbursement for 'Reasonable Costs'

The newly proposed Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act is pretty straightforward: it’s about making sure federal swimming spots—think National Park beaches or Bureau of Land Management lakes—don’t go unmonitored during the summer season if federal staff is short. The bill mandates that if the Secretary of the Interior finds a federal swimming area has a staffing shortage, they must partner with local city or county governments to bring in local lifeguards. This is a direct response to keeping public safety coverage consistent when federal agencies can’t staff up themselves, but it comes with a significant financial mandate attached.

The Federal Lifeguard Backup Plan

This legislation kicks in specifically when a “designated swim location” managed by agencies like the National Park Service or Fish and Wildlife Service is experiencing a “staffing shortage.” Crucially, the bill defines this shortage carefully: it doesn’t count minor, temporary absences like a federal lifeguard calling out sick or taking a week of vacation. It’s aimed at systemic gaps where the beach would otherwise be left unmonitored during normal operating hours. For the average person planning a summer trip to a national lakeshore, this means a higher likelihood that the swimming area will actually be open and staffed, rather than closed or dangerously under-monitored due to federal hiring woes.

Who Pays the Bill (and How Much)?

The biggest financial detail in the bill is the mandatory reimbursement provision. If a local agency—say, the county parks department—steps in to cover a federal beach, the federal government must pay them back for all reasonable costs incurred. This isn't a cost-sharing agreement; it’s a full refund. Furthermore, the bill overrides any existing agreements the Secretary might have had with local governments, requiring those old contracts to be amended immediately to ensure the local agency gets 100% of their reasonable costs covered. This provision guarantees that local taxpayer dollars aren't subsidizing federal land safety, which is a win for local budgets.

The Catch: Defining 'Reasonable Costs'

While guaranteeing full reimbursement is helpful for local governments, the bill’s vagueness around the term “reasonable costs” could create headaches down the line. What exactly counts as reasonable? Is it just the hourly wage, or does it include administrative overhead, training, and equipment depreciation? For the federal budget, this lack of a clear ceiling means the Department of the Interior is on the hook for potentially significant and uncapped spending, essentially shifting a major operational cost onto the federal taxpayer. If a local agency's costs are higher than what the federal agency typically pays, the federal government is still required to cover the difference. This detail means the bill is a great deal for local agencies but introduces a significant, undefined financial commitment for the federal government, which could lead to disputes over what qualifies as 'reasonable' once the invoices start rolling in.