American Lifeguard™ Sees H.R. 5063 as an Important Federal Response to Lifeguard Shortages at America’s Public Beaches
September 2026 – America’s beaches, national parks and public recreation areas attract millions of visitors who expect these treasured public spaces to be both accessible and reasonably safe. Yet one of the most basic components of aquatic safety – the presence of trained lifeguards—can become difficult to maintain when agencies face persistent staffing shortages.
That is why H.R. 5063, the Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act, deserves attention in the national conversation about drowning prevention and beach safety.
Introduced by U.S. Representative Jen Kiggans of Virginia, the legislation addresses lifeguard shortages at designated swimming locations managed by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation. In July 2026, the House Committee on Natural Resources favorably reported the legislation, moving the proposal forward in the congressional process.
For the American Lifeguard Association® (American Lifeguard™), the significance of the proposal goes beyond one piece of legislation. It represents growing recognition of a basic public-safety principle: when government provides and operates designated swimming areas, having qualified lifeguards available during normal operating periods can be an important part of protecting the public.
A Practical Response to a Real Staffing Problem
The concept behind H.R. 5063 is relatively straightforward.
When the Department of the Interior identifies a lifeguard staffing shortage at a designated federal swimming location that is normally monitored by federally employed lifeguards, the legislation provides a mechanism for the federal government to work with local government agencies capable of supplying qualified lifeguards.
Those local lifeguards could help monitor designated swimming locations, provide rescue services and administer first aid when necessary. Importantly, the legislation also addresses reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by participating local government agencies.
That financial component matters.
A community located beside a federal beach may have trained lifeguards, emergency personnel and aquatic-safety expertise. But asking a local government to divert those resources to a federal recreation area without appropriate federal financial support could simply transfer the staffing and financial burden from one government agency to another.
Federal assistance creates the possibility of a genuine partnership instead.
From the American Lifeguard perspective, that collaborative model is worth serious attention because a lifeguard shortage is ultimately not an organizational-chart problem—it is a public-safety problem.
A person caught in a rip current does not care whether the rescuer’s paycheck comes from a municipality, county or federal agency. What matters at that moment is whether a properly trained lifeguard is watching the water and is prepared to respond.
Prevention Happens Before the Rescue
Public discussion about lifeguards sometimes focuses almost exclusively on dramatic rescues. But some of the most important work performed by lifeguards happens before an emergency develops.
Lifeguards monitor changing water conditions. They identify swimmers moving into dangerous areas. They recognize signs of distress. They warn visitors about hazards. They help keep inexperienced swimmers away from conditions beyond their abilities. And when prevention fails, they are positioned to respond quickly.
This distinction is important because drowning can develop rapidly and may not resemble the dramatic struggle people expect to see.
The best rescue is frequently the rescue that never becomes necessary.
That is why the American Lifeguard has consistently viewed lifeguard staffing as part of the broader public-safety infrastructure surrounding aquatic recreation.
We invest in emergency medical services, fire protection, warning systems, rescue equipment and other safeguards because preparation matters. Lifeguard coverage should be viewed through the same prevention-oriented lens at swimming locations where agencies have determined lifeguards are normally appropriate.
Federal Assistance Can Strengthen Local Partnerships
H.R. 5063 also highlights something increasingly important as communities across the country confront lifeguard recruitment challenges: government agencies do not necessarily need to solve every staffing problem independently.
Partnerships can help.
A federal recreation area may experience a temporary or seasonal shortage while a neighboring jurisdiction has qualified personnel and an established aquatic-safety program. Creating a framework through which those resources can be shared—and ensuring that the local government is appropriately reimbursed—can provide another tool for maintaining public protection.
The American Lifeguard believes this type of cooperation can be especially valuable because lifeguard shortages rarely respect jurisdictional boundaries.
A crowded coastline may include municipal, county, state and federal areas visited by essentially the same population. When one location loses coverage, the consequences can extend beyond that particular beach. Nearby emergency responders may ultimately be called when an incident occurs.
Supporting cooperation before an emergency occurs can therefore make more sense than depending on neighboring agencies only after something has gone wrong.
Funding Is Only Part of the Solution
Federal assistance, however, cannot by itself solve America’s broader lifeguard shortage.
The United States also needs to continue examining recruitment, compensation, training access, retention and the sometimes lengthy processes involved in getting qualified candidates into lifeguard chairs.
Communities should be thinking about lifeguard staffing months before summer begins—not after beaches are already crowded.
Employers can expand recruitment efforts, develop relationships with schools and community organizations, provide competitive compensation, support access to lifeguard training and recertification, and build reserve staffing capacity for peak periods.
At the same time, expanding the workforce must never mean lowering meaningful safety expectations.
A lifeguard certification is an important component of preparation, but employers also have a critical responsibility to ensure that personnel can perform the skills required at their particular aquatic environment.
Practical competency should be addressed within the aquatics environment through employer-based pre-service evaluations and ongoing in-service procedures established to meet the national standards contained in the CDC Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC). These employer responsibilities help ensure that lifeguards are not simply credentialed, but prepared for the actual facility and conditions in which they work.
Lifeguards Are Public-Safety Personnel
There is also a larger message behind the federal discussion.
Lifeguards should not be viewed simply as seasonal employees sitting in elevated chairs.
They are trained personnel entrusted with surveillance, prevention, emergency response, rescue and first aid. At beaches, they may confront rip currents, changing surf, heat emergencies, missing children, injuries and swimmers in immediate distress.
Recognizing the public-safety function of lifeguards is important to recruitment as well.
If communities want talented young people and experienced professionals to enter and remain in lifeguarding, the position needs to be treated with the seriousness its responsibilities warrant. Competitive compensation, professional training, continuing education and strong operational support all contribute to building a sustainable workforce.
A National Problem Requires Cooperation
The American Lifeguard™ has supported the public-safety objectives behind the Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act because the underlying problem is larger than any single beach or government agency.
The legislation recognizes that when federal lifeguard staffing falls short at locations normally protected by federal lifeguards, cooperation with qualified local agencies may provide another way to maintain coverage.
That does not eliminate the need to recruit more lifeguards. It does not replace rigorous training. And it does not eliminate the responsibility of aquatic employers to evaluate lifeguard competency and maintain strong safety procedures.
Instead, it adds another potential resource.
America’s beaches are among the country’s most valuable recreational assets. Families should be able to enjoy them with reasonable safety protections, and communities should not have to shoulder federal public-safety responsibilities without appropriate support.
For American Lifeguard, H.R. 5063 reflects an important principle that should remain at the center of the national discussion:
If a beach is normally protected by lifeguards and people are coming there to swim, a staffing shortage should trigger efforts to find qualified personnel—not simply leave an empty lifeguard chair.
Federal agencies, local governments, aquatic organizations, employers and communities all have roles to play.
The objective is not complicated.
Keep qualified lifeguards watching the water. Keep beaches safely accessible. And continue building the partnerships, workforce and resources necessary to prevent drownings before they happen.
The legislative grounding is particularly strong here: the bill itself defines a staffing shortage as one that negatively affects the ability to staff a designated swim location and is likely to leave it unmonitored during normal seasonal hours. (Congress.gov) The Interior Department has also acknowledged the importance of continued lifeguard coverage while recommending that any partnership requirement preserve operational discretion where arrangements are not practicable. (Congress.gov)
The House Natural Resources Committee’s July 22 action is current and verifiable, so I would emphasize that development near the top if this is being published now. (naturalresources.house.gov)
