Beach pollution is an increasingly serious problem near the major population centers and in areas where there are insufficient sewage processing facilities.
Below, we have information on the water quality of vacation beaches...
National Resources Defense Council
Testing
the Waters
A Guide to
Water Quality at Vacation Beaches
From: http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/chap2.asp
Chapter 2
Health Risks and Economic Impacts of Beach Pollution
While more aggressive measures to prevent pollution should eliminate most pathogenic water pollution over the longer term, for now the sources of pollution that pose a risk to swimmers are present, at least to some degree, in every state. Monitoring beaches and notifying the public is the only way to guarantee that swimmers know that their swimming waters are free from pollution when they visit the beach.
Waters that are polluted may contain several different disease-causing organisms, commonly called pathogens. Enteric pathogens -- those that live in the human intestine -- can carry or cause a number of infectious diseases (see Table 4 below). Swimmers in sewage-polluted water could contract any illness that is spread by ingestion of fecal-contaminated water.[13] (AIDS and many other diseases are not carried by enteric pathogens.)
Viruses are believed to be the major cause of swimming-associated diseases, and are responsible for gastroenteritis, hepatitis, respiratory illness, and ear, nose, and throat problems. Gastroenteritis, which can also be caused by bacteria, is a common term for a variety of diseases that can cause symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhea, stomach ache, nausea, headache, and fever. Other microbial diseases that can be contracted by swimmers include salmonellosis, shigellosis, and infection caused by E. coli (a type of enteric pathogen). Other microbial pathogens found at varying concentrations in recreational waters include amoeba and protozoa, which can cause giardiasis, amoebic dysentery, skin rashes, and pink eye.
Swimming in polluted water can make you sick. Studies conducted during the past several decades show a definite relationship between the amount of indicator bacteria in coastal and Great Lakes waters and the incidence of swimming-associated illnesses. Indicator bacteria are total and fecal coliform, enterococcus, and E. coli. They are called indicator bacteria because, although they may not be directly harmful to humans, they are relatively easy to test for and are typically found in the presence of harmful viruses and bacteria.
A 1995 large-scale epidemiological study investigated possible adverse health effects associated with swimming in ocean waters contaminated by urban runoff.[14] The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project study involved initial interviews of 15,492 beachgoers who bathed and immersed their head, as well as follow-up interviews with 13,278, to ascertain the occurrence of certain symptoms such as fever, chills, nausea, and diarrhea. Water samples were taken and analyzed for total and fecal coliform, enterococcus, and E. coli. Water samples were also collected at storm-drain sites and analyzed for enteric viruses.
The study found an increase in risk of illness (with symptoms including fever, chills, ear discharge, and vomiting) associated with swimming near flowing storm-drain outlets in Santa Monica Bay, compared with swimming more than 400 yards away. For example, swimmers near storm drains were found to have a 57 percent greater incidence of fever than those swimming farther away. This study also confirms that there is an increased risk of illness associated with swimming in areas with high densities of indicator bacteria. Illnesses were reported more often on days when the samples were positive for enteric viruses.
In addition to this study of the effects of urban runoff, previous studies have found a strong correlation between sewage-polluted marine waters and swimmers' illnesses. One of the most detailed studies was based on swimmer interviews at saltwater beaches. This study found "a direct, linear relationship between swimming-associated gastrointestinal illness and the quality of the bathing water." The study also noted that even those swimming in marginally polluted water run the risk of contracting gastroenteritis. [15]
Swimming-related illnesses are usually not severe or
life-threatening. However, they can take a substantial toll in terms of
convenience, comfort, and the well-being of the people affected, and can also
result in substantial economic costs in terms of lost work or sick days, as well
as costs that have yet to be quantified.[16]
Moreover, some cases of gastroenteritis can be serious for certain people, such
as small children, infants, the elderly, and those with compromised immune
systems. Swimming-associated illnesses can cause dehydration, vomiting, and, in
extreme cases, collapse. The swimmer who contracts a sewage-borne illness may
also pass the disease on to household members, multiplying the effect of the
polluted water.
Microscopic plants called phytoplankton are found in coastal waters, forming the basis of the marine food web. Of the thousand species of phytoplankton, 63 are known to be toxic to animals and humans.[17] High concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, which come largely from either sewage discharges (even if treated) or animal waste, act as fertilizers for microscopic plants. These single-celled organisms multiply rapidly and form blooms that can last for days or months. In some instances, depending on the type of toxic organism, beachgoers can experience a host of illnesses ranging from respiratory problems and eye irritation from exposure to the toxic algae in surf waters to neurotoxic poisoning that can cause short-term memory loss, dizziness, muscular aches, peripheral tingling, vomiting, and abdominal pain.
Although the most common type of poisoning related to toxic blooms is from eating contaminated shellfish, there were numerous instances in which such blooms affected fishermen and swimmers and other recreational users of nearshore marine and riverine waters. Toxic outbreaks of such organisms as Pfiesteria piscicida, which was discovered in North Carolina in 1991, have been found for the past seven years to be associated with fish kills and, possibly, with skin and neurological damage in humans. In 1995, a section of the Neuse River in North Carolina was closed for more than two weeks as the result of a large fish kill in which Pfiesteria piscicida was found in large concentrations. Several waterways in Maryland were closed for weeks in 1997 for the same reason. There were also instances in 1996 in which red-tide algal blooms of Gymnodinium brevii on the west coast of Florida resulted in respiratory illness in beachgoers. In 1999, 11 Gulf Coast beaches in Florida's Okaloosa County were closed from 13 to 22 weeks each as a result of red tides. Also in 1999, ten Altantic Ocean beaches in Florida's Duval County were closed for one month because of algal blooms. In 2000, advisories were issued at three Santa Cruz County, California beaches for a total of at least 7 days due to elevated bacteria levels associated with red tides. In Galveston County, Texas, advisories were issued at four beaches for 51 days each due to red tides.
Several leading scientists believe that the number and
frequency of blooms of toxic microorganisms occurring around the world -- and
the economic loss associated with these blooms -- is increasing. A number of
researchers also believe these blooms are increasing in areas where coastal
pollution is worsening, in part because increasing amounts of nitrogen and
phosphorus are helping to sustain the size and duration of these toxic
outbreaks. Dr. Theodore Smayda of the University of Rhode Island theorizes that
pollution selectively stimulates toxic algae by providing the necessary ratios
of essential nutrients that allow them to outcompete nontoxic forms of
phytoplankton such as diatoms.[18]
Links between harmful microorganisms and coastal pollution need to be better
understood; meanwhile, these early-warning signs should not be ignored.[19]
| Table 4: Pathogens and Swimming-Associated Illnesses | |
| Pathogenic Agent | Disease |
| Bacteria | |
| E. coli | Gastroenteritis |
| Salmonella typhi | Typhoid fever |
| Other salmonella species | Various enteric fevers (often called paratyphoid), gastroenteritis, septicemia (generalized infections in which organisms multiply in the bloodstream) |
| Shigella dysenteriae | Bacterial dysentery and other species |
| Vibrio cholera | Cholera |
| Viruses | |
| Rotavirus | Gastroenteritis |
| Norwalkvirus | Gastroenteritis |
| Poliovirus | Poliomyelitis |
| Coxsackievirus (some strains) | Various, including severe respiratory diseases, fevers, rashes, paralysis, aseptic meningitis, myocarditis |
| Echovirus | Various, similar to coxsackievirus (evidence is not definitive except in experimental animals) |
| Adenovirus | Respiratory and gastrointestinal infections |
| Hepatitis | Infectious hepatitis (liver malfunction), also may affect kidneys and spleen |
| Protozoa | |
| Cryptosporidium | Gastroenteritis |
| Giardia lambia | Diarrhea (intestinal parasite) |
| Entamoeba histolytica | Amoebic dysentery, infections of other organs |
| Isospora belli and Isospora hominus | Intestinal parasites, gastrointestinal infection |
| Balantidium coli | Dysentery, intestinal ulcers |
In the Clean Water Act, Congress directed EPA to develop guidance on the maximum level of pollution acceptable for various uses of water. For swimming in ocean and bay (salt) water, EPA recommends a geometric mean standard (a measure based on a number of samples taken within a given time frame) of 35 enterococcus bacteria per 100 milliliter (ml) of water and an instantaneous (single sample) standard of 104 enterococcus bacteria per 100 ml of water.[20] Although such levels are deemed acceptable, they are not completely safe: EPA estimates that 19 out of 1,000 people swimming in water just meeting this standard will become ill. The EPA-recommended standard for Great Lakes (fresh) water is a geometric mean of 33 enterococcus bacteria per 100 ml or 126 E. coli bacteria per 100 ml of water. Water just meeting this standard will cause an estimated eight illnesses per 1,000 swimmers. For example, if a family of four swam once a week in June, July, and August in ocean waters that just met EPA's standard, one member of the family would probably become ill. Likewise, if 3,000 people swam one day in the same waters, 57 illnesses would be expected.
While standards for levels of bacterial indicators are
important, they may not be enough to protect swimmer safety. A study conducted
by the Department of Environmental Analysis and Design, University of
California, Irvine found human adenoviruses in 4 out of 12 samples taken at the
mouths of major rivers and creeks on beaches from Malibu to the border of Mexico
between February and March 1999. Researchers also tested for the bacterial
indicators used for beachwater monitoring in the state (total coliforms, fecal
coliforms, and enterococcus) but found no correlation with the presence these
viruses. The study recommends that current recreational water-quality standards
be improved to reflect the presence of viruses and that regular monitoring for
human viruses should be conducted on a regular basis.[21]
| Table 5: EPA's Recommended Beachwater-Quality Standards[22] | |||
| Water Type | Indicator | Standard | |
| For multiple samples* | For a single sample | ||
| Marine | Enterococcus | 35 per 100 ml | 104 per 100 ml |
| Fresh | Enterococcus | 33 per 100 ml | 61 per 100 ml |
| E. coli | 126 per 100 ml | 235 per 100 ml | |
| *Geometric mean of at least 5 samples over a 30-day period. | |||
For most uses of water (such as drinking or fishing), states must follow EPA's numerical concentration standard. With the passage of the federal BEACH Act, states with coastal recreational waters will be required to adopt new or revised water-quality standards by April 2004.
In 2000, 32 (25 percent) of 130 agencies reporting a marine water standard used both an average and instantaneous enterococcus standard as strict as EPA's. Nineteen (14 percent) of 132 agencies reporting a freshwater standard used both an average and an instantaneous enterococcus or E. coli standard as strict as EPA's.
Both EPA and the National Technical Advisory Committee have dismissed total coliform as an inaccurate indicator. Similarly, a recent scientific study of gastroenteritis among bathers in Britain found that out of a range of possible indicator bacteria (including total and fecal coliform but not including enterococcus), only fecal streptococcus (which may be a subset of enterococcus) was an accurate indicator for gastroenteritis.[23] This study found that at the standard of 33 fecal streptococci per 100 ml of water, the risk to swimmers is roughly zero. The study appears to confirm the earlier finding that total coliform and fecal coliform are not appropriate indicator organisms to predict gastroenteritis. States still using these bacteria as indicators, even if they monitor consistently, may not be adequately protecting the public from the risk of getting sick. The recent Santa Monica Bay study supported the finding that neither fecal nor total coliform is by itself an accurate indicator, but also found that the ratio of total to fecal coliform was the best indicator of gastroenteritis-related illness.
Beaches, rivers, and lakes are the number-one vacation destination for Americans. Each year, Americans take more than 1.8 billion trips to waters to fish, swim, boat, or just relax. That is an average of approximately six trips per person per year. About one-fourth of the population goes swimming in these waters every year.[24]
At least a third of all Americans visit coastal and Great Lakes counties and their beaches annually. EPA estimates that coastal waters support 28.3 million jobs and generate $54 billion in goods and services each year.[25] Polluted water puts these revenues at risk. It can also reduce the property value of houses and land near polluted waters. An American Housing Survey found that, other things being equal, the price of a home located within 300 feet of a water body increases by up to 28 percent.[26] Investing in clean water will help protect the millions of visitors to ocean and bay beaches and the jobs of local businesspeople who rely on beach recreation and fishing. Investments in clean water will also create new jobs.
Coastal tourism, attributable in part to clean beaches, generates substantial revenues for state and local governments (see Table 6 below). About 85 percent of all tourism revenues are received in coastal states.[27] For example, Hawaii tourist expenditures in 1999 were estimated to be $14 billion, contributing to 180,700 jobs. In 1998, coastal counties in Texas supported over nine million jobs generating more than nine billion dollars, and New Jersey's coastal regions generated $5.8 billion (excluding Atlantic County, with its large gambling industry revenues). Tourist expenditures in California coastal counties in 1997 were approximately $37.6 billion, providing 387,530 jobs. Tourist expenditures equaled $4 billion in 1997 in the coastal counties of South Carolina. These tourist dollars and jobs are put at risk if beachwater is polluted and unsafe for swimming. A survey conducted for Conde Nast Traveler magazine found that 25 percent of respondents changed travel plans because of environmental problems at their intended vacation destination.[28]
Polluted beaches not only cost local economies tourist dollars and jobs, but they also cause a loss to those who had planned to visit the beach and swim in the water. Economists estimate that a typical swimming day is worth $30.84 to each individual.[29] Depending on the number of potential visitors to a beach, this "consumer-surplus" loss can be quite significant.
Many areas either do not monitor their beaches or do
not close them when pollution exceeds standards. This can result in lower
short-term losses for businesses in the area, but it also means that those who
get sick will incur medical costs and lost workdays as a result. Cleaning up the
sources of pollution so that beachwater does not pose a health risk is the
optimal solution. In the meantime, however, it makes sense from a public health
perspective to monitor beachwater and close beaches with contaminated waters
rather than to allow people to swim and get sick. Given the large number of
people using beaches and the substantial income from coastal tourism, the cost
of monitoring programs is reasonable (see Table 7 below).
| Table 6: Value of Coastal Tourism to Selected States[30] | |||
| State | Year | Dollar Value (Billions)** | Number of Related Jobs |
| Alabama | 2000 | 1.99 | 45,886 |
| California | 1999 | 54.2 | 776,656 |
| Delaware | 2000 | 4.6 | Not available |
| Georgia | 1998 | 2.1 | 21,603 |
| Hawaii | 2000 | 11.46 | 181,050 |
| Illinois | 2000 | 15.7 | 228,200 |
| Louisiana | 1998 | 1.2 | 14,000 |
| Maryland | 1998 | 4 | 52,480 |
| Massachusetts | 1999 | 19.8* | 342,600 |
| New Jersey | 1998 | 5.8** | 267,000*** |
| North Carolina | 2000 | 2.9 | 44,800 |
| Oregon | 1999 | 1.6 | 27,750 |
| South Carolina | 2000 | 5.2 | 121,700 |
| Texas | 1999 | 15.7 | 212,670 |
| Virginia | 1998 | 1.9 | Not available |
| Note: All totals are from
Coastal state counties/regions and well as direct and indirect effects
of tourism * County records unavailable. Value for entire state. ** Excludes revenues from Atlantic County, which has significant gambling-industry revenues. *** Employee figures from 1997 |
|||
| Table 7: 2000 Costs of Beach-Monitoring and/or Advisory-Closing Programs | ||
| State | Total Beaches Reported | Estimated Cost* |
| Alabama | 11 | $55,000 |
| California | 294 | $1,170,000 |
| Connecticut | 99 | $184,814 |
| Delaware | 17 | $80,000 |
| Florida | 241 | $525,000 |
| Georgia | 4 | $30,000 |
| Guam | 41 | $75,000 |
| Hawaii | 61 | $181,250 |
| Illinois | 43 | $206,250 |
| Indiana | 47 | $40,250 |
| Maine | 7 | $13,500 |
| Maryland | 55 | $163,190 |
| Massachusetts | 195 | $128,000 |
| Michigan | 182 | $215,000 |
| Minnesota | 17 | $10,250 |
| Mississippi | 4 | $175,000 |
| New Hampshire | 170 | $8,250 |
| New Jersey | 226 | $250,000 |
| New York | 164 | $599,550 |
| North Carolina | 20 | $362,000 |
| Ohio | 64 | $85,750 |
| Pennsylvania | 15 | $8,250 |
| Rhode Island | 119 | $36,250 |
| South Carolina | 31 | $30,000 |
| Texas | 15 | $344,000 |
| Virgin Islands | 28 | $25,000 |
| Virginia | 15 | $151,500 |
| Washington | 58 | $185,250 |
| Wisconsin | 46 | $67,912 |
| *Where values were given in ranges, NRDC took the midpoint of the range. | ||
Notes
13. V. Cabelli Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational Waters. EPA-600/1-84-004, 1983. p. 7.
14. R. Haile, et al. An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, 1996.
15. See note 13.
16. Statement of Dr. David Ozonoff, M.D., M.P.H., June 1993.
17. S. Shumway Shellfish-Toxin Interactions. Presentation to the Women's Aquatic Network, March 12, 1997, Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY Stony Brook. 1997.
18. D. Anderson "Red Tides." Scientific American, vol. 271, No. 2., pp. 62-68. August 1994.
19. Ibid.
20. EPA. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA 440/5-84-002, 1986.
21. Jiang, S., R. Noble, W. Chu, Human Adenoviruses and Coliphages in Urban Runoff-Impacted Coastal Waters of Southern California, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2001, p. 179-184, Vol. 67, No. 1, American Society for Microbiology
22. Ibid. Table 4
23. D. Kay, J. M. Fleisher, R. L. Salmon, F. Jones, M. D. Wyer, A. F. Godfree, Z. Zelenauch-Jacquotte, and R. Shore. "Predicting Likelihood of Gastroenteritis from Sea Bathing: Results From Random Exposure." The Lancet, vol. 344 1993, pp.905-911; See also: J. M. Fleisher, F. Jones, D. Kay, R. Stanwell-Smith, M. War and R. Morano. "Water and Non-Water Related Risk Factors for Gastroenteritis Among Bathers Exposed to Sewage-Contaminated Marine Waters." International Journal of Epidemiology. vol. 689, 1993, p. 22.
24. EPA. Liquid Assets: A Summertime Perspective on the Importance of Clean Water to the Nation's Economy, 1996 (EPA 800-R-96-002).
25. EPA, Office of Water, Liquid Assets 2000: America's Water Resources at a Turning Point, May 2000 (EPA 840-B-00-001).
26. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al., "Perspectives on Marine Environmental Quality Today," in 1998 Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers, p. E-4 (citation omitted).
27. Id. at E-6.
28. Id. at E-4.
29. EPA. Pathogens and Swimming: An Economic Assessment of Beach Monitoring and Closure. Draft Report prepared by Environomics, Inc., 1995. The authors review studies of consumer surplus, which is the excess of willingness to pay over cost, and conclude that $30.84 is a best estimate. See also F. Bell and V. R. Leeworthy. "Recreational Demand by Tourists for Saltwater Beach Days." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. vol. 18, no. 3. pp. 189-205; R. G. Walsh, D. M. Johnson, and J. R. McKean. Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Demand Studies, 1968-1988. Water Resources Research. vol. 28, no. 3, 1988, pp. 707-713.
30. Sources of information for "Value of Coastal Tourism to Selected States" AL: Alabama tourism. http://touralabama.org/travel/statistical-register2000.html CA: California Trade and Commerce Agency http://gocalif.ca.gov/regions/
DE: The Rehoboth Beach-Dewey Beach Chamber of Commerce. Fax transmission from Carol Avenheart. Estimated annual total.
GA: Heather Potts, Media Relations Specialist, Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism. Phone conversation, 6/4/99.
HI: Hawaii Tourism Authority. http://www.hawaii.gov/tourism/rc.html
IL: Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau. Phone conversation.
IL: Lake County Convention and Tourism Bureau. Phone conversation with Gail Svendson
MA: Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism. http://mass-vacation.com/research.html
NJ: New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission. Expenditures and Employment: County Ranks. Fax transmission from Laura Ottenbourg, Public Relations Manager, 6/2/99.
NC: North Carolina Department of Commerce. Telephone conversation with Holly Crosby.
OR: Oregon Tourism Commission. Fax transmission from Julie Curtis, 7/20/01
SC: South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism. http://www.discoverSouthCarolina.com/gir/girresearchstats.asp
TX: Texas Department of Economic Development. http://research.travel.state.tx.us.
VA: The Virginia Tourism Corporation. Fax transmission from Kirsten Neimann, the research director.