ttw2010

July 2010
Testing the Waters
A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches
twentieth Annual Report
Authors
Mark Dorfman
Kirsten Sinclair Rosselot
Project Design and Development
David Beckman
Natural Resources Defense Council
Jon Devine
Michelle Mehta

About NRDC
The Natural Resources Defense Council is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than
1.3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have
worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City,
Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org.
Acknowledgments
NRDC wishes to acknowledge the support of The Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, The Campbell
Foundation, Naomi and Nehemiah Cohen Foundation, Crown Family Philanthropies, Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation,
Inc., Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, The David and
Lucile Packard Foundation, The Pisces Foundation, The Prospect Hill Foundation, Resources Legacy Fund Foundation,
Sandler Foundation, Mary Jean Smeal Clean Water Fund, and The Summit Fund of Washington.
NRDC would like to thank Henry Henderson, Josh Mogerman, and Mariya Stepanenko for researching and
reviewing various aspects of the report this year and Carol James for distributing the report nationwide. Thank you
to Alexandra Kennaugh for managing the production of the report, to Bonnie Greenfield for designing it, and to
Kathryn McGrath, Will Tam, and Auden Shim for creating a dynamic presentation of the report on the NRDC
website. We would also like to thank Ynes Cabral and Linda Escalante for their skillful Spanish translations and
Grace Murray and Elise Marton for their proofreading assistance. Many thanks to members of our media team
Sherry Goldberg, Courtney Hamilton, Elizabeth Heyd, Serena Ingre, Valerie Jaffee, Jessica Lass, Josh Mogerman,
Jenny Powers, and Kate Slusark for orchestrating the release of the report to the press. Thanks to Sarah Chasis,
Noah Garrison, Allen Hershkowitz, Larry Levine, Leila Monroe, Adrianna Quintero, Suzanne Struglinski, and
Andrew Wetzler for releasing and blogging about the report for NRDC this year and Christy Leavitt and Piper
Crowell for arranging releases by chapters of Environment America.
We wish also to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for sharing data with us again this year, and to
the state program coordinators, who provided information for the state chapters along with review of the monitoring
and notification data. Thanks, especially, to all those federal, state, and local officials who work hard every day to keep
our beaches clean and to clean up the sources of beachwater pollution.
NRDC President: Frances Beinecke
NRDC Executive Director: Peter Lehner
NRDC Director of Communications: Phil Gutis
NRDC Deputy Director of Communications: Lisa Goffredi
NRDC Publications Director: Anthony Clark
NRDC Publications Editor: Carlita Salazar
Project Manager: Alexandra Kennaugh
Design and Production: Bonnie Greenfield
Copyright 2010 by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

iii Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................................v
National Overview............................................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 1
Sources of Beachwater Pollution......................................................................................................................................14
Chapter 2
The Impacts of Beach Pollution......................................................................................................................................20
Chapter 3
Plan of Action.................................................................................................................................................................32
Chapter 4
Beachwater Quality Monitoring Programs and State-by-State Results.............................................................................44
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Alabama
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Figures
Figure N-1. Regional Differences in Closing/Advisory Days, 2006–2009..........................................................................1
Figure N-2. Regional Differences in Percent Exceedance of National Standards, 2006–2009............................................2
Figure N-3. Total Closing/Advisory Days, 2000–2009 (excluding extended and permanent)............................................4
Figure N-4. Reported Reasons for Closings/Advisories in 2009.........................................................................................5
Figure N-5. Report Reasons for Closings/Advisories, 2000–2009......................................................................................5
Figure N-6. Sources of Pollution That Caused Closings/Advisories in 2009......................................................................6
Figure N-7. Sources of Pollution That Caused Closings/Advisories, 2000–2009...............................................................6
Figure N-8. Percent Exceedance for All Coastal and Great Lakes States Combined, 2006–2009.......................................7
(based on 2,655 beaches reported in each of the four years)
Figure 1-1. A Rough Illustration of the Prevalence of Combined Sewer Systems in the United States..............................15
Figure 2-1. Influence of Heavy Rainfall on Occurrence of E. coli Infections....................................................................22
Figure 2-2. Expansion of HAB Problems in the United States.........................................................................................25
Figure 2-3. The Value of the Coastal Economy (2007)....................................................................................................27
Figure 3-1. A Re-Engineered Stormwater Outfall in Racine, Wisconsin..........................................................................33
Figure 3-2. Lag Time Associated With Current Water Quality Monitoring and Public Notification Methods.................39
Figure 4-1. Why Don’t 2009 Percent Exceedances Match?..............................................................................................49

iv Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Tables
Table N-1. Rank of States by Percentage of Beachwater Samples Exceeding the National Standard in 2009......................8
Table N-2. Beaches With More than 25% of Samples Exceeding the EPA’s Single-Sample Maximum Standards...............9
for Designated Beach Areas in 2009 (limited to beaches with at least 10 total samples reported for
the year
Table N-3. Repeat Offenders: 15 Beaches With More Than 25% of Samples Exceeding the EPA’s Single-Sample...........13
Maximum Standards for Designated Beach Areas, Each Year, 2006–2009 (Alphabetical by State,
County, and Beach)
Table 2-1. Pathogens and Swimming-Associated Illnesses................................................................................................20
Table 2-2. Possible Influence of Climate Change on Climate-Susceptible Pathogens.......................................................23
Table 2-3. Algae and Their Threats to Human Health.....................................................................................................25
Table 2-4. Cost Estimates for Illnesses Associated With Polluted Water Due to Lost Wages and Medical Care................28
Table 3-1. Beachwater Quality Standards Required by the BEACH Act..........................................................................37
Table 4-1. State Distribution of BEACH Act Funding for Beachwater Quality Monitoring and Notification..................44
for 2009 and 2010
Table 4-2. State Coastal Beachwater Quality Standards...................................................................................................46

v Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Executive Summary
Twentieth Annual Report
In 2009, beach closings and advisories hit their sixth-highest level in the 20 years the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) has been tracking them. The continuing high number of closing and advisory days, combined with a relatively
constant level of bacterial contamination at ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches, suggests that our nation’s beaches
require a more concerted effort to identify and control the
sources of water pollution that put swimmers at risk.
For the fifth consecutive year, we were able to
determine not only the number of closings and advisories,
but also the number of times that each beach violated
current public health standards. The percent of beach
monitoring samples exceeding national health standards
remained steady at 7% in 2009, equal to the level in 2008
and 2007 and down from 9% in 2006. More frequent monitoring plus 17% fewer preemptive rainfall closing and
advisory days due to drier weather in some parts of the country translated into a better beach season last year for
swimmers in many coastal communities. But relying on dry weather to keep contaminated runoff from polluting
beachwater is not a long-term public health protection strategy. When the rains return, so do the beach closings and
advisories. For example, in the Delmarva Peninsula near Washington, D.C., wetter-than-average conditions contributed
to nearly three times as many closing/advisory days in 2009 as in 2008. During 2009, stormwater runoff was identified
as a source of more than 80% of the closing/advisory days for which a source was identified. This indicates that there
are sources of human or animal wastes that are not being adequately addressed and that are getting washed into the
ocean when it rains.
Polluted Water Makes Beachgoers Sick
In its most recent report on waterborne disease and outbreaks associated with recreational water, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the incidence of infections associated with recreational water use has
steadily increased over the past several decades.1 Data on the incidence of waterborne illness in the United States are
notoriously bad because many people who get sick have no idea that ingesting contaminated water was the cause,
but epidemiological studies like those that the EPA has conducted in the Great Lakes show that as many as 10% of
beachgoers report getting sick after swimming at beaches that are open for swimming. With population growing in
U.S. coastal areas, we can expect to see more Americans getting sick from beachwater until the sources of contamination
are addressed.
Polluted Water Hurts Coastal Economies
Dirty coastal waters not only threaten our health but also hurt our economy. A stark illustration of the devastation that
polluted ocean water can wreak on coastal economies is playing out this summer as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Coastal “tourism and recreation is one of the fastest-growing business sectors, enriching
economies and supporting jobs in communities virtually everywhere along the shores of the United States and its
Even in the relatively dry 2009 beach
season, stormwater runoff contributed
to more than 80% of the closing
and advisory days with a reported
contamination source.

vi Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
territories,” the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy states.2 That translates into new employment opportunities. In 2000,
U.S. coastal tourism and recreation created 1.6 million jobs.3
Improved Beachwater Monitoring Standards Can Better Protect
Public Health
The federal public health standard is more than 20 years old, does not provide information on the full range of waterborne
pathogens that make beachgoers sick, and requires test methods that take 24 hours to complete. Closing and advisory
decisions are based on yesterday’s samples. So even if a beach is deemed “safe” under the federal public health standard,
it may still contain human or animal waste that can make swimmers sick. Under the BEACH Act, which passed in 2000,
Congress required the EPA to modernize this outdated standard, but the agency has not yet done so. Four summers ago,
NRDC sued the EPA to force it to comply with the BEACH Act by accelerating its timetable for proposing new standards,
setting standards that fully protect the public, and establishing testing methods that will enable public health officials to
make prompt decisions about closing beaches and issuing advisories. As a result of NRDC’s lawsuit, the EPA is moving
forward in developing an improved public health standard and approving faster test methods. For the first time, a rapid
test method is being used to make beach closing and advisory decisions as part of a pilot study this summer at several
beaches in Orange County, California. Americans need to know that the waters in which we swim, surf, and dive are safe.
At a minimum, that means that recreational waters must be tested regularly, and the results must be measured against
effective health standards. When waters do not meet these standards, authorities must promptly and clearly notify the public.
Prevention is the best way to Curb Beach Pollution
While authorities are doing a better job monitoring beaches than in the past, this monitoring reveals the extent to which
our beachwaters continue to be polluted. Unfortunately, the monitoring does not reveal the cause of beachwater pollu
tion. In 2009, more than half of beach closing/advisory days were reported as due to unknown sources of contamination.
Beach officials cannot clean up sources of pollution if they cannot identify them. One problem is that BEACH Act
grants are currently not available for source identification and correction. NRDC is supporting federal legislation, the
Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act, that would increase the funding authorized for BEACH Act grants
and allow them to be used for sanitary surveys, source tracking, and other means of identifying and addressing the
direct sources of contamination. In the meantime, steps are being taken to support source identification and correction
activities with federal funding: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grants provide significant funding for bacterial source
identification, and many entities have won Recovery Act funding to correct sources of beachwater contamination. The
Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act would provide funding to pursue these activities throughout the
United States. Expanded funding should allow monitoring to cover all designated coastal beaches. Finally, it is time for
the EPA and state and local authorities to seriously address the sources of beachwater pollution, which most often are
stormwater and sewage pollution. Prevention is the best way to make sure that a day at the beach will not turn into a
night in the bathroom or, worse, in a hospital emergency room. We have a myriad of solutions – collectively called
“green infrastructure” – available today that can stop stormwater runoff and sewage overflows before they happen.
Utilizing methods like green roofs, permeable pavement, roadside plantings and rain barrels – these methods are often
the cheapest and most effective way to address these problem pollution sources. By stopping rain where it falls – allowing
it to filter into the ground or storing it – green infrastructure prevents runoff and overflows from the start.
Cutting Global Warming Pollution Can Help AVOID Beachwater Pollution
The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed, and the Senate is now considering, legislation that would cap
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to gradually cut global warming pollution, invest in clean energy technologies, and create
millions of jobs in the new energy economy. Passing such legislation is critical to addressing a wide range of impacts of

vii Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
global warming on coastal communities, including increased storms, floods and runoff, which threaten public health.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that “[w]ater-borne diseases and degraded water quality are
very likely to increase with more heavy precipitation.”4 This legislation can help avoid beachwater pollution in the future
by minimizing these negative impacts of climate change.
Recommendations for Improving Beachwater Quality and Protecting
Swimmers’ Health
• The EPA and states should tighten and enforce controls on all sources of beachwater pollution. . The most economical
and effective way to do this in many cases is to boost green infrastructure in coastal communities that control sewage
overflowsand stormwater runoff which are consistently the largest known sources of beachwater pollution. The best way
to prevent swimmers from getting sick is to clean up the water.
• The EPA should propose new health standards for beachwater quality that fully protect the public and establish testing
methods that will enable public health officials to make prompt decisions about closing their beaches and issuing advisories.
• Congress should pass the Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act (H.R. 2093/S. 878), which would
reauthorize the federal BEACH Act of 2000, increase the authorized funding and allow that funding to be used for
identifying and correcting sources of beachwater contamination, require the EPA to approve and states to use rapid
test methods for monitoring beachwater pollution, and improve coordination between the public health officials who
monitor beachwater and the environmental agencies who regulate the sources of beachwater pollution.
• Because climate change will exacerbate some communities’ beachwater pollution problems, Congress should also
enact comprehensive climate and energy legislation to reduce emissions of global warming pollution and help
communities prepare for flooding, sea level rise, increased stormwater pollution, sewer overflows, and other adverse
impacts of climate change.
• Congress should substantially increase the federal appropriations available to meet clean water and beach protection
needs through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, federal BEACH Act grants, and a Clean Water Trust Fund or
other dedicated source of clean water funding.
• Congress should pass the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 753/S. 937), which would require
quick reporting of sewage overflows to public health authorities and to the general public, allowing prompt response to
overflows in order to minimize human exposure and environmental harm.
• State and local governments should issue preemptive advisories where a correlation between rainfall and elevated
bacteria levels exists or when sewer overflows or other catastrophic events jeopardize beachwater safety.
• A portion of the revenues generated by tourism should be allocated to monitoring and prevention programs to ensure
that swimming in coastal waters does not jeopardize the health of beachgoers.
• Voters should support increased federal, state, and local funding for urban stormwater programs and for repairing,
rehabilitating, and upgrading our aging sewer systems. The public also should support funding for maintaining and
expanding natural areas—such as wetlands, shoreline buffers, and coastal vegetation—that trap and filter pollution
before it reaches the beach.
* Individuals can help clean up beach pollution. Simple measures, including conserving water, redirecting runoff, using
such natural fertilizers as compost for gardens, maintaining septic systems, and properly disposing of animal waste, litter,
toxic household products, and used motor oil can reduce the amount of pollution in coastal waters.

viii Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
Notes
1 Yoder, J.S., et al., “Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated With Recreational Water Use and Other Aquatic Facility-
Associated Health Events—United States, 2005–2006,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 12, 2008/57(SS09) pp. 1–29,
available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5709a1.htm.
2 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century: Final Report, Washington, D.C., September 2004, p. 2,
available at: http://www.oceancommission.gov.
3 Ibid., p. 31.
4 IPCC, Technical Paper IV, Climate Change and Water, June 2008, p. 103. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-
change-water-en.pdf.

1 Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters 2010
National Overview
In 2009, the number of closing and advisory days at ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches reached 18,682 days nation
wide, their sixth-highest level since NRDC began tracking these events 20 years ago.1 The record high of 25,643 days
was reached in 2006, when a dramatic increase in the amount of rain in some parts of the country contributed to the
large increase in closing/advisory days.
The overall 8% decrease in closing/advisory days from 2008 levels was dominated by decreases in the number
of closing and advisory days in the West and in the Territories; many parts of the country experienced a sharp increase
in the number of closing and advisory days. In the West,
relatively dry conditions in Hawaii and reduced monitor
ing in Southern California due to budget cuts likely con
tributed to a 24% decrease in the number of closing and
advisory days compared with 2008 (–1,695 days). In the
Great Lakes region there was a modest 4% decrease (–137 days) in 2009. Four U.S. territories (Guam, Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) reported drier conditions and a 33% decrease (–1,187 days)
in 2009. Wetter-than-usual conditions may have contributed to the Delmarva peninsula’s having nearly three times
as many closing and advisory days as in 2008 (+177 days) and a 31% increase in New England (+482 days). Increases
in the number of closing and advisory days were also seen in the southeastern United States, which had a 43% increase
(+185 days), and the Gulf Coast beaches, which had an 18% increase (+491 days). The New York/New Jersey coastal
area remained virtually unchanged, with an increase of 2% (+25 days).
Nationally, there was a 17% decrease in the number of preemptive closing/advisory days 4,517 in 2009 from 5,452
in 2008. More than 80% of preemptive closing/advisory days were issued because of heavy rainfall in both years.
During 2009, there were 18,682 days
of closings and advisories at U.S.
ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
WestSoutheastNY-NJNew EnglandGulfGreat LakesDelmarva
Closing/AdvisoryDays
I 2006
I 2007
I 2008
I 2009
Figure N-1. Regional Differences in Closing/Advisory Days, 2006–2009
Region
Closing/Advisory Days
2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 vs. 2008
Delmarva 360 303 101 278 +175%
Great Lakes 3,003 3,043 3,437 3,300 –4%
Gulf 3,134 4,336 2,657 3,148 +18%
New England 1,746 939 1,544 2,026 +31%
NY-NJ 1,093 1,455 1,481 1,506 +2%
Southeast 1,307 485 426 611 +43%
West 11,510 8,990 7,105 5,410 –24%

The portion of all samples exceeding national health standards remained essentially unchanged at 7% in 2009, 2008,
and 2007, from 9% in 2006 (these multiyear graphs include only those beaches with monitoring data reported in each
of the four years). Regionally, the Great Lakes had the highest exceedance rate (13%) in 2009, followed by New England
(9%), the Gulf Coast (7%), the NY-NJ coast (6%), western states (6%), the southeast (3%), and the Delmarva
peninsula (3%).
Although it is tempting to expect a correlation between year-to-year changes in water quality and year-to-year
changes in closing/advisory days, there are confounding factors that make such correlations unlikely. While year-to-year
changes in the percent of monitoring samples that exceed health standards is an objective assessment of water quality,
year-to-year changes in the total number of closing/advisory days is subject to differences in programs and practices.
For example:
• Some states or localities take multiple samples at each monitoring station. When making closing/advisory decisions,
beach officials might use the average value of all samples taken that day. Using this method, the average value may not
exceed the standard even though one (or more) of the multiple samples does. In such a case, the beach would not be
closed or put under advisory. While this is an acceptable procedure for making closing/advisory determinations, NRDC
includes the results of every reported sample when calculating the percent of all samples that exceed the standard in a
given year.
• Some states or localities will resample a beach after an exceedance before issuing a closing or advisory. If the resample
does not exceed the standard, the beach is not put under closing or advisory.
• Many states or localities preemptively close a beach or issue an advisory without waiting for the results of beachwater
monitoring if they suspect that pollution has affected beachwater quality. The reasons for these preemptive actions are
highly variable, including heavy rainfall events, known sewage leaks, chemical spills, and high winds and waves.
• Some states or localities continue monitoring at beaches that are closed for more than six consecutive weeks during
the reporting year; NRDC does not include extended or permanent beach closings or advisories when comparing
closing/advisory days from year to year, but the monitoring data that are collected at these beaches are included in
the percent exceedance analysis.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
WestSoutheastNY-NJNew EnglandGulfGreat LakesDelmarva
Exceedance
I 2006
I 2007
I 2008
I 2009
15%
Figure N-2. Regional Differences in Percent Exceedance of National Standards, 2006–2009
Region
National Exceedances
2006 2007 2008 2009
Delmarva 4% 3% 2% 3%
Great Lakes 14% 15% 13% 13%
Gulf 6% 8% 7% 6%
New England 5% 4% 6% 8%
NY-NJ 7% 8% 5% 6%
Southeast 3% 2% 3% 3%
West 8% 5% 7% 7%

• Some states or localities continue monitoring at beaches that have been closed for reasons other than pollution, such as
budget cuts or low attendance. While routine monitoring samples continue to be collected and their results reported to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the beach closing days may not be reported.
• Year-to-year changes in beach monitoring frequency could impact the total number of closing/advisory days, but not
the percentage of samples that exceed health standards. For example, increasing routine monitoring from once every two
weeks to once a week could decrease the number of closing/advisory days for the same number of events because the
duration of many events could go from two weeks to one week.
Beach officials in all states continue to use traditional methods approved by the EPA that require about 24 hours
to quantify bacterial indicator levels in beachwater samples. In July 2010, a pilot project was launched at several
beaches in Orange County, California, to demonstrate the use of qPCR, a rapid method of determining bacterial
levels that allows beachwater quality warning decisions to be made on the same day a sample is taken. Traditional
methods will be used to analyze the samples alongside qPCR analysis, but the qPCR results will be used to determine
whether warnings about beachwater quality will be issued and signs posted at the pilot study beaches. This is the
first use of a rapid test method for issuing beachwater quality notifications at coastal beaches in the United States.
In Pennsylvania, qPCR is used in the event of a preemptive advisory issued by the Presque Isle Beach manager to
confirm within four hours that E. coli concentrations warrant issuing an advisory.2 Advisories or restrictions based on
monitoring data in Pennsylvania, however, are determined solely by using the standard culture-based method, not by
qPCR analysis.
Puerto Rico and a number of states, including Alabama, California, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, and
Rhode Island, have participated in the EPA’s National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational
(NEEAR) Water Studies. These studies, which were urged on by an agreement that resulted from an NRDC lawsuit
against the EPA for failing to fulfill the terms of the BEACH Act, are being conducted to help gain a better understand
ing of bacterial indicators, swimming at the beach, and people’s health. Beachgoers are interviewed and water samples
are collected and analyzed for bacteria using several analysis methods, including rapid testing. In addition to the NEEAR
project, several states have conducted their own studies of rapid test methods. California has invested an estimated
$3 million in rapid test method investigations, and other states that have conducted or participated in rapid test method
research outside of the NEEAR studies include Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Jersey.
Beachwater quality generally depends on many complex factors, but for some beaches, predictions of beachwater
quality based on a few physical measurements of daily conditions can be fairly accurately calculated. Some states have
taken advantage of this and have created computer models that rely on data from physical measurements such as
rainfall levels, wind speed and direction, tides, wave heights, and currents. These models rapidly prepare predictions
of beachwater quality and allow beaches to be closed or placed under advisory the day that bacterial levels are
expected to be high, rather than 24 hours after high levels of bacteria are present. States using computer models to
inform closing and advisory decisions for at least some of their beaches in 2009 were California, Illinois, Indiana, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Other states, including Rhode Island, Michigan, and New Hampshire, are
gathering data and investigating the use of beachwater quality computer models for at least some of their beaches.
Because the water quality at many beaches is adversely impacted by contaminated stormwater runoff, another,
less sophisticated means of protecting public health is to preemptively close beaches or issue advisories when indicator
bacteria levels are expected to be high after rainfall events. Twelve states reported preemptive rainfall closures or
advisories at specific beaches in 2009: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey,
New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. Many states report that they have developed standards for
issuing preemptive rainfall advisories based on rainfall intensity or some other rain-related factor for at least some of
their eaches. States with quantitative rainfall standards include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Rainfall
standards are under development in New Hampshire. Some states, including California, Minnesota, Mississippi, Rhode
Island, and Washington, issue standing advisories warning the public to avoid beachwater contact after heavy rainfall or
when storm drains are running. These standing advisories are not reported in the closing and advisory data that the states
send the EPA. In North Carolina, standing rainfall advisories take the form of permanent signs posted on either side of

storm drain outfalls stating that swimming between the signs is not recommended when there is water flowing through
the drain.
Major Findings
This section provides a national perspective on the major findings of NRDC’s Testing the Waters report regarding 2009
beachwater quality, closings and advisories, and the sources of pollution that caused them. For more information on
state programs and specific beaches, consult the individual state summaries.
Beach Closings/Advisories and Pollution Sources
During 2009, U.S. ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches had 18,682 days of closings and advisories, 45 extended
closings and advisories (more than six but not more than 13 consecutive weeks), and 50 permanent closings and
advisories (more than 13 consecutive weeks). Including extended days, the total comes to 22,757 beach closing and
advisory days.
The number of beach closing and advisory days decreased 8% (–1,659 days) in 2009 from the previous year (see
Figure N‑3).The major factors contributing to the decrease in 2009 appear to be decreased rainfall in Hawaii and
a reduction in state funding that led to decreased monitoring (and therefore decreased monitoring-related beach
advisories) in Southern California.
Nationwide, the number of beaches monitored at least once a week increased 4% to 2,876 in 2009 from 2,753
in 2008.
The continued high level of closing advisories is an indication that serious water pollution persists at our nation’s
coastal, bay, and Great Lakes beaches. Major reasons why officials closed beaches or issued advisories in 2009 were as
follows (see Figures N-4 and N-5):
• 74% (13,801 days) were based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding beachwater quality standards (an
increase from 73% in 2008, 71% in 2007, and 68% in 2006).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009200820072006200520042003200220012000
ThousandsofClosing/AdvisoryDays
ThousandsofBeachesMonitored
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Closing/advisory days
Beaches monitored
at least weekly 18.68
2.88
Figure N-3. Total Closing/Advisory Days, 2000–2009 (Excluding Extended and Permanent)
Because of inconsistencies in monitoring and closing/advisory practices among states and the different levels of data submission
over time, it is difficult to make comparisons between states or to assess trends based on the closing/advisory data.

• 21% (3,831 days) were precautionary, issued because of rainfall; at many beaches, stormwater is known to carry
pollution to swimming waters. This represents a decrease from 22% in 2008, 25% in 2007, and 33% in 2006 (the latter
two being relatively wet years).
• 2% (412) were due to other causes, such as dredging and algal blooms (unchanged from 2008 and 2007 levels).
• 1% (265 days) were in response to known pollution events, such as sewage treatment plant failures or breaks in sewage
pipes. In other words, in these cases localities did not wait for monitoring results to decide whether to close beaches or
issue advisories (no change from 1% in 2008, and down from 3% in 2007 and 2006).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
21%
Preemptive due
to rain known to
carry pollution to
swimming waters
In response to
known pollution
event without relying
on monitoring
Based on monitoring
that detected
bacteria levels
exceeding standard
Other reason Predictive modeling No data
1%
74%
1% 2%2%
Figure N-4. Reported Reasons for Closings/Advisories in 2009
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009200820072006200520042003200220012000
I A-Monitoring
I B-Response
I C-Preemptive Rainfall
I D-Other
I E-Modeling
Figure N-5. Reported Reasons for Closings/Advisories, 2000–2009
Key: (A) Based on monitoring that detected bacteria levels exceeding standards. (B) In response to known pollution event without
relying on monitoring. (C) Preemptive due to rain known to carry pollution to swimming waters. (D) Other reason. (E) Real-time,
predictive computer modeling.

• Less than 1% (9) were preemptive due to real-time computer modeling using readily measurable physical parameters
such as wind speed and wave height to predict indicator bacterial levels (down from 1% in 2008, the first time NRDC
was able to report this reason for beach closings and advisories).
Major pollution sources listed as responsible for 2009 beach closings and advisories include the following. The total
is greater than 18,682 days and 100% because more than one source contributed to some beach closings and advisories
(see Figure N-6).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
53%
Se desconoce Escorrentia contaminada,
aguas pluviales, o
medidas de prevención
debido a la lluvia
Derrames y
desbordes de las
aguas residuales
Otros
(excluye la flora
y la fauna)
Flora y fauna
39%
9% 10% 9%
Figure N-6. Sources of Pollution That Caused Closings/Advisories in 2009
Total exceeds 100 percent because more than one source of contamination was reported for some events.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009200820072006200520042003200220012000
I A-Sewage
I B-Rain/Runoff/Stormwater
I C-Unknown
I D-Other
Figure N-7. Sources of Pollution That Caused Closings/Advisories, 2000–2009
Total days shown are greater than annual totals because more than one pollution source may have contributed to each closing/
advisory. Key: (A) Sewage spills and overflows. (B) Polluted runoff, stormwater, or preemptive due to rain. (C) Unknown. (D) Other
reasons (including those with no source information provided).

• Unknown sources of pollution caused 9,859 closing/advisory days (53%) in 2009, a decrease from 12,631 days (62%)
in 2008 and 8,524 days (33%) in 2007.
• Polluted runoff and stormwater caused or contributed to 7,282 closing/advisory days (39%) in 2009, a decrease from
7,324 days (36%) in 2008 and 10,394 days (40%) in 2007.
• Sewage spills and overflows caused or contributed to 1,667 closing/advisory days (9%) in 2009, a decrease from 1,710
days (8%) in 2008, and 4,097 days (16%) in 2007 (includes combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, breaks
or blockages in sewer lines, and faulty septic systems);
• Elevated bacteria levels from miscellaneous sources, such as boat discharges or wildlife, accounted for 3,184 closing/
advisory days (17%) in 2009, an increase from 2,137 days (11%) in 2008 and 3,087 days (12%) in 2007. More than
half were wildlife sources (an increase to 1,704 days in 2009 from 1,588 days in 2008).
• There was no contamination source information for 388 closing/advisory days.
Beachwater Quality
For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC used the percentage of all beachwater samples collected in 2009 that exceeded the
BEACH Act’s single-sample maximum standards for designated beach areas to compare water quality at beaches ringing
our nation from the Pacific Northwest to Southern California, from New England to the Florida Keys, and all along the
U.S. Great Lakes shoreline. For marine waters, the standard for enterococcus density is 104 per 100 milliliters (ml); for
freshwater, the standard is 235 E. coli per 100 ml.
For the 2009 beach season, the NRDC data set includes monitoring results for 126,551 samples at 3,333 beaches and
beach segments (most state and local officials divide longer beaches into manageable monitoring segments), down from
132,465 samples at 3,601 beaches and beach segments in 2008, 131,977 samples at 3,516 beaches and beach segments
in 2007, and 106,417 samples at 3,500 beaches and beach segments in 2006. The percent of all samples exceeding
national health standards remained generally unchanged at 7% from 2007 through 2009, down from 9% in 2006.
(Note: to make this four-year comparison, NRDC includes only the 2,655 beaches reported in each of these four years.)
In 2009, beaches in Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Illinois had the highest percent of samples exceeding the EPA’S single-
sample maximum standard for designated beach areas. It is important to note that while a high percent exceedance rate is a
clear indication of dirty coastal recreational waters, it is not necessarily an indication that the state’s beachwater quality
monitoring program is deficient or fails to protect public health when beachwater quality is poor. For example, four of the
five states with the dirtiest beachwater always or almost always close a beach or issue an advisory when a sample exceeds the
standard; that is, they do not wait for the results of a resample or check other conditions first, as some other states do. (Only
a few states generally resample before issuing an advisory: Connecticut, New Jersey, and Washington.) Three of the four
states with the highest exceedance rates have among the highest percent of Tier 1 beaches, which are monitored more
frequently than once a week (Tier 1 beaches are pop
ular and/or have known pollution sources in the
vicinity of the beach), a practice that is more pro
tective of human health.
For the fifth consecutive year, NRDC highlighted
beaches exceeding the national daily standard more
than 25% of the time. In 2009, this list included
162 beaches in 20 states: AL, CA, CT, FL, HI, IL,
IN, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, NC, NJ, NY,
OH, RI, TX, and WI (see Table N-2). Chronically
high bacteria counts indicate that the beachwater is
probably contaminated with human or animal waste.
Fifteen beach areas in 7 states (CA, FL, IL, NJ, OH,
TX, and WI) made this list in each of the last four
years, 2006 through 2009 (see Table N-3).
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2009200820072006
Excedentes
9%
7% 7% 7%
Figure N-8. Percent Exceedance for All Coastal and
Great Lakes States Combined, 2006–2009 (Based
on 2,655 Beaches Reported in Each of the 4 Years)

Table N-1. Rank of States by Percentage of Beachwater Samples Exceeding the National Standard in 2009
Rank State
Percent
Exceedance
Total
Samples
All
Reported
Beaches
Tier 1
Beaches
Percent of
Tier 1 Beaches
Monitored More
Than Once a Week
Resample or
Other Info needed
Before Action?
30 LA 25% 841 29 17 0% almost never
29 RI 20% 3,012 234 19 79% yes
28 IL 16% 4,564 60 48 98% no
27 OH 15% 2,760 62 45 100% no
26 MI 13% 5,857 635 219 6% almost never
25 IN 13% 2,334 28 7 71% no
24 ME 11% 1,465 60 56 5% yes
23 NY 11% 8,574 350 85 32% sometimes
22 MS 10% 1,363 22 16 0% yes
21 PA 8% 1,245 13 13 92% no
20 CA 8% 20,450 672 488 4% no
19 AL 8% 1,014 97 9 89% no
18 WI 8% 4,122 193 27 100% no
17 MA 7% 8,944 604 12 100% no
16 TX 5% 13,392 169 60 0% no
15 AK 5% 62 18 2 0% yes
14 NJ 5% 4,675 245 225 0% yes
13 CT 5% 2,267 66 49 0% yes
12 MN 5% 1,148 89 17 41% no
11 GA 4% 998 41 17 0% no
10 WA* 4% 3,794 1,345 42 0% yes
9 SC* 4% 1,995 63 7 0% sometimes
8 MD* 4% 2,791 72 28 0% almost never
7 NC* 3% 7,137 241 113 0%
no (at Tier 1 and
Tier 2 beaches)
6 HI* 3% 8,933 463 42 90% sometimes
5 FL* 3% 15,798 633 553 0% sometimes
4 VA 3% 1,036 47 47 0% no
3 OR 2% 838 91 91 0% almost never
2 DE 2% 1,380 25 17 0% almost never
1 NH 1% 1,712 17 10 100% no
*Rank was adjusted on August 6, 2010 after the national release of Testing the Waters on July 28, 2010.

Table N-2. Beaches With More Than 25% of Samples Exceeding the EPA’s Single-Sample Maximum
Standards for Designated Beach Areas in 2009 (Limited to Beaches With at Least 10 Total Samples
Reported for the Year)
State County Beach Tier
Monitoring
Frequency
Total
Samples
Percent
Exceedance
IN Lake Jeorse Park Beach I 2 5/wk 78 76%
CA Los Angeles Avalon Beach-north of GP Pier 1 1/wk 50 72%
MI Macomb St. Clair Shores Blossom Heath Beach 1 2/wk 141 71%
MA Essex Kings (DCR-DUPR) 2 1/wk 24 71%
MA Barnstable Cockle Cove Creek 2 1/wk 10 70%
MI Macomb St. Clair Shores Memorial Park Beach 1 2/wk 124 66%
IL Cook Jackson Park Beach (63rd Street Beach) 1 5/wk 76 66%
MI Arenac Singing Bridge Beach 1 1/wk 14 64%
IN Lake Jeorse Park Beach II 2 5/wk 78 63%
CA Orange Poche County Beach 1 2/wk 48 63%
HI Oahu Kuli’ou’ou 2 1/wk 12 58%
NY Niagara Krull Park 2 1/wk 30 57%
IL Lake North Point Marina North Beach 1 4/wk 115 55%
RI Washington Saunderstown Yacht Club 2 2/mo 13 54%
NY Erie St. Vincent Depaul Beach 2 2/wk 25 52%
NJ Ocean Beachwood Beach West (Beachwood) 1 1/wk 47 51%
IL Cook Winnetka Elder Park Beach 1 daily 78 50%
MI Iosco Tawas City Park 1 1/wk 24 50%
CT New London Kiddie’s Beach 1 1/wk 22 50%
MA Norfolk Smith Beach 2 1/wk 22 50%
IL Cook 57th Street Beach 1 5/wk 73 49%
CA Mendocino Pudding Creek Beach-Pudding Lagoon 1 1/wk 23 48%
FL Taylor Keaton Beach 1 1/wk 17 47%
WI Kenosha Eichelman Beach 2 2/wk 48 46%
LA St. Mary Cypremort Point State Park 1 1/wk 35 46%
CA San Francisco Candlestick Point-Windsurfer Circle 1 1/wk 92 45%
MN St. Louis Clyde Avenue Boat Landing Beach 2 1/wk 43 44%
MI Macomb HCMA-Metropolitan Beach Metropark 1 2/wk 312 44%
CA Los Angeles Cabrillo Beach 1 daily 73 44%
CA Orange Newport Bay-Newport Blvd Bridge 1 1/wk 30 43%
LA Calcasieu South Beach Rabbit Island 1 1/wk 30 43%
LA Cameron Holly Beach 5 1 1/wk 33 42%
FL Escambia Bayou Chico 1 1/wk 26 42%
OH Cuyahoga Villa Angela State Park 1 daily 114 40%
HI Maui Puamana Beach Co. Park 2 2/yr 10 40%
RI Newport Easton’s Beach 1 2/wk 355 40%
CA Los Angeles
Santa Monica State Beach-Santa Monica
Canyon
1 1/wk 84 39%

Monitoring
Frequency
Total
Samples
Percent
Exceedance
CA Los Angeles Avalon Beach-near Busy B Cafe 1 1/wk 44 39%
MA Essex Willow Avenue 2 1/wk 13 38%
OH Cuyahoga Edgecliff Beach 2 1/wk 13 38%
IL Cook Calumet South Beach 1 5/wk 73 38%
CA Orange Doheny State Beach-Surf Zone at Outfall 1 3/wk 50 38%
NY Chautauqua Lake Erie State Park Beach 1 4/wk 53 38%
OH Cuyahoga Euclid State Park 1 daily 114 38%
RI Washington Scarborough State Beach North 1 2/wk 202 38%
NY Monroe Ontario Beach 1 daily 264 38%
NY Chautauqua Blue Water Beach 3 1/wk 32 38%
NY Chautauqua Wright Park East 1 1/wk 32 38%
CA Orange
Doheny State Beach-North of San Juan
Creek
1 3/wk 51 37%
ME Knox Goodies Beach 1 1/wk 19 37%
TX Nueces Ropes Park 1 1/wk 227 37%
LA Cameron Rutherford Beach 2 1/wk 33 36%
NY Suffolk Tanner Park 1 3/wk 58 36%
LA Calcasieu North Beach-Lake Charles 1 1/wk 36 36%
NY Erie Lake Erie Beach 1 2/wk 25 36%
MD Kent Tolchester Estates Beach 2 2/mo 39 36%
NY Chautauqua Sunset Bay Beach Club 3 1/wk 28 36%
OH Cuyahoga Arcadia Beach 2 1/wk 14 36%
OH Cuyahoga Noble Beach 2 1/wk 14 36%
OH Cuyahoga Shoreby Club Beach 2 1/wk 14 36%
OH Cuyahoga Sims Beach 2 1/wk 14 36%
IL Cook Winnetka Centennial Dog Beach 2 daily 79 35%
NJ Ocean Maxson Avenue (Pt Pleasant) 1 1/wk 46 35%
OH Ashtabula Lakeshore Park 1 4/wk 50 34%
IL Cook Rainbow Beach 1 5/wk 74 34%
RI Newport Third Beach 1 3/wk 155 34%
RI Washington Scarborough State Beachsouth 1 2/wk 120 33%
NY Erie Woodlawn Beach State Park Beach 1 daily 93 33%
RI Newport Atlantic Beach Club 1 4/wk 75 33%
NJ Ocean River Avenue (Pt Pleasant) 1 1/wk 42 33%
NJ Ocean West Beach (Pine Beach) 1 1/wk 42 33%
NY Chautauqua Point Gratiot Beach 2 1/wk 30 33%
MA Essex Gas House 2 1/wk 18 33%
NJ Ocean Central (Island Heights) 3 1/wk 18 33%
FL Taylor Hagen’s Cove 1 1/wk 15 33%
MA Essex Independence Park 2 1/wk 15 33%

Monitoring
Frequency
Total
Samples
Percent
Exceedance
MA Plymouth A Street Ocean 2 1/wk 15 33%
CA Los Angeles Surfrider Beach 1 1/wk 83 33%
MI Muskegon Pere Marquette Park 1 1/wk 31 32%
NY Chautauqua Town of Hanover Beach 3 1/wk 25 32%
OH Erie Crystal Rock 1 3/wk 44 32%
OH Erie Edison Creek 1 3/wk 44 32%
CA San Francisco
Baker Beach, Lobos Creek at Lower
Parking Lot
1 1/wk 85 32%
CA Los Angeles Avalon Beach-south of GP Pier 1 1/wk 41 32%
NY Wayne Pultneyville Mariners Beach 3 1/wk 19 32%
MI Muskegon Meinert County Park 1 1/wk 51 31%
RI Newport Peabodys Beach 2 2/mo 51 31%
IL Cook Montrose Beach 1 5/wk 71 31%
MI St. Clair Chrysler Park Beach 1 1/wk 81 31%
IN Lake Buffington Harbor Beach 2 5/wk 78 31%
NY Erie Bennett Beach 2 2/wk 39 31%
FL Escambia Bayview Park 1 1/wk 26 31%
MA Plymouth XYZ 2 1/wk 13 31%
NY Chautauqua Main Street Beach 1 1/wk 23 30%
LA Cameron Gulf Breeze 2 1/wk 33 30%
CA San Francisco Candlestick Point-Sunnydale Cove 1 1/wk 76 30%
MA Barnstable Crocker’s Neck 2 1/wk 20 30%
MA Essex Grace Oliver 2 1/wk 20 30%
NJ Monmouth Wreck Pond Outfall (Spring Lake) 1 1/wk 20 30%
NJ Ocean Anglesea Avenue (Ocean Gate) 1 1/wk 37 30%
AL Baldwin Mary Ann Nelson Beach 3 2/mo 27 30%
LA Jefferson Grand Isle State Park 4 1 1/wk 27 30%
LA Cameron Long Beach 2 1/wk 34 29%
NY Westchester Surf Club 1 1/wk 17 29%
NY Nassau Crescent Beach 2 1/wk 130 29%
MA Essex Kings (DCR-DUPR) 2 1/wk 24 29%
MI Alcona Greenbush Township 1 1/wk 24 29%
NY Erie Hamburg Bathing Beach 1 2/wk 24 29%
WI Door Anclam Park Beach 2 2/wk 38 29%
MA Suffolk Yerrill 2 1/wk 56 29%
WI Milwaukee South Shore Beach 1 daily 56 29%
CA Los Angeles Alamitos Bay Beach-B-69 1 1/wk 21 29%
MI Alcona Black River Public Access 1 1/wk 21 29%
HI Oahu Ke’ehi Lagoon 2 1/wk 14 29%
OH Cuyahoga Moss Point Beach 2 1/wk 14 29%
CA San Mateo Pillar Point 1 1/wk 50 28%

Monitoring
Frequency
Total
Samples
Percent
Exceedance
TX Nueces Poenisch Park 1 1/wk 104 28%
MA Barnstable Atlantic Avenue 2 1/wk 18 28%
ME Waldo Ducktrap River 1 2/wk 18 28%
NY Monroe Hamlin Beach State Park-Area 3 1 1/wk 40 28%
OH Erie Sherod Creek 1 3/wk 44 27%
LA Cameron Constance Beach 2 1/wk 33 27%
LA Cameron Little Florida 2 1/wk 33 27%
ME York Riverside (Ogunquit) 1 1/wk 22 27%
NY Suffolk South Jamesport Beach 3 2/mo 11 27%
RI Newport Marine Avenue Beach 3 1/wk 48 27%
MA Essex Dane Street 2 1/wk 15 27%
MA Essex Sandy Point 2 1/wk 15 27%
MA Norfolk Chikatawbot 2 1/wk 15 27%
MA Norfolk Delano Ave. 2 1/wk 15 27%
MD Cecil Red Point Beach 3 1/mo 15 27%
MI Muskegon P.J. Hoffmaster State Park-Campground 1 1/wk 15 27%
MI Muskegon P.J. Hoffmaster State Park-Public Beach Area 1 1/wk 15 27%
OH Lorain Century Beach 1 4/wk 49 27%
MA Norfolk Wollaston (DCR-DUPR) 1 daily 83 27%
OH Cuyahoga Edgewater State Park 1 daily 110 26%
ME York Cape Neddick Beach 1 1/wk 19 26%
ME York York Harbor Beach 1 1/wk 19 26%
NC Currituck Dock at the end of SR 1245 3 2/mo 19 26%
NC Currituck Park on Woodhouse Dr. Grandy, NC 3 2/mo 19 26%
NC Onslow New River, Wilson Park 3 2/mo 19 26%
NY Suffolk East Islip Beach 2 3/wk 65 26%
CA Los Angeles Colorado Lagoon-Center 1 1/wk 23 26%
CA Ventura Port Hueneme Beach Park 1 1/wk 23 26%
NC Hyde Swanquarter Bay-end of docks on SR 1136 3 2/mo 23 26%
NY Chautauqua Sheridan Bay Park 3 1/wk 23 26%
IL Cook South Shore 1 5/wk 73 26%
CA San Mateo Aquatic Park 1 1/wk 39 26%
NJ Ocean Money Island (Dover) 1 1/wk 39 26%
OH Erie Vermilion River West 1 3/wk 43 26%

Table N-3. Repeat Offenders: 15 Beaches With More Than 25 Percent of Samples Exceeding the EPA’s
Single-Sample Maximum Standards for Designated Beach Areas, Each Year, 2006–2009 (Alphabetical
by State, County, and Beach)
Monitoring
Frequency
Potential pollution sources
(reported by EPA)
CA Los Angeles Avalon Beach-near Busy B Cafe 1 1/wk Unknown
CA Los Angeles Avalon Beach-north of GP Pier 1 1/wk Unknown
CA Los Angeles Avalon Beach-south of GP Pier 1 1/wk Unknown
CA Los Angeles Cabrillo Beach 1 Daily Unknown
CA Los Angeles
Santa Monica State Beach-Santa Monica
Canyon
1 1/wk Unknown
CA Orange
Doheny State Beach-North of San Juan
Creek
1 3/wk Unknown
CA Orange Doheny State Beach-Surf Zone at Outfall 1 3/wk Unknown
CA Orange Newport Bay-Newport Blvd Bridge 1 1/wk Unknown
FL Taylor Keaton Beach 1 1/wk
Boats, Runoff, Wildlife,
Stormwater, Other, Unknown
IL Lake North Point Marina North Beach 1 4/wk Unknown
NJ Ocean Beachwood Beach West 1 1/wk None Listed
OH Cuyahoga Villa Angela St. Pk. 1 Daily None Listed
TX Nueces Ropes Park 1 1/wk
Combined Sewer Overflow,
Stormwater, Other, Unknown
WI Kenosha Eichelman 2 2/wk Stormwater, Wildlife
WI Milwaukee South Shore 1 Daily Unknown
Notes
1 NRDC reports closing/advisory days for events lasting six consecutive weeks or less. Extended events (lasting between 7 and 13 consecutive weeks)
and permanent events (lasting more than 13 consecutive weeks) are reported separately and are not included in this total.
2 Doug Range, Erie County Department of Health, personal communication, June 2009.

Chapter 1
Sources of Beachwater Pollution
Most beach closings and advisories are issued because beachwater monitoring has detected unsafe levels of bacteria.
These unsafe levels indicate the presence of pathogens—microscopic organisms from human and animal wastes that
pose a threat to human health. The key known
contributors of these contaminants are stormwater runoff
that carries agricultural and human waste, untreated or
partially treated discharges from sewage treatment plants,
sanitary sewers, septic systems, and wildlife. Advisories
may also be issued as a precautionary measure when a pollution event is expected to occur—for instance, during
rainstorms. Beach closings and advisories also occur in response to specific pollution events, such as a known sewage
spill, an overflow from an animal-waste lagoon, red tides (harmful algal blooms), or an oil spill.
Stormwater runoff was the most frequently identified source of beach closing and advisory days in 2009. Human
sewage (from septic tanks, sewer lines, or sewage treatment plants) was the second-largest reported source of beachwater
closing and advisory days, with wildlife following close behind. A state-by-state breakdown of pollution sources can be
found in the state summaries after Chapter 4.
The ways in which beachwater becomes contaminated are described in more detail in the following sections.
URBAN RUNOFF
The EPA estimates that more than 10 trillion gallons of untreated stormwater make their way into our surface waters
each year.1 Contaminated urban stormwater contributes to the degradation of many of our nation’s polluted rivers,
estuaries and lakes and is a significant source of bathing-beach pollution in many regions.2
Stormwater runoff starts as rain or snowmelt. As it washes over roads, rooftops, parking lots, construction sites, and
lawns, it becomes contaminated with oil and grease, pesticides, litter, and pollutants from vehicles. On its way to storm
drains, it also can pick up fecal matter from dogs, cats, pigeons, other urban animals, and even humans. In Los Angeles
County, for instance, the sewer system is separate from the storm drain system, yet storm drains leading to Santa Monica
Bay have been found to contain human enteric viruses, indicating the presence of human waste.3 Human waste may also
find its way into storm drain systems from adjacent sewage pipes that leak, or from businesses or residences that have
illegally connected their sewage discharge to the storm drains. Illicit discharges also occur when people empty holding
tanks from recreational vehicles and trailers into storm drains.
Stormwater runoff is not the only type of urban runoff that can carry bacterial pollution to the coast. In dry weather,
runoff occurs as a result of landscape irrigation, the draining of swimming pools, car washing, and various commercial
activities. Even though it is much smaller in volume than stormwater runoff, dry weather runoff can be a significant
source of beachwater contamination, especially along the coast of California, which is usually dry during the summer
when the beaches are most heavily used.
Elevated levels of bacterial pollution correlate to increased illness rates among swimmers. For example, one Southern
California study showed the direct effect on coastal water quality of urban runoff draining from the Santa Ana River:
where the river meets the ocean, fecal indicator bacteria concentrations were found to be as much as 500% above
California’s ocean bathing water standards.4 (For a full discussion of the health and economic effects of beachwater
pollution, see Chapter 2).
The amount of pollution present in urban runoff tends to correlate with the amount of impervious cover. Impervious
cover is anything that stops water from soaking into the ground, like roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and buildings. A
Stormwater runoff is the most
frequently identified source of
beach closing and advisory days.

study conducted in North Carolina found that a watershed that was 22% covered by impervious surfaces had an average
fecal coliform count seven times higher than a watershed that was 7% covered by impervious surfaces.5 However, even in
less densely populated areas, uncontrolled runoff can foul beaches. More than half of the people in the United States live
in coastal counties, occupying only 17% of the nation’s
land mass (excluding Alaska).6 Between 1980 and 2003,
the coastal population grew by 33 million, and it is
projected to increase by another 19 million by 2015.7 As
the population along the U.S. coast grows, more land is
converted to impervious surfaces that shed rather than
absorb falling rain. Today, stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas is posing a significant problem that is
growing rapidly with rising populations and sprawling development. At the current rate, by 2025 more than a quarter of
all of our coastal acreage will be developed.8
HUMAN SEWAGE
Sewage overflows from aging sanitary and combined sewer systems, leaking sewage pipes, and malfunctioning sewage
treatment plants and pump stations have always been a major cause of pollution at ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches.
As demonstrated at Rancho Santa Margarita, California in March of 2010, a single ruptured sewer line can quickly spill
hundreds of thousands of gallons of untreated sewage into coastal waters and result in contaminated beachwater along
miles of beaches.9
Sewage Treatment Plants
Combined Sewer Overflows: Combined sewer systems carry both raw sewage from residences and industrial sites and
stormwater runoff from streets to sewage treatment plants. As shown in Figure 1-1, combined sewer systems are con
centrated in the Great Lakes states and in the Northeast. While treating stormwater before releasing it to surface waters
is desirable, during periods of heavy rainfall or snowmelt, the volume of the combined wastewater can become too great
The EPA estimates that more than
10 trillion gallons of untreated
stormwater make their way into
our surface waters each year.
Figure 1-1. A Rough Illustration of the Prevalence of Combined Sewer Systems in the United States10

for the treatment plant to handle. In such circumstances, the excess flow is diverted to outfall points that discharge pol
utants—including raw sewage; floatables such as trash, syringes, and tampon applicators; toxic industrial waste; and con
taminated stormwater—into the nearest stream or coastal waterway. This is known as a combined sewer overflow, or CSO.
CSOs are a major cause of pathogen contamination in marine and Great Lakes waters near urban areas. As of 2002,
CSOs discharged 850 billion gallons of raw sewage and stormwater annually,11and 43,000 CSO events occurred per year
nationwide.12 Although they are most prevalent in urban areas, CSOs affect 46 million people in 746 communities
throughout 32 Northeast and Great Lakes states.13 CSOs contaminate shellfish waters as well as recreational beaches.
Shellfish harvesting has been restricted in the majority of the 659 shellfish beds located close to a CSO outfall.14
Although an EPA policy that aims to reduce these overflows has been in effect since 1994, virtually all combined sewer
systems continue to overflow when it rains. A significant number of communities with CSOs still have not submitted
plans for controlling them.15
Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Discharges from Sewer-Line Breaks: Sanitary sewer systems carry human and
industrial waste from buildings to sewage treatment plants where it is treated. These sewer systems can discharge
untreated sewage when the treatment plants are overwhelmed or malfunction or when sewer lines break, posing a threat
to bathing beach safety.
Separate sanitary sewers serve approximately 164 million people nationwide.16 Although most of these systems were
built more recently than the combined sewer systems,
they are aging and deteriorating rapidly.17 A nationwide
survey of 42 treatment plants found some that have been
in use for as long as 117 years; the average is 33 years.18 As
population and sewer load increases and rehabilitation
and maintenance schedules lag, pipes can deteriorate and break, spilling sewage directly onto streets or into waterways.
The EPA has estimated that 23,000 to 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) occur annually, discharging a total of
3 billion to 10 billion gallons per year.19
Nearly 70% of sewage overflows from human-waste sewage lines are due to obstructions such as tree roots or grease
clogs, line breaks, and mechanical failures.20 Wet weather places demands on sanitary sewer systems even though these
systems do not treat stormwater runoff. This is because even when there are no improper connections between storm
water and sanitary sewers, water seeps through manholes and into the sewer lines and also falls onto the surface of the
treatment units during rain events. This can lead to the discharge of raw sewage from manholes, overflowing pipes, and
treatment-plant bypasses. Although only 26% of sanitary sewer overflows nationwide were caused by wet weather events
and related inflow and infiltration, these events accounted for nearly 75% of the total SSO volume discharged.21 In
January 2001, the EPA proposed SSO regulations that would have required improved capacity, operation, and main
tenance as well as public notification when overflows occur. The Bush administration shelved this initiative, but the
Obama administration’s EPA recently announced that it is considering a suite of actions to address SSOs.22
Inadequately Treated Sewage: Sewage plants near coastal waters tend to serve densely populated, rapidly growing
urban areas. When too many homes and businesses are hooked up to a sewage treatment plant, the plant is prone to
more frequent bypasses and inadequate treatment. Moreover, sewage treatment plants can, and often do, malfunction
as the result of human error, breakage of old equipment, or unusual conditions in the raw sewage. When that happens,
raw or partially treated sewage may be discharged into coastal waterways and their tributaries. Some sewage systems also
bypass all or a portion of their treatment plants when flows exceed capacity during rain events. This practice can also put
pathogens in waterways and should be phased out.
Under section 301(h) of the federal Clean Water Act, sewage treatment plants may obtain a waiver allowing them
to forgo basic federal secondary treatment requirements, discharging into marine waters wastes that have undergone
only primary treatment. Releasing primary-treated sewage into water bodies degrades receiving waters and poses serious
risks to public health and the marine ecosystem. The vast majority of pathogens are not removed by primary treatment
of wastewater.23 For example, 85% of Shigella bacteria, 85–100% of Salmonella, 50–100% of Entamoeba histolytica, and
more than 90% of fecal coliform may remain in wastewater even after primary treatment.24 In contrast, secondary
treatment removes suspended solids in the waste stream and is significantly more effective than primary treatment in
Sanitary sewer overflows discharge
between 3 billion to 10 billion gallons
of untreated sewage per year.

removing biologic pathogens.25 For example, secondary treatment removes 80–90% of Shigella bacteria, 70–99% of
Salmonella, and 75–99% of enteric viruses prior to discharge of the effluent.26
While sewage treatment plants with a waiver under section 301(h) have become increasingly rare in the United States,
there are still approximately 30 waivers being used.
Septic Systems
About one-third of new construction and 25% of existing U.S. dwellings use some kind of septic tank or on-site waste
disposal system.27 If not sited, built, and maintained properly, septic systems near the coast can leach wastewater into
coastal recreational waters, contaminating bathing beaches with fecal matter. Malfunctioning septic systems at just a few
near-shore properties can result in beachwater contamination that is significant enough to trigger a beach closure. Runoff
can also carry bacteria from failing inland septic systems into streams that empty into recreational waters. Unfortunately,
homeowners often do not adequately maintain their septic systems. “Studies reviewed by [the EPA] cite failure rates
ranging from 10–20%.”28 Despite this, there is no federal regulatory program to control waste from septic systems, and
local governments and states rarely inspect these systems sufficiently to prevent septic system failures.
Boating Waste
Marinas are generally located in areas that are naturally sheltered or where a breakwater has been constructed. This shelter
results in reduced circulation of clean water around the docks, which allows boating waste to accumulate and pose a serious
health threat. Also, waste may also be discharged improperly from boats that are in use, posing a health and aesthetic
threat to bathing beaches. Elevated concentrations of fecal coliform have been found in areas with high boating density.29
Federal law requires boats with onboard toilets either to treat the waste with chemicals before discharging it or to hold the
waste and later pump it out into a sewage treatment plant. Also, the federal Clean Vessel Act (CVA) of 1992 provides federal
grant money to states for building pump-out and dump stations in marinas so boaters can dispose of human wastes in an
environmentally sound manner.30 However, there is limited oversight of the adequacy of pump-out facilities in many areas.31
Military warships are not subject to the federal law requiring storage or treatment of human wastes before discharging them.
BEACHGOERS
In the 2005 study “Outbreaks Associated With Recreational Water in the United States,” researchers found that bathers
themselves are an important localized source of contamination leading to illness outbreaks.32 All swimmers release fecal
organisms when they enter the water in a process called bather shedding. Results from one study showed that bathers
shed on the order of 600,000 colony-forming units, or cfu, per person of enterococci bacteria during the first 15 minutes
of water contact.33 Beachgoers who swim while ill can spread diseases to other bathers. Fecal accidents are also a health
risk, as are diaper-aged children if care isn’t taken to ensure that their wastes are kept from entering the water. The
presence of E. coli and coliform bacteria has been shown to correlate to the number of visitors and periods of high
recreational use (generally the summer and weekends).34
WILDLIFE AND PET WASTE
Municipalities sometimes list waterfowl as the cause of beach closings or advisories. During migration season, large or
excessive populations of waterfowl can gather at beaches or in suburban areas that drain into recreational waters. These
dense clusters can occur when other potential waterfowl habitats are unavailable, often because wetlands have been filled
or ecological conditions have been altered (for example, when Canada geese that were previously migratory become
resident). Seagulls are a source of bacterial contamination at some coastal beaches.
Pet waste deposited on or near the beach also carries pathogens that can wind up in beachwater when pet owners do not
pick up and properly dispose of their pet’s waste. The fecal matter from these animals can overload the normal capacity of a
beach to absorb wastes, degrading water quality, particularly if there is no vegetation around the waterway to absorb the waste.

AGRICULTURAL DISCHARGES AND AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
Runoff from farms and animal feeding operations may contain high concentrations of pathogenic animal waste, fertilizers, and
pesticides. Agricultural pollution is responsible for nearly 40% of all water quality problems in the country’s polluted rivers and
streams.35 The production of farm animals has increasingly shifted toward huge, industrial-scale operations where large numbers
of animals are confined together. These confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) often produce vast quantities of manure
that far exceed the assimilation capacity of neighboring crops and pastures and have been estimated to be a contributing source
in 20% of impaired rivers and streams.36 Animal waste from large feedlots has been linked to outbreaks of a toxic micro
organism, Pfiesteria piscicida,in the Chesapeake Bay region and in North Carolina, causing numerous waterway closings and
serious human and aquatic health impacts. Animal waste can also contain pathogens usually not found in human waste, such
as E. coli 0157:H7, which contaminated baby spinach in 2006 and resulted in 205 confirmed illnesses and three deaths.37
CLIMATE CHANGE AND BEACHWATER POLLUTION
Beachwater quality is generally adversely affected by increased rainfall. Scientists agree that in many regions of the United
States, climate change will cause increased frequency and magnitude of rain and large storms; increased runoff, coastal
flooding, and coastal erosion; and warmer water and air temperatures.38 These changes will exacerbate existing causes of
beachwater pollution that threaten public health. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that “[w]ater-
borne diseases and degraded water quality are very likely to increase with more heavy precipitation.”39
The number and intensity of combined sewer overflow events is directly related to climate—especially increased precipi
tation, which causes greater runoff.40 As more high-intensity rainfall events occur, the risk increases that combined sewer
systems will overload, discharging untreated stormwater runoff and wastewater directly into lakes, rivers, and oceans.
Global climate change is predicted to increase the amount of rainfall in the Great Lakes region and the Northeastern
United States. Since these are the regions where the
majority of combined sewer systems are concentrated, an
increase in CSOs can be expected.41 Indeed, in the Great
Lakes region, climate modeling predicts that the regional
average annual CSO frequency between 2060 and 2099
will increase between 13% and 70%.42 Given the
uncertainty in predicting future climate, communities must decide whether to ensure mitigation effectiveness based on
predicted changes, or face potentially significant retrofit costs in the future to maintain effective mitigation.
Even in areas that have separate sewer systems, like much of the West, an increase in extreme rainfall events can still lead
to more pollution in coastal waters via increased stormwater runoff. For instance, in California, warmer temperatures can
mean more winter precipitation that falls as rain and less that falls as snow, leading to more winter runoff.43 More winter
runoff over saturated soils will result in larger sediment flows and more bacteria in beachwaters.44
In some coastal areas, the impacts of stormwater runoff on beachwater quality are mitigated by tidal wetlands that
filter the runoff before it is discharged to coastal waters. Climate change is predicted to result in a rise in sea levels that
will submerge these tidal wetlands.
Climate change is also expected to result in an increase in the population of some disease-causing organisms in coastal
waters and might already be expanding the range of harmful algal blooms in some parts of the country, as discussed in
the Health Effects section of Chapter 2.
Notes
1 EPA, “Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs,” April 26, 2004, EPA 833-R-04-001, p. 4-29, available at: http://cfpub.epa
.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy_report2004.cfm.
2 EPA, “National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, 2004 Reporting Cycle,” EPA 841-R-08-001, January 2009.
3 Bartlett, Gold, McGee, and Deets, “Pathogens and Indicators in Storm Drains Within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed,” Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project, 1992, p. 18. See also R. Haile et al., “An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica
Bay,” Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, 1996.
The IPCC found that “[w]ater-borne
diseases and degraded water quality
are very likely to increase with more
heavy precipitation.”

4 John Ho Ahn, Stanley B. Grant, Cristiane Q. Surbeck, Paul M. Di Giacomo, Nikolay P. Nezlin, and Sunny Jiang, “Coastal Water Quality Impact of
Stormwater Runoff From an Urban Watershed in Southern California,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 39, no. 16, 2005, pp. 5,940–5,953.
5 Michael A. Mallin, “Wading in Waste,” Scientific American, June 2006, pp. 53–59.
6 NOAA-National Ocean Service, “Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980–2008,” September 2004, p. 6, available at:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/programs/mb/pdfs/coastal_pop_trends_complete.pdf.
7 Ibid., p. 1.
8 Dana Beach, “Coastal Sprawl—The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States,” Pew Ocean Commission, 2002.
9 Tony Barboza, “Major sewage spill could keep O.C. beaches closed through the weekend,” L.A. Times, March 26, 2010.
10 EPA, Combined Sewer Overflow Demographics, available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/demo.cfm?program_id=5.
11 EPA, “Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs,” p. 4-17.
12 Ibid., p.4-19.
13 Ibid., p. 4-13.
14 Ibid., p. 5-14.
15 Ibid., p. ES-5;EPA Office of Water, National Water Program Mid-Year Report: Fiscal Year 2009, July 2009, Appendix B, p. 4.
17 The American Society of Civil Engineers has given the U.S. wastewater system an overall rating of D-minus. ASCE, “Report Card for America’s
Infrastructure,” 2005, available at: http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm.
19 Ibid., p. 4-25 to 4-26.
20 Ibid., p. 4-27.
21 Ibid., p. 4-27.
22 75 Fed. Reg. 30,395 (June 1, 2010).
23 National Research Council, Issues in Potable Reuse: The Viability of Augmenting Drinking Water Supplies With Reclaimed Water,National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 90–91.
24 Ibid., p. 92.
25 Ibid., p. 92
26 Ibid., p. 92.
27 EPA, Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual, February 2002, EPA/625/R-00/008, at pp. 1-4 and 1-6, available at: http://www.epa.gov/
nrmrl/pubs/625r00008/625r00008.pdf.
28 Ibid., p. 1-4.
29 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, “State of the Sound,” 1992, p. 22.
30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Keep Our Waters Clean—Use Pumpouts,” available at: http://library.fws.gov/Pubs9/cva_brochure.pdf.
31 U.S. General Accounting Office, “Water Quality: Program Enhancements Would Better Ensure Adequacy of Boat Pumpout Facilities in
No-Discharge Zones,” GAO-04-613, May 2004..
32 Gunther F. Craun, Rebecca L. Calderon, and Michael F. Craun, “Outbreaks Associated With Recreational Water in the United States,”
International Journal of Environmental Health Research,August 2005, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 243–262.
33 Elmir, S.M. et al. “Quantitative Evaluation of Bacteria Released by Bathers in a Marine Water,” Water Res.,January 2007, 41(1): 3–10.
34 A.T. McDonald, P.J. Chapman, and K. Fukasawa, “The Microbial Status of Natural Waters in a Protected Wilderness Area,” Journal of
Environmental Management,vol. 87, no. 4, June 2008, pp. 600–608.
35 EPA, “National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, 2004 Reporting Cycle,” EPA 841-R-08-001, January 2009, p. 12..
36 Marc Ribaudo and Noel Gollehon, “Animal Agriculture and the Environment,” Economic Research Service/U.S. Department of Agriculture, in
Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 2006 Edition,EIB-16, pp. 124–133.
37 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA News: FDA Finalizes Report on 2006 Spinach Outbreak,available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/
NEWS/2007/NEW01593.html.
38 See, e.g., IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group II Report, “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,” Ch. 14, available at: http://www.
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter14.pdf. We focus here on the United States, but note that most water-related health effects of
climate change will be felt in developing countries that lack proper drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
39 Ibid., p. 619.
40 EPA, “A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Mitigation in the Great Lakes
and New England Regions,” EPA/600/R-07/033F, February 2008, p. 1.
41 Federal Register,vol. 72, no. 60, March 29, 2007, pp. 14,803–14,804.
42 E PA, “A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Mitigation in the Great Lakes
and New England Regions,” EPA/600/R-07/033F, February 2008, p. 19.
43 Union of Concerned Scientists and Ecological Society of America, “Confronting Climate Change in California,” November 1999, p. 9.
44 Ibid., p. 18.

Chapter 2
The Impacts of Beach Pollution
HEALTH RISKS
Diseases Caused by Pathogens in Bathing Waters
Polluted waters may contain disease-causing organisms called pathogens. The most common types of pathogens are those
associated with human and animal waste, including bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. For instance, giardiasis, caused by the
protozoa Giardi lambia, is the most commonly reported
intestinal disease in North America.1 Swimmers in sewage-
polluted water can contract any illness that is spread
by fecal contact, including gastroenteritis, respiratory
infection, and ear and skin infections (see Table 2-1).
(Gastroenteritis, or stomach flu, is inflammation of the
stomach and the small intestine, symptoms of which can
include vomiting, diarrhea, stomachache, nausea, head
ache, and fever.) Most swimming-related illnesses last
from a few days to several weeks, but in some cases pathogens may cause severe, long-term illness or even death. Sensi
tive populations such as children, the elderly, or those with a weakened immune system are particularly at risk for long-
term effects. For example, diarrhea can be more than 100 times as likely to result in death in individuals over the age of
74 compared with those between the ages of 5 and 24.2 And research has shown that children under the age of 9 have
more reports of diarrhea and vomiting from exposure to waterborne pathogens than any other age group, with at least
a twofold increase occurring over the summer swimming months.3
Table 2-1. Pathogens and Swimming-Associated Illnesses
Pathogenic Agent Disease
Bacteria
Aeromonas hydrophila
Dysenteric illness, wound infections, gastroenteritis (vomiting, diarrhea, death in susceptible
populations), septicemia (generalized infections in which organisms multiply in the bloodstream)
Campylobacter jejuni Gastroenteritis
E. coli Gastroenteritis
Leptospira Leptospirosis (jaundice, fever)
Helicobacter pylori
Gastritis (diarrhea); peptic ulcers can occur long-term along with an increased likelihood of
developing gastric cancer
Legionella pneumoniae Legionellosis (fever, pneumonia)
Mycobacterium Respiratory infection
Naegleria Neurologic infections
Pseudomonas
Urinary tract infections, respiratory system infections, dermatitis, soft tissue infections,
bacteremia, and a variety of systemic infections (in immunocompromised individuals)
Salmonella typhi Typhoid fever (high fever, diarrhea, ulceration of the small intestine)
Other salmonella species Various enteric fevers (often called paratyphoid), gastroenteritis, septicemia
Shigella dysenteriae and
other species
Bacterial dysentery
The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention concluded that the
incidence of infections associated
with recreational water use has
steadily increased over the past
several decades.

Pathogenic Agent Disease
Bacteria
Vibrio cholerae Cholera (extremely heavy diarrhea, dehydration)
Vibrio vulnificus Skin and tissue infection, death in those with liver problems
Yersinia spp. Acute gastroenteritis (including diarrhea, abdominal pain)
Viruses
Adenovirus (31 types) Respiratory, eye, and gastrointestinal infections
Astroviruses Gastroenteritis
Calicivirus Gastroenteritis
Coxsackie viruses
(some strains)
Various, including severe respiratory disease, fever, rash, paralysis, aseptic meningitis,
myocarditis
Echovirus Neurologic infections
HAV Infectious hepatitis (liver malfunction); also may affect kidneys and spleen
Norovirus Gastroenteritis
Poliovirus Poliomyelitis
Polyomavirus Cancer of the colon
Reovirus Respiratory infections, gastroenteritis
Rotavirus Gastroenteritis
Protozoa
Acanthamoeba Eye infections
Balantidium coli Balantidiasis (dysentery, intestinal ulcers)
Cayetanensis Abscess in liver or other organs
Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidiosis (diarrhea)
Cyclospora Gastroenteritis
Entamoeba histolytica
Amoebic dysentery (prolonged diarrhea with bleeding, abscesses of the liver and small
intestine, infections of other organs)
Giardia lamblia Giardiasis (diarrhea, nausea, indigestion)
Isospora belli and
Isospora hominis
Intestinal parasites, gastrointestinal infection
Microsporidia Diarrhea
Toxoplasma gondii Toxoplasmosis
There is usually a delay of several days to two weeks between contact with contaminated water and expression of
symptoms, and most people who get sick from swimming are not aware of the link. In Australia, a study of 600 families
over 15 months showed that ocean swimmers are nearly twice as likely as nonswimmers to suffer from a case of gastro
enteritis in the two weeks following their dip.4
Since 1971, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the EPA, and the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists have worked to maintain the Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Surveillance System for collecting and
reporting waterborne diseases and outbreak-related data. Their most recent report, released in 2008, summarizes findings
for January 2005–December 2006. During this survey period, 78 waterborne disease outbreaks were reported. These
outbreaks caused illness in 4,412 people, resulting in 116 hospitalizations and 5 deaths. The CDC concluded that this
was the largest number of outbreaks reported to them in a two-year period. The increase is attributed to “a combination
of factors, such as the emergence of pathogens (e.g., Cryptosporidium), increased participation in aquatic activities,” and
better reporting.5
Because the CDC relies on voluntary reporting of outbreaks, not individual illnesses, the incidences may be much
higher than those cases accounted for. In addition, outbreaks of gastroenteritis associated with large venues that draw

from a wide geographic range, like large lakes and marine beaches, can be difficult to detect because potentially infected
persons disperse widely from the site of exposure and, therefore, might be less likely to be identified as part of an outbreak.
On the basis of beach visitation rates and monitoring data, researchers have estimated that 689,000 to 4,003,000
instances of gastrointestinal illness and 693,000 instances of respiratory illness occurred each year between 2000 and
2004 at Southern California beaches.6 While these estimates are subject to a great deal of uncertainty, they provide
insight into the potential for underreporting of swimming-related illnesses.
Regional studies provide further insight into the correlation between recreational swimming and illnesses. For example,
in 2005, the first major report of the National Epidemiological Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR)
Water Study examined the association between recreational freshwater quality and gastrointestinal illness as well as upper
respiratory illness, rash, eye ailments, and earache after swimming at two beaches in the Great Lakes region.7 Both beaches
are known to be affected by sewage discharges from wastewater treatment plants. Water samples were collected from each
beach and tested for enterococcus using rapid and traditional culture-based methods. (Enterococcus is a bacterium found
in fecal matter and is an indicator for the presence of fecal contamination of beachwater.) At one beach (Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore on Lake Michigan in Indiana), the NEEAR study found that the incidence of gastrointestinal illness
was 10% among subjects who came in contact with the water, representing twice the number of illnesses reported by
nonswimmers. At a second beach (on Lake Erie near Cleveland) the rate of gastrointestinal illness among swimmers was
as high as 14%. The illnesses correlated with the amount of enterococcus bacteria that were present.
Discharges of polluted urban runoff result in elevated bacteria levels and increased illness rates among swimmers,
and the association between heavy precipitation (leading to increased runoff) and waterborne disease outbreaks is well
documented (see Figure 2-1).8 In a 2004 California study:
[Researchers] compared rates of reported health symptoms among surfers in urban North Orange County (NOC) and rural
Santa Cruz County (SCC), California, during two winters (1998 and 1999) to determine whether symptoms were associated
with exposure to urban runoff. NOC participants reported almost twice as many symptoms as SCC participants during the
1998 winter. In both study years, risk increased across symptom categories by an average of 10% for each 2.5 hours of weekly
water exposure. [Their] findings suggest that discharging untreated urban runoff onto public beaches can pose health risks.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
May 10May 7May 4May 1 May 13 May 16 May 19 May 22 May 25 May 28 May 31
Numberofcases
Rainfall(ml)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of cases
Rainfall
Figure 2-1. Influence of Heavy Rainfall on Occurrence of E. coli Infections
The graph shows the relationship between unusually heavy rainfall and the number of confirmed cases of E. coli infection that
occurred during a massive disease outbreak in Ontario, Quebec, in May 2000. The incubation period for E. coli is usually three to
four days, which is consistent with the lag between extreme precipitation events and surges in the number of cases. Source: Amy
Greer, Victoria Ng, and David Fisman, “Climate Change and Infectious Diseases in North America: The Road Ahead,” CMAJ, March 11, 2008, 178(6):
715–722.

Table 2-2. Possible Influence of Climate Change on Climate-Susceptible Pathogens
Pathogen
Climate-Related
Driver
Possible Influence of
Climate Change
Likelihood
of Change
Basis for Assessment
Vibrio species
Rising temperature
Increasing ambient tempera
tures associated with growth
in pre-harvest and post-
harvest shellfish (in absence
of appropriate post-harvest
controls) and increasing
disease
Very likely
Likelihood of climate event is
high, and evidence supports
growth trend in ambient
waters; adaptive (control)
measures (refrigeration)
would reduce this effect for
post-harvest oysters
Increasing temperature
associated with higher
environmental prevalence
and disease
Extremely
likely
high, and evidence supports
environmental growth trend
associated with range
expansion
Very likely
high, and evidence collected
to date supports trend; more
data needed to confirm
Changes in precipitation
Increasing precipitation and
freshwater runoff leads
to depressed estuarine
salinities and increases in
some Vibrio species
About as
likely as not
Likelihood of climate event
is probable, but additional
research is needed to confirm
pathogen distribution patterns
Sea level changes
Rising sea level or storm
surge increases range and
human exposure
Likely
probable
Naegleria fowleri Rising temperature
associated with expanded
range and conversion to
flagellated form (infective)
More likely
than not
is high, but more research is
needed to confirm disease
trend
Cryptosporidium
Rising temperature
Expanded recreational
(swimming) season may
increase likelihood of
exposure and disease
About as
likely as not
high, but there is insufficient
research on this relationship
Increasing precipitation
associated with increased
loading of parasite to water
and increased exposure and
disease
Very likely
is probable, and research
supports this pattern;
adaptive measures (water
treatment and infrastructure)
would reduce this the effect
Giardia
Rising temperature
Expanded recreational
(swimming) season may
increase likelihood of
exposure and disease
About as
likely as not
Increasing precipitation
associated with increased
loading of parasite to water
and increased exposure and
disease
Very likely
is probable, and research
supports this pattern; but
adaptive measures (water
treatment and infrastructure)
would reduce this effect
Shifts in reservoir host
ranges or behavior
associated with shifting
range in reservoir species
(carriers) and expanded
disease range
About as
likely as not
Adapted from “Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems Final Report,” Synthesis and
Assessment Product 4.6, U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (EPA, July 2008).

A large-scale 1995 epidemiological study, also in California, investigated possible adverse health effects associated with
swimming in ocean waters contaminated by urban runoff.10 The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project study involved
initial interviews with 15,492 beachgoers who bathed and immersed their heads, as well as follow-up interviews with
13,278, to ascertain the occurrence of certain symptoms such as fever, chills, nausea, and diarrhea. The study found an
increase in risk of illness 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% greater
incidence of fever than those swimming farther away. This study also confirmed the increased risk of illness associated
with swimming in areas with high densities of fecal indicator bacteria. Illnesses were reported more often on days when
water samples tested positive for fecal bacteria.
In September 2009, University of Washington researchers presented findings of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA) on Washington beaches. (MRSA is a staph infection that is resistant to many antibiotics.) Researchers
found MRSA at half of 10 beaches in Washington along the West Coast and in Puget Sound from February to September
2008. Staph bacteria are resistant to salt and have long been known to be found in sand and salt water, but the MRSA strains
found by the researchers resembled the highly resistant ones usually seen in hospitals, rather than the milder strains
acquired in community settings. The source of the MRSA is unknown. Washington’s beachwater quality monitoring
program is currently working with the University of Washington and the Surfrider Foundation to develop a plan for
further investigation. The beachwater quality monitoring program is hoping to assist the researchers in investigating
how prevalent MRSA is on Washington beaches and if people are getting sick from this and other targeted pathogens.11
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that “[w]ater-borne diseases and degraded water quality are
very likely to increase with more heavy precipitation.”12 Climate change is expected to increase the incidence of diseases
contracted by swimmers (see Table 2-2). This is because water is more likely to become contaminated with pathogens
in areas where there are larger storm events with increased runoff and combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and because
warmer waters will allow pathogens to expand their range. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds
that the “combined effects of increased temperature and precipitation are likely to worsen the burden of water- and
food‑borne disease in the U.S., though the magnitude of this effect is difficult to project with certainty.”13 Pathogens
such as Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia, which are associated with polluted runoff and CSOs, can be
expected to increase in recreational waters in areas where climate change causes increased precipitation and runoff.14 An
article in Climate Research concurs, concluding that “a wetter climate in the [mid-Atlantic region] could lead to higher
C. parvum loads in water.”15 A major cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee in 1993, which killed 54 and sickened
more than 400,000 people, occurred after heavy rains and runoff compromised a drinking water treatment plant.16
The bacterium Vibrio cholerae, which causes cholera, is an example of a pathogen that presents an increased threat to
humans as a result of climate change. Extreme weather events and warmer waters can foster growth of the bacterium—
one study found that V. cholerae was up to nearly 20 times more likely to occur at a temperature of 19°C or higher than
at lower temperatures.17 In 2005, cases of illness due to V. cholerae occurred in association with Hurricane Katrina.18
Increased freshwater runoff, high in nutrients and low in salinity, also may favor the growth of V. cholerae. As one study
of Chesapeake Bay concluded, “increased climate variability, accompanied by higher stream flow rates and warmer
temperatures, could favor conditions that increase the occurrence of V. cholerae in Chesapeake Bay.”19
Threats to Swimmers from Harmful Algal Blooms
Harmful algal blooms (HABs), which are known as “red tides” when they occur in marine waters, are a growing
problem in surface waters where nutrient-rich pollution can spur algal growth. Several species of phytoplankton,
including Karenia brevis, Alexandrium tamarense, and Pseudo-nitzschia australis, produce potent toxins that can
make people sick if they are exposed to contaminated water or if they eat contaminated fish or shellfish. These toxic
organisms are a natural part of the phytoplankton community, but when conditions are right, they experience a
rapid growth in numbers, resulting in a “bloom.” HABs can last for days, weeks, or months and cause serious and
potentially life-threatening human illnesses that have a slew of symptoms, including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting,
abdominal cramping, chills, diminished temperature sensation, muscular aches, dizziness, anxiety, sweating, seizures,
numbness and tingling of the mouth and digits, and paralysis, as well as cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms
(see Table 2-3).20 Approximately 10% of all food-borne disease outbreaks in the United States are caused by eating

seafood contaminated by algal toxins.21 Toxins produced by harmful algae can aerosolize and cause respiratory distress
even in beach visitors who do not enter the water.
The incidence of HABs has increased dramatically over the past 30 years (see Figure 2-2).22 Indeed, analyzing data
over nearly 50 years from the southwest coast of Florida, researchers at the University of Miami determined that K. brevis
red tides are occurring with greater frequency, closer to shore, and during more months of the year. They attribute this
phenomenon to greater inputs of nutrients into coastal waters due to increased agricultural runoff and sewage discharges
in the watershed over that time period.23 K. brevis red tides are also becoming more common elsewhere in the Gulf of
Mexico. For example, along the Texas coast, red tide blooms occurred in all but one year between 1995 and 2002.24 In
August and September of 2007, red tides occurred off the coast of Delaware, the first documented occurrence of K. brevis
north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.25
While red tides are a natural phenomenon, they are exacerbated by human impacts such as nutrient overloads into
coastal waters, which spur their growth. Land use and development practices along coastlines and in watersheds can
lead to increased runoff into water bodies and result in a greater number of red tide events. Man-made alterations to
hydrology, such as dredging and filling, can slow water circulation and thus impede the ability of the water body to
cleanse itself of harmful algae. Filter-feeding shellfish serve as natural cleansers of phytoplankton, so human activities
that diminish shellfish populations reduce an ecosystem’s capacity to naturally cleanse itself of toxic algae.
Table 2-3. Algae and Their Threats to Human Health
Algal Blooms Health Risk
Cyanobacteria (mainly Microcystis and Anabaena)
Severe dermatitis, burning or itching of the skin, erythematous wheals,
redness of lips and eyes, sore throat, asthma symptoms, dizziness
Karenia brevis (and other marine algae) Irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, and throat; coughing, shortness of breath
Pfiesteria piscicida Headache, confusion, skin rash, eye irritation, respiratory irritation
Alexandrium tamarense
Paralytic shellfish poisoning: tingling, numbness, and burning of
the perioral region, ataxia, giddiness, drowsiness, fever, rash, and
staggering; repiratory arrest in more severe cases
Pseudo-nitzschia australis
Amnesic shellfish poisoning: nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps,
and diarrhea; in more severe cases dizziness, headache, seizures,
disorientation, short-term memory loss, respiratory difficulty, and coma
Abbreviations: NSP: Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning, PSP: Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, ASP: Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning, and
DSP: Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning. Source: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, “Bad Water 2009: The Impact on Human Health in the Chesapeake
Bay Region,” July 2009, p. 9. Source: Anderson, D.M., “Harmful Algal Blooms: An Expanding Problem in the U.S. Coastal Zone,” Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, presented to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy at the Northeast Regional Meeting July 23–24, 2002, Boston, MA,
available at: http://www.oceancommission.gov/meetings/jul23_24_02/anderson_testimony.pdf.
Figure 2-2. Expansion of HAB Problems in the United States
Pre-1972 2002
NSP
PSP
Fish kills
Ciguatera
Occasional anoxiaHI PR HI PR
Occasional anoxia
DSP (unconfirmed)
Marine mammal mortalities (whales,
manatees, sea lions, dolphins)
Noxious blooms (aesthetics)
Macro algal blooms
Pfiesteria complex
Ciguatera
Brown tide
ASP
NSP
PSP
Fish kills

ttw2010

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to ttw2010

Similar to ttw2010 (20)

ttw2010