California’s Bays and Beaches: A Precious Human, Ecological and Economic Resource
California's 1,100 miles of coastline that lines our shores are a precious human, ecological and economic resource.
A Resource on the Human Scale
An early morning surfer in Malibu....A sea otter playing in Monterey
Bay...A sunbather lounging on a San Diego beach, bays and beaches are
central to what we love about California. Californians feel an
emotional connection with our bays and beaches. A 2006 Public Policy
Institute of California poll found that an impressive nine out of ten
Californians feel that the beach and ocean is just as important to them
personally as well as for the overall quality of life and economy in
the state. This connection extends well past the coast and into Inland
California. 92 percent of Inland California residents surveyed in the
poll stated that the condition of ocean and beaches is very or somewhat
important to the quality of life in California. Love for the ocean and
beach also extends past ethnic lines. in fact, more Latinos (67
percent) than whites (60 percent) say that ocean and beach conditions
are very important to them personally (1).
An Ecological Resource
Home to beloved creatures like sea otters, whales, sea turtles and
pelicans, our bays and beaches are ecological treasures that provide
homes to countless animal and plant species. The enormous kelp beds off
the coast of Southern California, for example, are the second most
biodiverse communities known to exist in the ocean (2).
An Economic Resource
This emotional connection translates directly into dollars -
Recreation and tourism at our beaches drive the coastal economy and
make up a large part of the state’s economic activity. Conservative
estimates of beach visits each year in California exceed 150
million.(3) In 2001, tourism-related expenditures in coastal counties
exceeded $58 billion and economic activity generated by beach
recreation and tourism surpassed $80 billion.(4)
Our Bays and Beaches Threatened: A Tide of Pollution
Despite their importance, California’s bays and beaches are severely
polluted with bacteria, trash, toxic chemicals, and a host of other
threats to humans and wildlife. In 2006, UCLA and Stanford researchers
found that 1.5 million people get sick each year swimming off the coast
of Los Angeles and Orange County alone.(5) This pollution also
threatens otters, sea turtles and other ocean wildlife. Plastic marine
debris impacts 86 percent of all sea turtle species and 44 percent of
all sea bird species.(6)
Pollution also translates into economic impacts. In 2005, pollution
caused over 5,000 beach closings and advisories in California.(7)
These closings translate into fewer visits to the beach. Initial
findings of a study conducted by researches at UC Berkeley, UC Davis
and USC found that beach closings at Hermosa Beach in Orange County,
for example, resulted in a 45 percent decrease in beach attendance.(8)
According to the State Water Resources Control Board, beach attendance
in Los Angeles County has dropped by 56 percent since 1983.(9)
Pollution of our bays and beaches come from several different
sources but by far, the single largest source is urban runoff. Urban
runoff is largely created when rain hits impermeable pavement in poorly
planned developments and, instead of percolating into the ground, picks
up the bacteria, trash, toxic metals and other pollutants that
accumulate in parking lots, roads and lawns. This ‘urban slobber’ then
courses through our roads in mini ‘rivers of pollution’ into storm
drains and out directly into our waterways and eventually the ocean.
Runoff dumps so much bacteria and toxic chemicals into our ocean waters
that the California Department of Health Services warns swimmers to
stay out of the ocean for three days after it rains.
Solution: Reduce urban runoff, clean up our beaches
The good news is that effective solutions to reducing runoff and
other sources of bay and beach pollution exist. Stopping urban runoff
pollution, in fact, could prevent up to 800,000 cases of illness and
save up to $28 million in health costs for Los Angeles County alone
each year.(10)
There are three main ways to address urban runoff: 1) prevent runoff
from new development, 2) minimize runoff from existing development and
3) reduce the most harmful pollutants, at the source, found in our
oceans waters.
Through a series of regulations and incentive programs California
can cut urban runoff by 80 percent, all the while creating a market of
green building developments and attracting green industry to the state.
Prevent Runoff from New Development
The most important step is to reduce the amount of polluted runoff
that enters the waters off our coast. We can do that by creating more
green spaces along roads that allow stormwater to filter into the
ground before it enters storm drains; and by building new developments
with green technology that prevents any new stormwater from flowing
into our oceans.
Reduce Runoff from Existing Development
While many surfaces – from rooftops to parking lots – create the
‘impervious surface’ that generate urban runoff, the transportation
sector is a central conduit of this pollution into storm drains and the
major source of toxic chemicals like lead, zinc and copper. A
Wisconsin study, for example, found that 80 percent of the runoff
generated by commercial areas and 54 percent of the runoff generated in
residential area in two Wisconsin cities is generated by parking lots
and roads. To catch and filter runoff from roads before it hits storm
drains, the cities of Portland and Seattle have conducted several
studies and are poised to launch citywide ‘Green Streets’ programs that
will retrofit roads with green spaces that allow stormwater to filter
into the ground rather than run into storm drains. Pilot projects in
these cities have been so successful that neighborhoods are calling,
unsolicited, with requests to join the program.
In addition to reducing runoff from development, several other
policy measures can generate funds to prevent runoff pollution and
increase protections for our ocean and beaches.
(a) Reduce the use of pollutants commonly found in polluted runoff.
One of the most commonly found ocean and beach pollutants found in
cleanups is Styrofoam and other plastics. To protect wildlife from
ingesting this dangerous material and save cities cleanup costs, we
should require significant reductions in the use of Styrofoam and the
generation of plastic waste. Bans on Styrofoam have already been
enacted in a dozen cities cross the country, including Oakland, CA.
(b) Increase the number of marine protected areas. These areas,
protected against over-fishing and habitat destruction by state law,
also typically require a higher standard of stormwater controls to
protect the enclosed ecosystem. In 2006, the California Fish and Game
Commission voted unanimously to establish a network of these marine
protected areas along California’s central coast. In 2007, this plan
should receive final approval.
(c) Continue Ban on Offshore Drilling. Oil spills pose a large threat
to otters and other sea life. Offshore oil drilling dramatically
increases the risk of oil spills and the ban on additional drilling off
the coast should be continued.
(d) Generate funding for beach cleanup. Such fees can be generated
through a variety of ways, including increasing the ‘tipping fee’ for
waste haulers or creating a new license plate that dedicates funding to
stormwater controls.
NOTES
1. Mark Baldassare, “Californians and the Environment”, Public Policy Institute of California, February 2006
2. Robert Steneck et al., “Kelp Forest Ecosystems: Biodiversity,
Stability, Resilience and Future Environmental Conservation,” V 29, pp
436-459; Seaweeds: Productivity and Strategies for Growth, K.H. Mann,
Science V 182, 975-981
3. Pendleton, Linwood, et al., “The Non-Market Value of Beach
Recreation in California,” Pendleton, L and J. Kildow. “The Non-Market
Value of California’s Beaches”, Shore and Beach (Journal of the
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association), v. 74, n. 2, Spring
2006, pp. 34-37. March 2006
4. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “An Inventory of California Coastal Economic Sectors,” downloaded from http://www.whoi.edu/mpcweb/research/NOPP/California%20region%20progress%20report%20Jan03.pdf, 26 January 26
5. Suzan Given et al., Regional Public Health Cost Estimates of
Contaminated Coastal Waters: A Case Study of Gastroenteritis at
Southern California Beaches, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40 (16), 4851
-4858, 2006.
6. California Coastal Commission, “The Problem with Marine Debris,” downloaded from http://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/marinedebris.html, 26 January 2007
7. Natural Resources Defense Council, “Testing the Waters 2006: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches,” downloaded from http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/titinx.asp, 26 January 2007
8. Michael Hanemman, et al., “Modeling the Regional Economic and Social
Impact of Marine Pollution in Soiuthern California,” downloaded from www.sccoos.org/docs/CCCtalkLP2.ppt, 26 January 2007
9. California State Water Resources Control Board, “Erase the Waste, Stormwater Pollution,” downloaded from http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/erasethewaste/swpollution.html, November 22 2005
10. Environ. Sci. Technol., 40 (16), 4851 -4858, 2006. 10.1021/es060679s S0013-936X(06)00679-1 Web Release Date: July 15, 2006
|
|
