“Economic Statistics for NOAA
A number of different sources estimate beach visitation days for California. … million beach visits, we estimate that market expenditures by beach goers in California …
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pdf/economic-statistics-may2006.pdf

From page 35 of said NOAA document, we see:

In 1999-2000, the top three states for beach visitation were Florida (15.2 million
participants and 177.2 million days), California (12.6 million participants and
151.4 million days), and Hawaii (3.6 million participants and 101.2 million
days).
Cite: Leeworthy, V.R. and Wiley, P.C., Current Participation Patterns in
Marine Recreation, Table A-3, p. 25.Website:
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/NSRE/NSRE_V1-6_May.pdf.

Search result number seven (7)

Report to California Environmental Protection Agency Comparative Risk …
… to mid-1985, still represent the best estimate … water quality and health effects on beach-goers … US EPA, Region IX, San Francisco, California. We also appreciate the time taken by a number of …
o http://www.gfredlee.com/phealthsig_080801.pdf
We see this quote:
…(since waterborne diseases tend to be sporadic, self-limiting, and restricted to one-time events),

And this quote (italics mine)

Payment (1993) also discussed the societal costs of the so-called “mild illnesses” that do not necessarily result in hospitalization or consultation with a physician. Because of the wide range of symptoms associated with enteroviruses and because enteroviruses may be acquired through routes other than water, it is impossible to estimate the societal costs of mild illnesses caused by waterborne enteroviruses. However, those costs are expected to be very high, ranging in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars per year for the USA.

From the AP Article:
“Cleaning up storm water runoff, the chief cause of dirty ocean water in Southern California, would prevent 394,000 to 804,000 gastrointestinal cases and save $13 million to $28 million in annual health costs in Los Angeles County.”

Now I’ll join in the whinning.
1. The article seems to confuse visits with visitors. (80 million visitors in the article vs the NOAA estimate of 12.6 million for the entire state).
2. The comparative risk article points out that we are talking about very mild cases which do not require medical attention.
3. These cases are impossible to pin down to water borne sources due to wide range of symptons and that they can be aquired by routes other than water.
4. It is impossible to quantify the cost for such illnesses. (But, by God, they must be really high!)
5. The cost of these illnesses can save, at most, $28 million (upper end of estimate)

The question now before us is:
“Can we treat the Los Angeles County stormwater runoff for $28 million per year?”

From a second search:
http://www.engineer.ucla.edu/stories/2003/runoff.htm

The cost of treating all the stormwater runoff is prohibitive. “One big rainstorm around here is like two months flow at the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant,” Stenstrom said. “We spent $3-4 billion dollars down there and you can’t imagine how much it would cost to have a plant that would treat all the stormwater.”

So, where are we? Just another stupid scare without much foundation.

Regards,

JJ