22 



wide mandatory beach protection program, including a bacteria 

 standard, a testing protocol, and closure requirements whenever 

 the bacteria standard is exceeded. 



Our testing and monitoring program involving 322 ocean and bay 

 locations is complemented by daily aerial surveillance of the coast- 

 al and ocean waters to give advance warning of ocean pollution 

 which may be headed toward our shores and to identify pollution 

 sources; and I note that although we have 1,227 miles of coast, we 

 also test the other 151 bay stations. 



As noted in the NRDC report. New Jersey's program can be con- 

 trasted with 13 other coastal States which either do not monitor 

 regularly or only have limited programs. While not every State 

 would wish to conduct a program as extensive as New Jersey's, I 

 would like to echo Congressman Hughes' statement that we do feel 

 there should be some minimum level of protection offered to all of 

 the Nation's citizens. It would be comforting to know that New Jer- 

 seyans are as protected if they go swimming elsewhere in the 

 Nation as they are at home. The enactment of H.R. 31 would pro- 

 mote such protection. 



By many measures. New Jersey's program is an unqualified suc- 

 cess. I have attached a copy of the 1992 Annual Report of New Jer- 

 sey's Coastal Cooperative Monitoring Program as an appendix to 

 this testimony. The report outlines the history of the program and 

 statistics for 1992. In 1988, one of the worst years on record for the 

 State's shores and tourism industry, over 700 beach closure days 

 were reported. In 1991, the number had dropped to 10 and in 1992, 

 27. The increase was due to nonpoint source pollution resulting 

 from five straight days of heavy rain in August. So far in 1993, we 

 have had only two closures. 



I want to stress that our program is more than just a closure bill. 

 Another factor which makes our program a success is the fact that 

 the monitoring often initiates an investigation and subsequent 

 elimination or remediation of the source of the pollution. 



For example, a couple of years ago, we had a problem where we 

 had very high bacteria counts, and when we conducted an investi- 

 gation, we found out that a sewer pipe had broken and the sewage 

 had gotten into the storm water pipe and discharged onto the 

 beach; and had we not had our monitoring standards, it would 

 have been much more time and perhaps some illnesses before we 

 found out about that broken pipe. 



There is, however, a downside to New Jersey's program in that 

 very often the public and the press evaluate the cleanliness of a 

 State's beaches based on the number of closures which occur. This 

 puts a State in a situation where, because it requires regular test- 

 ing, there is greater likelihood that elevated readings leading to 

 closures may result. On the other hand, if no or limited tests were 

 performed, no beaches would be closed regardless of the levels of 

 contamination. As a result, even though our program is more pro- 

 tective of public health, our beaches may be perceived as being 

 more polluted than those of other States when in reality they are 

 not. 



It would be convenient for New Jersey to back off of our monitor- 

 ing program so as to ease these perceptual misconceptions. It would 

 cost us less money, and with augmented perception, the State may 



