L.A. County Beaches Report Card: Interactive Map

How did your favorite beach score?

The following is a water quality report from Oct. 6 to Nov. 6 compiled from data courtesy of Heal the Bay, a nonprofit environmental group.

Grades are based on an A+ to F scale. Grades indicate the likelihood of swimmers becoming ill. Water samples are analyzed for bacteria – enterococcus, total and fecal coliforms. The report does not measure the amount of trash or toxins found at local beaches.

Please note: The last sampling date was Wednesday, therefore beach grades do not reflect the rain that hit the L.A. area on Thursday. However, this week's rain was not significant enough to count for "wet days" at the beach, according to Heal the Bay. 

Dark Blue Marker = A+

Light Blue Marker = A

Green Marker = B

Yellow Marker = C

Pink = D

Red Marker = F

M Stanley November 10, 2012 at 10:33 PM
What?? By eliminating the Purple Marker category they can justify how they have NOT TESTED the water in many of the locations and continue to mislead the public by insinuating that the testing is performed weekly at all locations?? What a load of malarkey and all other words that stand in for utter and complete BS!!! July 26th was the date of the last test performed on Malibu's beaches north of Pt. Dume that include the heavily trafficked Zuma Beach. So.....this is a flawed report that misleads the public and encourages people to go to beaches that could very well be failing! Pick it up HTB! Pick it up or pack it up and leave the reporting to LA County so we can get to the source of the problems with water testing reports.
hellwood November 10, 2012 at 10:34 PM
according to this data, and all of the theories of the hydrology being overly saturated with poo from 80 years of outdated septic systems, nobody in malibu used their toilets for a whole month.
M Stanley November 10, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Excellent point Hellwood! Driven home by the proof provided in the "daily testing" done at the breach location of Surfrider Lagoon. Daily?!? The project is reportedly complete so let's see that marker updated too!!! Let's get a factual report or no reports at all and save public funds.
M Stanley November 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM
I see a PURPLE MARKER after all, yet when you click on the marker it reads that the data was tested 23 hours ago. No legend to tell you what a purple marker means? It used to be there and was for indicating when a site had not been tested since the previous report card yet this specific location, Redondo Municipal Pier 100 yds south, was tested 23 hours ago so that can't be - or can it? Which one is it??? Who is responsible, is there one specific individual who updates and disseminates this report card that can be held accountable for the problems already addressed? I am only picking and choosing a few locations yet they seem to be overwhelmingly in error.
Nicole Mooradian (Editor) November 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Hi M, The "last updated" bit that appears when you click on the marker is when the marker on this map was last updated (ie. the color changed), not when the last sample was collected. If the beach's grade hasn't changed in the last three weeks, the marker itself probably will not be updated, as the grade and the color will remain the same. For example—the Redondo Municipal Pier marker on the map was updated 23 hours ago, but according to the note in the article, the sample was taken Wednesday. Patch updates its markers on Friday afternoons/evenings. This is a process that involves manually changing the color of the marker. Unfortunately, I don't believe we can take the "last updated" bit off the markers—it's something that Google Maps automatically generates. I hope this clears some of the confusion!
Bobby Dias November 11, 2012 at 12:58 AM
By avoiding testing on the rain days they are biasing the data in their monetary favor(each person does make$$$$$)- like some environmentalists count the ice dropping off but not the new ice forming. Ozone-thin places are recorded but not ozone-rich. Nuclear down-time but not running time. Saying they are non-profit as a group but they are getting wealthy individually. Deceit. Fraud. Half truths. Outright lies. Thieves of donations and contract money by misrepresentation.
David Carini (Editor) November 11, 2012 at 03:22 AM
Stanley, the marker you are referring to near Redondo is pink, so therefore a D grade.
Wendi Werner November 11, 2012 at 03:31 AM
I would like to know why the environmental advocates will not acknowledge natural bacteria exclusions in their fib exceedances.????
Hans Laetz November 11, 2012 at 03:34 AM
Mari, you are looking at HTB data that is interpolated by Patch onto a Google map, with all sorts of disconnects. This is the equivalent of playing telephone. You need to look at the source, which is the HTB web site. I appreciate Patch trying to help spread this data, but it is not always exactly a perfect electronic rendering. Maybe Patch could so somehow embed the HTB results in the patch page? Jonathan (below) sheds some light on the confusion.
Wendi Werner November 11, 2012 at 03:35 AM
and why the environmental agencies advocate racking the kelp wracks from the beach when we all know that kelp and all of the life that live in and around the kelp are so important to the ecosystem?
Bobby Dias November 11, 2012 at 05:47 AM
By eliminating(hiding) the data of other sources they have a man-made source(or so they say) to make an attempt to lure donations to their organizations(personal bank accounts) or enter into bogus contracts to track and/or eliminate the so-called source.
Bobby Dias November 11, 2012 at 06:04 AM
The environmental people want the donators and taxpayers to believe that ecosystems are only possible by the environmentalists- so working ecosystems are hidden by environmentalists. I created the plants on most of the nature preserves in California- the Nature Conservancy tried to shoot me dead 6 times in 43 attempts in trying to stop me(maybe more because I noticed they were sometimes using silencers). In another event one Nature Conservancy employee and two Sierra Club employees and two Audubon Society employees each pointed a rifle at me- but I had brought 13 US Army soldiers and 8 Deputy Sheriffs with me! All received 10 years,no parole for assault with a deadly weapon, plus one of the Sierra Club employees and one of the Audubon Society employees each received an additional 5 years for each separately threatening my life. The Nature Conservancy employee received an additional 5 years for running.
Bobby Dias November 11, 2012 at 06:16 AM
To M Stanley: As an example: the last few years I have noticed that UCSB has announced their removal of what they call non-native ice plant along the Californis coast in two or three places- but they did not(I know because what is still there is what I put there in the 1950s-1960s). So, maybe this data that this article is about is non-existant? Patch automatically accepts the data from this ONE organization?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something