The following is a water quality report for beaches in wet weather from Oct. 28 to Nov. 28 compiled from data courtesy of Heal the Bay, a nonprofit environmental group.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health recommends that people avoid the water 72-hours after a rainfall due to elevated fecal bacteria concentrations.
Surfers: There is a West Northwest Swell building that could see sets in the double overhead range in some spots in L.A. County. The surf will diminish by Sunday morning, according to the National Weather Service.
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 although beach grades reflect the rain that hit the L.A. area on Wednesday, they do not include the additional rain on Thursday and Friday that may have worsened conditions.
Additionally, no wet weather data is available for most beach in the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Long Beach area.
Dark Blue Marker = A+
Light Blue Marker = A
Green Marker = B
Yellow Marker = C
Pink = D
Red Marker = F
Purple Marker = No sample taken
Tell the readers where you think this statement is factual? As it is not true for the intense study done by USGS or in two studies done by SCCWRP. There is no evidence to indicate this in ANY in depth study since 2000.
You raise a good issue, though. it may be that Izbicki's preliminary findings may contrast somewhat with his final, peer-reviewed report. This happens in science, and it echoes his warning at the end of his preliminary report that no final conclusions should be based on that article.
These issues are complicated to us, especially in natural systems, however scientist are more confident with all of the new tools and best avail. science that is being applied. Nobody should rely on one research study. Credible scientist rely on multiple lines of evidence.
These issues are complicated to us, especially in natural systems, however scientist are more confident with all of the new tools and best avail. science that is being applied. Nobody should rely on one research study. Credible scientist rely on multiple lines of evidence.
You and hellwood have certain views, which are not accepted by any of the people who have the legal responsibility to clean up Malibu's water mess. The only thing that matters is that there are TMDLs, which are operative legal findings made by the EPA and state Water Board. And they have ruled that the TMDLs are reasonable, lawful standards. And so, Malibu is obligated to abide by the law. That's not subject to opinion, that's a fact.
A steadily growing number of respected scientists worldwide are working to replace this very misleading antiquated monitoring tool as a public health noticing method. The recently published 2012 US EPA Recreation Bacteria Criteria acknowledge this trend and now suggest that a variety of methods may provide more accurate information in order for local government and health departments to use the newest tools to reduce human health risk. Regulators, beach managers and municipalities should focus their resources on prevention of the bacteria with the greatest chance to reduce public health risk, human fecal bacteria, and when evaluating the source of bacteria in waters used for recreation, they should use multiple lines of evidence when making management or regulatory decisions. Too much time and money is being wasted on removal of bacteria that has virtually no human health risk.
"The 2012 RWQC rely on the latest research and science, including studies that show a link between illness and fecal contamination in recreational waters. They are based on the use of two bacterial indicators of fecal contamination, E. coli and enterococci." Those are FIB. The EPA is still relying on enterococci and e.coli, but is changing the threstholds for action -- actually, lowering the concentration. Quote: "The 2012 RWQC offer two sets of numeric concentration thresholds, either of which would protect the designated use of primary contact recreation and, therefore, would protect the public from exposure to harmful levels of pathogens. Illness rates upon which these recommendations are based use the National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational Water (NEEAR) definition of gastrointestinal illness, which is not limited to illnesses which exhibit a fever." The EPA document you refer to most certainly does not show scientists to be "working to replace this very misleading antiquated monitoring tool as a public health noticing method," as you say. i It shows the exact opposite. The EPA scientists are exactly in opposition to your claim.
You tend to quote only one part of an entire document and tend to stick with what you think the entire finding is. The rest of the document shows exactly what I have been talking about : the one size fits all TMDL is out-dated THIS IS IN THE DOCUMENT AS WELL A Single Level of Beach Use: The 1986 bacteria criteria document included four single sample maximum (SSM) values appropriate for different levels of beach usage (use intensities). In the 2012 RWQC, EPA removed those recommendations and instead provided states with optional, precautionary BAVs for use in monitoring and notification programs. More Tools for Assessing and Managing Recreational Waters: EPA is providing information on tools for evaluating and managing recreational waters, such as predictive modeling and sanitary surveys. The Agency is also providing tools for developing site-specific criteria such as epidemiological studies, quantitative microbial risk assessment, and use of alternative indicators or methods. The EPA has developed and validated a molecular testing method using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) as a rapid analytical technique for the detection of enterococci in recreational water (EPA Method 1611). For the purposes of beach monitoring, a state may use a qPCR method on a site-specific basis.
There are a number of new methodologies that are being successfully well utilized.
Doheny State Beach/ Dana Point Poche Beach/ San Clemente Huntington State Beach @ Talbert Marsh Malibu Lagoon Pismo Beach I believe that all of these cases were confirmed by DNA/PCR testing. All of these were initially blamed (incorrectly) on nearby sewage treatment facilities. The LA RWQCB has similarly blamed (incorrectly) septic systems and wastewater facilities in central Malibu for high bacti counts. They also required or encouraged the installation of chlorine disinfection systems which resulted in high levels of chlorine in groundwater. Sounds like a lot of guesswork and wasted money to me.
Do you think that if bird crap or seaweed can fail a beach, that Malibu should be held accountable? I dont get your argument.
While you are correct that I omitted some of the document, a close reading of it shows it to be completely irrelevant to the fact that the EPA most certainly has not walked away from FIB as the standard for water safety. As you stated. I also posted the link to the entire EPA "fact sheet" document. There is also a 62-page pdf available at the site. I did not quote the entire pdf, but I did post a link to it. And the rest of the document does not address TMDLs whatsoever. It is, frankly, dangerous and a complete disservice to the facts to claim that this study calls into question the TMDL pollution standards, when that issue is not addressed at all. I appreciate the class and reasoned arguments that you post here. Thank you.
Izbicki's study suggests that the initial source of the seed Bactria and other pathogens are not directly flowing out of septic tanks and OWTS. But it also states directly that contaminants OTHER THAN THE PATHOGENS THEMSELVES are flowing frm septic tanks to groundwater to the lagoon to the surf. Malibu (and Tapia) should be held accountable for adding too much clean, treated water to the lagoon watershed. Malibu must remove both that clean water, and the clean water that carries nutrients, from the lagoon watershed.
Wendi, you will make Malibu a laughingstock if you convince people that Malibu is the only place I the world where septic tanks in the surf line are nor connected to sick surfers. By all means read the studies, Sean. All the regulatory agencies that read those studies have told the good people of Malibu that our s--t stinks, just like everywhere else.
Don't dumb yourself down. In fact, if you were at the TAC lecture that Izbiki spoke at (the one I asked you to attend) you have found the opposite of what you just wrote. The natural bacteria are what is causing the exceedences from gull matter and kelp. Dr. Izbiki never says they are the "seeds" that you, once again reword and refer too.
The new studies and science that have been ignored until now will inevitability be a game changer.
The Supreme Court is about to hear a case, which will NOT establish whether TMDL laws are good or bad. It will determine if they are constitutional, and within the laws written by Congress. Your "game changer" is not viewed as such by anyone other than a very narrow band of people in Malibu who seem to think that they have discovered 150-plus years of scientific advances on combating water pollution are wrong. Izbicki has discovered indications -- and it is just one study -- that the crud in local waters (as measured by FIB, which was and will be the legal "gold standard" for measuring such crud) does not come directly from septics, but rather comes from birds and merely thrives in the septic runoff that is measured to run into Malibu Lagoon and then the surf.
7:47 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012 "The bird crap and seaweed are merely seeding the nitrogen and other nutrients steaming onto beaches and into lagoons from septic tanks. Eliminate the food source, and the "natural" bacteria nd viruses do not multiply." can you say with 100% certainty, that seaweed is not a food source? do you really believe that enterococci cant reproduce on seaweed without the extra nutrients? enterococci is everywhere. it's its unpredictability of high concentrations that are confusing. it can survive long periods of time with no nutrients. the exact nutrients required are unknown and it defies typical DNA synthesis. it is mysterious, and being used as a baseline standard. either way, we need to shut down tapia and see how many nutrients are left. deep well injections into our saturated land will also affect the quality of our groundwater, and even more nutrients will enter the equation