Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Analysis of the recreational use of municipal water-supply areas Moffat, Melvin G. 1970

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A6 M63.pdf [ 18.68MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101993.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101993-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101993-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101993-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101993-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101993-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101993-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101993-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101993.ris

Full Text

m  ANALYSIS OF THE RECREATIONS USE OF HUNXCSPMi WATER-SUPPX.* AREAS  by  M B & V X N 6. MOFFAT B.S.F., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967  A THESIS SUBMITTED XN PARTXA& FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF FORESTRY  In t h e F a c u l t y of FORESTRY  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o t h e required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1970  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  in p a r t i a l  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, the L i b r a r y s h a l l I  make i t  freely available  f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n  for  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s  that  study. thesis  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s  representatives.  of this  thesis  written  permission.  It  is understood that copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain shall  Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Vancouver 8, Canada  Columbia  not be allowed without my  ii  h q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u r w y ©f m u n i c i p a l water-supply agencies  B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington  B  Oregon, and  C a l i f o r n i a was conducted. f o r the purpose o f compos ins p r e s e n t jaanagement p o l i c i e s w i t h i n and among th© r e g i o n s .  Regression  techniques were employed i n an attempt to determine what factors influence the i n t e n s i t y of recreation occurring on a reservoir or watershed.  A search of available l i t e r a t u r e was  made t o e s t a b l i s h the 'facts' regarding water contamination through r e c r e a t i o n a l use, the transmission of disease through water supplies, and the treatment of water to eliminate bacteria and viruses.  The costs involved i n the use o r non-  use of domestic water-supply areas f o r recreation were examined as were the major arguments f o r and against r e c r e a t i o n a l use of these areas. The analysis of the questionnaire returns showed that i n comparison with B r i t i s h Columbia, the States of Washington*  Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a a l l exhibited a higher  l e v e l of water-supply management.  Secondary uses were most  prevalent i n C a l i f o r n i a and a l l of the respondents c l a s s i f y ing themselves as 'secondary-use' agencies included recreation  Ui  as one of the uses.  In contrast t o the s i t u a t i o n i n Washing-  ton and Oregon, and e s p e c i a l l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia, recreationa l use i n C a l i f o r n i a was p r i m a r i l y a regulated use and very often planned and managed i n detailed fashion with s t r i c t controls. The regression and c o r r e l a t i o n analysis showed some s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t but very weak r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  The  equations produced accounted f o r very l i t t l e of the v a r i a t i o n i n the dependent v a r i a b l e (recreational-use score) and had very large standard errors of estimate.  For the systems  analyzed, the i n t e n s i t y of recreation occurring on a reservoir or watershed was related t o such agency c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ass present population served, percentage domestic use, degree of water treatment, average percentage of municipally or agency managed lands, average percentages of forest and shrub covered buffer and watershed lands and recreation opportunity i n surrounding areas. From the search of pertinent l i t e r a t u r e and the questionnaire r e s u l t s , i t was established that w e l l planned and managed recreation f a c i l i t i e s can be operated i n conjunction with domestic water-supply f a c i l i t i e s and have minimal e f f e c t s on raw water q u a l i t y .  The p o t e n t i a l hazard of disease  iv  transmission through the water system was f u l l y recognized; however, water treatment techniques that w i l l reduce t h i s r i s k t o a miniimaia• are p r e s e n t l y , a v a i l a b l e ;  On the b a s i s ' o f  the research c a r r i e d out i n t h i s study i t was concluded that when conducted i n accord w i t h an e c o l o g i c a l l y sound management p l a n , r e c r e a t i o n and t h e p r o d u c t i o n of h i g h q u a l i t y ' 1  :  p o t a b l e water a r e indeed mutually compatible land uses. .  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page  TITLE PAGE  i  ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ^ 1,  LIST OF TABLES  ise  LIST OF FIGURES I.  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  xii 1  Introduction  X  Objectives of the Study  3  Need for the Study  4  Hypotheses  6  Limitations of the Study  7  Definitions II.  HISTORICAL STATUS OF THE PROBLEM  10 16  Domestic Water Supply Systems  16  Recreation - A Complicating Factor  23  The Development of Recreation  23  Recreation and Domestic water Supply  28  III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES  36  General Procedure  36  The Study Area  37  vi Page  XV.  B r i t i s h Columbia  38  The P a c i f i c C o a s t S t a t e s  47  The Survey Design  58  The A n a l y s i s  63  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  68  The E s t a b l i s h e d Data Base  68  Land Use E f f e c t s  68  T r a n s m i s s i o n o f D i s e a s e v i a Water  76  Treatment o f Water  79  The R e c r e a t i o n a l Use C o n t r o v e r s y  83  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Survey R e s u l t s - MVTAB Analysis  86  G e n e r a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e Agencies B r i t i s h Columbia  89  P o p u l a t i o n Served Water Consumption  89  89 and Percentage  Domestic Use  90  Nature o f Water Supply and Treatment  90  Land S t a t u s  94  Management Agreements  95  Agency P e r s o n n e l  97  The P a c i f i c Coast S t a t e s  97  vii  Page P r e s e n t Management P o l i c i e s General P o l i c i e s  105 105  S i n g l e Use Agencies  107  Secondary Use Agencies  114  B r i t i s h Columbia  116  The P a c i f i c C o a s t S t a t e s  120  R e c r e a t i o n a l Use P o l i c i e s Recreation  P o t e n t i a l and O p p o r t u n i t y  124 124  Recreation A c t i v i t i e s  127  Recreation Controls  132  Recreation  136  Implications  R e g r e s s i o n and C o r r e l a t i o n A n a l y s i s  142  P r e l i m i n a r y Examination o f t h e Data  143  A n a l y s i s o f Data S e t One  145  A l l Regions Combined  145  A n a l y s i s o f Data S e t One by Region  153  B r i t i s h Columbia  154  P a c i f i c Coast S t a t e s  160  Explanation of the Indicated Relationships  167  A n a l y s i s o f Data S e t Two  179  viii Page V.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Present Management S i t u a t i o n  188 188  B r i t i s h Columbia  188  P a c i f i c Coast States  189  The R e a l i t i e s of Recreational Use  191  Recreational Use - Influencing Factors  193  Conclusions  196  REFERENCES APPENDIX I - Mailing Addresses f o r Survey Regions  202 206  APPENDIX I I - F i n a l Draft of Questionnaire  226  APPENDIX I I I - Regression Analysis Data Card Format  228  APPENDIX IV - Summaries of Management P o l i c i e s and Uses  233  APPENDIX V - Regression Analysis - Basic S t a t i s t i c s and Equations  264  ix LIST OP TABLES Page.  1.  Ten Leading Manufacturing Industries i n British Columbia.  48  2.  Demographic Characteristics of Study Regions.  54  3.  Comparison of Major Industries by Region.  56  4. Regional Distribution of Agencies Surveyed.  61  5. Questionnaire Mailing Schedule* 6. Comparison of Recommended Raw Water Quality Criteria*  64  7. Details of Questionnaire Response  88  8*  91  Basic Agency Characteristics - by Region.  9* Nature of water Supply by Region. 10*  74  93  Summary of Water Treatment by Region - A l l Agencies Included,  100  Summary of Land status - by Region.  102  12a. Agreements Regarding Sanitary F a c i l i t i e s .  103  12b. Agreements Regarding Land Treatment Measures*  104  11.  13.  Regional summary of Agency Personnel Numbers and Disciplines. Summary of Indicated Management Policy.  106 108  15.  Summary of Reasons for Single-use Management Policy - by Region.  109  16.  Secondary Uses Allowed - A l l Regions.  118  17*  Regional Summary of Reported Uses Irrespective of Agency Policy*  123  14.  X  Page 13.  Summary of Respondent-rated Their Own Lands.  Potential of  126  19a. Recreation Activities Occurring on Watershed Lands - by Survey Region.  130  19b. Recreation Activities Occurring on Reservoirs - by Survey Region.  131  20.  Simple Correlation Coefficients - A l l Variables - A l l Regions Combined.  147  21.  Description of I n i t i a l Multiple-use Regression Equations - A l l Regions Combined.  152  22.  Description of I n i t i a l Recreational Use Regression Equations - A l l Regions Combined.  152  23.  Description of I n i t i a l Regression Equations - for British Columbia only.  155  24.  Variables Tested Using All-Combinations Option - British Columbia only.  156  25.  Simple Correlation Coefficients - British Columbia only.  158  26.  Details of Significant Equations for ¥1, Y2 and Y3 - British Columbia only.  159  27.  Description of I n i t i a l Regression Equations - for Pacific Coast States  162  28a. Variables Tested Using All-Combinations Option - Washington and Oregon only.  163  28b. Variables Tested Using All-Combinations Option - California only.  164  29.  Simple Correlation Coefficients - Pacific Coast states  165  30.  Details of Significant Equations for Y l - Washington and Oregon only.  167  xi  Page 31,  32,  33,  34.  Data Set Two - Simple C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s - by R e s e r v o i r Type - A l l Regions Combined,  181  D e s c r i p t i o n o f S i g n i f i c a n t Equations f o r Data S e t Two - A l l Regions Combined.  183  Data S e t Two - Simple C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s - by R e s e r v o i r Type.  184  D e s c r i p t i o n o f s i g n i f i c a n t Equations f o r T e r m i n a l R e s e r v o i r s - by Region.  186  xii  LIST OF FIGURES  Areas of B r i t i s h Columbia Over 3000 Fset i n Elevation.  39  2.  Physiographic Regions of B r i t i s h Columbia.  41  3.  Locations! and Vegetational Climatic' Regions, and Vegetative. Cover 'Types of B r i t i s h Columbia*  45  4.  Physiographic Regions of P a c i f i c Coast States.  50  5.  Average Annual P r e c i p i t a t i o n f o r Washington and Oregon.  51  1.  6.  Simple C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t Adjustment Chart.  148  I 1  AN ANALYSIS OF THE RECREATIONAL USE OF MUNICIPAL WATER-SUPPLY AREAS  X.  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  Introduction  On Friday/ October 11th, 1968, the f i r s t of two a r t i c l e s concerning the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the Greater Vancouver water D i s t r i c t watersheds appeared Sun newspaper*  i n the Vancouver  A reporter-photographer team t r a v e l l e d  through the Capilano River watershed under the escort of a Water D i s t r i c t security o f f i c e r t o observe the forbidden beauties along t h i s mountain road.  This area, the adjacent  Seymour River catchment, and the more easterly Coquitlam catchment, a t o t a l of two hundred and twenty-six square miles, provide the Vancouver Lower Mainland with i t s domestic water  2  supply.  These watersheds a r e c l o s e d t o r e c r e a t i o n a l use a t  a l l times and e n t r y on approved b u s i n e s s i s a l l o w e d o n l y a f t e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n by the P u b l i c H e a l t h Department  t h a t the  person i s f r e e from any communicable d i s e a s e . In the second a r t i c l e , which appeared the f o l l o w i n g day. D i s t r i c t Commissioner  F.R.  B u n n e l l j u s t i f i e d the i s o l a t -  i o n p o l i c y on t h e b a s i s o f lower water p r o d u c t i o n c o s t s , between twenty-two  and t w e n t y - f i v e c e n t s p e r thousand g a l l o n s  f o r consumers i n the Vancouver Water D i s t r i c t .  He  indicated  t h a t a c l o s e d watershed i s f a r cheaper t o operate than an open watershed.  I n the same a r t i c l e , Robert B o s w e l l , o p e r a t i o n s  engineer o f t h e C a l g a r y Water Works, s t a t e d t h a t C a l g a r y water would c o s t about t w e n t y - f i v e c e n t s p e r thousand g a l l o n s i f the  t o t a l volume were e q u a l t o the Vancouver Water  p r o d u c t i o n o f 400 m i l l i o n g a l l o n s per day. shed i s open t o the p u b l i c ;  The C a l g a r y water-  the s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r i s used  f o r canoeing, rowing and s a i l i n g , c l u b s and p u b l i c gardens.  and i s surrounded by g o l f  There appears, t h e r e f o r e , t o be a  d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e s e two statements by two q u a l i f i e d men. are  District's  theoretically  Are c l o s e d watersheds cheaper t o o p e r a t e , o r  o p e r a t i n g c o s t s more c l o s e l y dependent on o t h e r management  considerations?  A r e water purveyors j u s t i f i e d i n m a i n t a i n i n g  3  t h e i r "no r e c r e a t i o n " p o l i c i e s ?  Indeed, do most water s u p p l y  systems operate under t h i s p o l i c y ?  These q u e s t i o n s and o t h e r s  which arose d u r i n g d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s s u b j e c t w i t h the author's t h e s i s a d v i s o r , Mr P.J. O o o l i n g , prompted t h e author t o embark on an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t , the r e c r e a t i o n a l use o f m u n i c i p a l water s u p p l y areas..  O b j e c t i v e s o f the Study  In undertaking t h i s study i t was the author's prime o b j e c t i v e t o a n a l y s e t h e q u e s t i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n a l use o f m u n i c i p a l water s u p p l y r e s e r v o i r s and watersheds and n o t t o b u i l d a case e i t h e r u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y f o r o r a g a i n s t r e c r e a t i o n . Having s e t t h i s g e n e r a l o b j e c t i v e , the author d e f i n e d s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s as f o l l o w s < 1.  t o a s c e r t a i n the p r e s e n t management p o l i c i e s o f B.C. water-supply  2.  agencies  t o compare p r e s e n t B.C. p o l i c i e s t o p r e s e n t p o l i c i e s i n t h e P a c i f i c c o a s t S t a t e s o f Washington, Oregon, and C a l i f o r n i a - on the b a s i s o f individual  systems and c o l l e c t i v e l y - and  explain basic differences  4  3*  to determine what factors influence the i n clusion of recreation as a resource use on municipal water-supply areas  4.  to examine the arguments f o r and against the use of these lands f o r recreation  5.  to examine the s c i e n t i f i c data regarding water contamination through r e c r e a t i o n a l use, the transmission of disease through water supplies, and the treatment of water to eliminate bacteria and viruses  6*  to examine the "costs" involved i n the use or non-use of these areas f o r recreation  7.  to draw some conclusions as to what should determine future management p o l i c i e s , and who should define these p o l i c i e s  I f these s p e c i f i c objectives have been met, then the second general objective, to make a worthwhile contribution to the solution of t h i s question, w i l l also have been met.  Heed f o r the Study  In examining the need f o r a study, one can focus  5  on both academic and p r a c t i c a l values.  I t i s the author's  opinion that those of us involved i n environmental management must concentrate on the p r a c t i c a l suspects of our f i e l d s . Theory has advanced f a r ahead of p r a c t i c e i n the environmental sciences.  Therefore, research must be p r a c t i c a l l y oriented  and aim t o f a c i l i t a t e the application of established p r i n c i p l e s . I t i s i n t h i s frame of reference that the author puts f o r t h the following needs f o r t h i s study: 1.  p o l i c y changes cannot be formulated u n t i l present p o l i c y i s known  2.  knowledge of the p o l i c i e s i n e c o l o g i c a l l y s i m i l a r regions provides some basis f o r comparison  3.  land-use p o l i c i e s cannot be debated without accurate knowledge of the b i o l o g i c a l facts r e l e vant to a l l the possible uses  4.  p o l i c y decisions must be based on informed s t a t e ments of a l l land-use philosophies  As i n most f i e l d s of investigation, detailed examination reveals weaknesses i n the t h e o r e t i c a l foundation;  i t is,  however, t h i s close scrutiny with a p r a c t i c a l eye which serves to focus further t h e o r e t i c a l research on the most v i t a l problems•  6  Hypotheses  Webster's Third New i n t e r n a t i o n a l Dictionary (190) defines hypothesis as "a proposition t e n t a t i v e l y assumed i n order t o draw out Its l o g i c a l or empirical consequences and so t e s t i t s accord with facts that are known or may be determined".  Hypotheses, therefore, provide f o r the researcher  points on which to focus both h i s data c o l l e c t i o n and h i s analysis. The f i r s t "proposition t e n t a t i v e l y assumed" i n t h i s study i s that the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of watersheds and t h e i r r e s e r v o i r s , and the production o f high q u a l i t y water f o r domestic consumption, are mutually compatible land uses* Secondly, i t i s hypothesised that the i n t e n s i t y of recreation occurring on a r e s e r v o i r or watershed i s f u n c t i o n a l l y related to one or more of the following5 -  present population served by the agency  -  present water consumption  -  percent domestic use  -  i n i t i a l q u a l i t y of the water supply  -  degree of treatment  -  l e g a l status of the buffer lands and watershed lands  employed  7  -  vegetative cover types of the buffer lands and watershed lands  -  amount of reservoir buffer lands and watershed lands  -  reservoir type  -  reservoir maximum capacity  -  reservoir surface area  -  d e s i r a b i l i t y of the area f o r recreation  -  supply of alternative recreation f a c i l i t i e s  -  proximity of the area t o population centers  -  amount of public pressure f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use  -  f e a s i b i l i t y of excluding r e c r e a t i o n a l use  -  l e g a l authority to provide recreational f a c i l i t i e s  -  professional background of personnel  In conducting t h i s project, the author attempted t o ascertain the 'facts* and subsequently t e s t each of these  hypotheses.  Limitations of the Study  In conducting any type of research project one must of necessity c l e a r l y define the limitations of the study, w i l l be investigated and what w i l l not?  In designing t h i s  survey of municipal water supply areas the author f i r s t of  what  8  a l l set a time scale l i m i t a t i o n ; characteristics I t was  only present water system  and management p o l i c i e s were enquired about.  f e l t that an attempt to s o l i c i t h i s t o r i c a l data i n  addition to current data would exceed the p r a c t i c a l l i m i t s of a questionnaire survey.  Furthermore current data i s  e s s e n t i a l to any discussion of future development p o s s i b i l i t i e s * Within t h i s time l i m i t a t i o n come others such as the p h y s i c a l l i m i t a t i o n of the  survey.  The prime area to be investigated was of B r i t i s h Columbia.  the Province  Not only i s t h i s area a p o l i t i c a l unit,  but also i t i s a physiographic region quite d i s t i n c t from the r e s t of Canada.  To provide a base for the comparison of  watershed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  and management p o l i c i e s the P a c i f i c  coast states of Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a were included i n the survey.  These three States provide a progressive  change from a region that i s e c o l o g i c a l l y ,  demographically,  and economically very s i m i l a r to B r i t i s h Columbia, to a region that i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n a l l of these aspects. Subordinate  to this s p a t i a l parameter i s a t h i r d  l i m i t a t i o n , that of supply system type.  The B r i t i s h Columbia  portion of the survey included a l l systems serving incorporated places with a population of one thousand or greater as reported  9  i n the Canada Census f o r 1961.  The mailing l i s t f o r a l l  municipal corporations and a d d i t i o n a l general information regarding domestic water supply systems i n B r i t i s h Columbia were obtained from the Water Rights Branch of the Department of Lands, Forests and water Resources (see Appendix Z ) . The survey of the P a c i f i c coast states included those systems serving incorporated places of one thousand population or greater, with the two further r e s t r i c t i o n s that the water must come from a surface source and that a portion of the water produced must be f o r domestic consumption. The s e l e c t i o n of water supply agencies i n Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a was based on information obtained from a U.S.  Public Health Service report (U.S. Dept. H.E.W. 1965).  Precise mailing addresses f o r the agencies selected were obtained from the Washington State Department of Health, the Oregon State Board of Health, and the C a l i f o r n i a State Department of Public Health r e s p e c t i v e l y (see Appendix Z ) .  10  Definitions  In studying anything whether a r t or science one i n v a r i a b l y uses terms that deserve or demand to be defined* Rather than c l u t t e r the main text with inconveniently placed explanations of these words or phrases, i t was decided to consolidate them i n a s p e c i a l subsection.  They have been  arranged alphabetically within several related groups which are as followst 1.  diseases and related terms: b a c t e r i a - microscopic plants with round, r o d l i k e , s p i r a l , or filamentous s i n g l e - c e l l e d or nonc e l l u l a r bodies cholera - an acute, s p e c i f i c , infectious and contagious disease a f f e c t i n g e s p e c i a l l y the terminal ileum of the small i n t e s t i n e ;  caused  by the comma b a c i l l u s , V i b r i o cholerae coliform b a c i l l u s - any of a number of b a c t e r i a e s p e c i a l l y of the genera Escherichia and  Aerobacter  normally commensal i n vertebrate intestines or l i v i n g i n s o i l and only occasionally of pathogenic significance  11  dysentery - an acute or chronic infectious disease caused by a protozoan or one-celled animal c a l l e d Entamoeba h i s t o l y t i c a , or by a number of s t r a i n s of B a c i l l u s dysenteriae, and characterized by involvement of the large i n t e s t i n e and d i s charges of blood and mucus enteric - of or r e l a t i n g t o the i n t e s t i n e infectious hepatitus - an i n f e c t i o n of the l i v e r , believed to be caused by one or more viruses, exhibiting several forms of d i f f e r i n g s e v e r i t y p o l i o m y e l i t i s - an acute, i n f e c t i o u s , and communicable, v i r u s caused disease a f f e c t i n g the c e n t r a l nervous system and frequently r e s u l t i n g i n p a r a l y s i s s e r o l o g i c a l - of or r e l a t i n g t o serums, t h e i r reactions and properties typhoid fever - an acute, i n f e c t i o u s , communicable disease, characterized by blood stream invasion, involvement of the lymphatic t i s s u e of the small i n t e s t i n e , high and continued or diarrhea.  fever and constipation  The disease i s caused by a motile,  non-spore-forming bacterium. Salmonella typhi v i r u s - any of a large group of submieroscopic i n -  12 f a c t i v e agents that are held! by some t o be l i v i n g organiejse and by others t o be complex protein  .  ntolec\2le3 containing nucleic acids and comparable to genes, that are capable, o f growth and m u l t i p l i cation only i n l i v i n g c o l l s , and- that cause various iinportant diseases 'in man, lower animals, or plants yellow fever - an acute. Infection o f man, caused by a v i r u s and transmitted 'to man by the b i t e of an infected' mosquito; dizziness,  characterised by headache,  rapid r i s e o f fever, nausea and vomiting;  death may occur 'on the s i x t h or seventh day of ' i l l * noas 2*  water supply management terms»  buffer land© - lands surrounding a reservoir which are maintained f o r the purpose of protecting the r e s e r v o i r from unwanted usee chlorine 'demand - the difference between the amount of chlorine added to water, and the amount o f c h l o r i n e , f r e e a v a i l a b l e and combined available, remaining i n the water a t the end of a s p e c i f i e d contact period a t a given termperaturo  13  c o l i f o r m count - t h e number o f c o l i f o r m  bacteria  organisms p e r 100 ml o f sample water d i s t r i b u t i o n reservoirs - r e s e r v o i r s within  the area  served and d e l i v e r i n g f i n i s h e d water r e a d y f o r consumption f l o c c u i a t i o n - t h e f o r m a t i o n o r union o f d i s c r e t e p a r t i c l e s i n t o s m a l l lumps o r l o o s e c l u s t e r s i n f i l t r a t i o n capacity  - t h e maximum r a t e ,  expressed  i n inches p e r hour, a t which water can pass from the s u r f a c e  o f t h e ground i n t o t h e s o i l mass  marginal c h l o r i n a t i o n - the a d d i t i o n o f c h l o r i n e t o water a t a c o n c e n t r a t i o n which r e s u l t s i n l i t t l e or no r e s i d u a l  chlorine  moderately p o l l u t e d water - water h a v i n g an e n t e r o v i r u s c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f 30 P P U / l i t r e plague forming u n i t - i s a s i n g l e  {a PPtJ -  infectious  virus particle) r e s i d u a l c h l o r i n e - t h a t amount o f e i t h e r f r e e o r combined c h l o r i n e t h a t e x i s t s i n a sample a t t h e time o f a n a l y s i s s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r - one which p r o v i d e s s t o r a g e o f unt r e a t e d water a t upstream p o i n t s  i n t h e watershed  14  terminal r e s e r v o i r - areas providing end storage of water p r i o r to treatment t u r b i d i t y - a measure of the resistance of water to the passage of l i g h t through i t watershed - a region or area bounded p e r i p h e r a l l y by a water parting and draining ultimately to a p a r t i c u l a r watercourse or body of water 3.  miscellaneous termst b i o t i c - of or r e l a t i n g to l i f e edaphic - of or r e l a t i n g to the s o i l f a u l t block mountains - mountains developed through f a u l t i n g of the earth's crust and subsequent erosion l e t t e r s patent - l e g a l papers which define the s p e c i f i c mandatory and e l e c t i v e functions of a p a r t i c u l a r corporate e n t i t y May games - games and dances related t o the celebration of May Day, a recognition of the a r r i v a l of the season of new vegetation morris dance - a vigorous dance performed by men wearing costumes and b e l l s , and carrying s t i c k s or  15  h a n d k e r c h i e f s and performed as a t r a d i t i o n a l p a r t of E n g l i s h pageants, p r o c e s s i o n s , and May Day games q u o i t s - the o r i g i n a l form o f horseshoes, p l a y e d with iron rings, English o r i g i n s k i t t l e s - an E n g l i s h form o f n i n e p i n s , a n o r t h European bowling game. Introduced from France  i n t h e 1300*s  16  l i e  HISTORICAL STATUS Of THE PROBLEM  Domestic Water Supply Systems  I n an age o f i n c r e a s i n g s o c i a l c o n s c i e n c e and  en-  v i r o n m e n t a l awareness, water, the second most important element o f l i f e ,  i s taken t o t a l l y f o r granted by most people  i n b o t h Canada and the U n i t e d s t a t e s .  F r e s h water a t the  t u r n o f a t a p i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be an ' i n a l i e n a b l e r i g h t * when i n f a c t i t i s an i n v a l u a b l e p r i v i l e g e .  C o n s i d e r the s t a t e o f  a modern c i t y t h a t i s suddenly d e p r i v e d o f i t s water s u p p l y no morning showers, no c o f f e e , no water f o r dishwashing  or  laundry, and worse than these, no water f o r the p r e p a r a t i o n o f foods or the d i s p o s a l o f wastes.  Innumerable  everyday  foods and a c t i v i t i e s are t o t a l l y dependent on water. dependence o f man  This  and h i s a c t i v i t i e s , although accentuated by  today's u r b a n i z a t i o n , i s not a phenomenon p e c u l i a r t o t h i s century.  H i s t o r i c a l l y , water supply has been one o f man's  most v i t a l concerns and he has sought t o a s s u r e i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y i n s e v e r a l ways.  N a t u r a l s u p p l i e s such as r i v e r s and l a k e s  were favoured sources and o f t e n the main f a c t o r i n t h e location of settlements.  The e a r l i e s t a l t e r n a t i v e t o an  1?  adjacent 1940}.  s u r f a c e s u p p l y was a w e l l (Tmrneaure'and R u s s e l l , Ancient  h i s t o r y records  t h e importance o f w e l l s i n  e a r l y Greece, and the remains o f e a r l y community w e l l s a r e numerous i n t h e c o u n t r i e s o f the middle and f a r E a s t . l o c a t i o n o f a settlement  I f the  was unfavourable f o r t h e development  o f w e l l s and nearby s u r f a c e sources were u n s u i t a b l e , r e l i a b l e s u p p l y was obtained  a  through t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f  aqueducts and r e s e r v o i r s t o t r a n s p o r t and s t o r e water from some d i s t a n t s o u r c e .  T h i s technique was most h i g h l y developed  by t h e Romans and used e x t e n s i v e l y throughout t h e Empire. Rome i t s e l f was served  by up t o n i n e aqueducts which s u p p l i e d  approximately f i f t y m i l l i o n g a l l o n s d a i l y , o r about gallons per capita.  fifty  Of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i s t h e f a c t t h a t  p r i o r t o about 312 B.C., Rome's water was obtained  from t h e  T i b e r and from s p r i n g s and w e l l s i n t h e immediate v i c i n i t y , but t h i s water f i n a l l y became s o b a d l y p o l l u t e d t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y t o b r i n g a p u r e r s u p p l y from d i s t a n t sources (Turneaure and R u s s e l l , 1940). The f a l l o f t h e Roman Empire brought w i t h i t t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e aqueducts and i n g e n e r a l t h e e n t i r e s u b j e c t o f water s u p p l y was s a d l y n e g l e c t e d Ages.  during the Middle  Undoubtedly t h e t e r r i b l e ravages o f p e s t i l e n c e through-  18  out  t h i s p e r i o d were t o a g r e a t e x t e n t t h e r e s u l t o f t h e use  of g r o s s l y p o l l u t e d water. the  Hot u n t i l about t h e b e g i n n i n g o f  seventeenth c e n t u r y was t h e r e any g e n e r a l improvement i n  water s u p p l y and s a n i t a r y systems.  Throughout t h e seventeenth  and e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s p r o g r e s s was slow and developments were c o n f i n e d m a i n l y t o t h e c i t i e s o f P a r i s and London.  Water-  powered pumps were used i n b o t h c i t i e s between 1608 and 1760 and i n 1619 the Mew R i v e r Company o f London i n i t i a t e d t h e p r i n c i p l e o f s u p p l y i n g each house w i t h water (Turneaure and R u s s e l l , 1940).  Between 1760 and 1790 steam-powered  pumps  were brought i n t o use and gave a g r e a t impetus t o t h e d e v e l o p ment o f water works.  During the nineteenth century history,  began t o r e p e a t i t s e l f and t h e s e r a p i d l y growing c i t i e s found, l i k e a n c i e n t Rome, t h a t t h e i r water s u p p l i e s were d e t e r i o r a t ing. the  Large s c a l e sand f i l t r a t i o n was i n t r o d u c e d i n 1829 by C h e l s e a Company o f London t o improve t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e  r i v e r water.  By 1892 P a r i s had c o n s t r u c t e d t h r e e aqueducts  t o p r o v i d e a s u p p l y o f water f o r domestic purposes and London was o b t a i n i n g supplementary water from s p r i n g s and w e l l s i n the  surrounding chalk d i s t r i c t s .  The q u e s t i o n o f q u a l i t y was  b e g i n n i n g t o r e c e i v e as much a t t e n t i o n as q u a n t i t y . The development o f water systems i n N o r t h America  19  very c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l l e d that of Europe.  The f i r s t  water works were b u i l t i n Boston, Massachusetts,  domestic  i n 1652  operated under the force of gravity (Blake, 1956).  and  Th® system  consisted of a l o g conduit l i n e running from nearby wells and springs to a small reservoir which provided storage of water f o r domestic use and f i r e suppression.  This e a r l i e s t attempt  never equalled the expectations of i t s promoters and eventually abandoned.  was  During the next one hundred years  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania l e d the way domestic water-supply systems.  i n the development of  Stimulated by the repeated  occurrence of yellow fever epidemics throughout nearly a l l of the newly f l o u r i s h i n g ports along the eastern coast, the C i t y Council of Philadelphia embarked on a long, c o s t l y and extremely controversial program to provide a h e a l t h f u l and dependable supply of water f o r i t s c i t i z e n s .  The question of  private c o n t r o l or p u b l i c c o n t r o l formed the base f o r much of the argument with support f o r p r i v a t e control coming from businessmen and landowners who had d i s t i n c t l y vested interests i n the matter.  Similar debates were waged i n most  of the other c i t i e s such as Boston, Hew  York and Baltimore.  By 1860 these communities a l l had water-supply systems, but the problems were f a r from being solved.  Production capacities  20  were never able to keep pace with the growth In water eonsumption, and the r a p i d l y increasing population densities throughout the surrounding areas presented an increasingly s i g n i f i c a n t threat to the p u r i t y of the supply r i v e r s . A l though there was considerable pressure from various groups and individuals t o i n s t a l l sand f i l t e r s of the type i n common use throughout Europe, the water purveyors of the day were very reluctant to do so and some even stubbornly opposed t o the idea.  I t was not u n t i l thespring of 1885 when a severe  outbreak of typhoid fever struck the town of Plymouth, Pennsylvania  (Blake, 1956), and the source of contamination  was shown t o be one typhoid case located miles upstream, that municipal authorities were convinced of the necessity to f i l t e r and otherwise t r e a t water supplies o r i g i n a t i n g from less than f u l l y protected watersheds.  Even with t h i s con-  c l u s i v e example of disease transmission by water, i t was not u n t i l a f t e r 1910 that f i l t r a t i o n of water was widespread and other techniques such as c h l o r i n a t i o n , aeration, and taste and odour c o n t r o l came into some use.  As medical knowledge  increased i t ifas established that i n addition t o typhoid fever, dysentery and cholera were water-borne diseases.  Continued  research pointed t o the possible existence of many other  21  b a c t e r i a l d i s e a s e s capable o f b e i n g spread through water s u p p l i e s and i n t r o d u c e d the s u b j e c t o f v i r u s e s , agents o f d i s e a s e which c o u l d not be removed by normal f i l t r a t i o n . T h i s burgeoning t h r e a t from d i s e a s e promoted d r a s t i c changes i n the watershed management p o l i c i e s o f the e a s t e r n U n i t e d States.  A u t h o r i t i e s began t o agree that th© g r e a t e s t p r o -  t e c t i o n t h a t a c i t y c o u l d have was  t o keep i t s water s u p p l y  f r e e from p o l l u t i o n i n the f i r s t p l a c e .  Only by  preventing  a l l c o n t a c t w i t h sewage c o u l d they ensure the p u r i t y of t h e i r water.  Thus the concept  of the  ' i n v i o l a t e watershed' began  t o emerge. Throughout the next t h i r t y years the problem of r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g consumption continued t o plague water a u t h o r i t i e s i n a l l r e g i o n s o f the c o u n t r y . demand were never l a r g e enough and new  Estimates o f f u t u r e  sources were loaded  t o maximum c a p a c i t y as q u i c k l y as they were brought i n t o operation. Angeles,  The west c o a s t c i t i e s o f San F r a n c i s c o and  Los  l e a d e r s i n water s u p p l y development i n the S t a t e o f  C a l i f o r n i a , were f o r c e d i n t o b o l d a c t i o n t o ease the demands of t h e i r expanding p o p u l a t i o n s  (Blake, 1956).  Zn the a r i d  southwest s u i t a b l e sources o f water f o r domestic use were not o v e r l y abundant, and, once the a d j a c e n t s u p p l i e s were f u l l y  22  utilised,  expansion meant the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f water over  considerable distances.  Zn 1913  the c i t y of Los Angeles  r e c e i v e d i t s f i r s t water from the Owens R i v e r aqueduct, a phenomenal p r o j e c t 233 m i l e s i n l e n g t h and o r i g i n a t i n g on e a s t e r n s l o p e s o f the S i e r r a Nevada mountains (Harding,  the  1960).  By the middle o f the 1930's the newly formed M e t r o p o l i t a n Water D i s t r i c t  o f Southern C a l i f o r n i a was  deeply  involved i n  the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the C o l o r a d o R i v e r Aqueduct which would b r i n g water over 240 m i l e s and 1,300  i n p l a c e s r a i s e i t as much as  f e e t h i g h e r than the i n t a k e .  Developments by  San  F r a n c i s c o and the E a s t Bay M u n i c i p a l U t i l i t y D i s t r i c t were o f a s i m i l a r nature but s u b s t a n t i a l l y s m a l l e r and  involved  the c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f s e v e r a l companies t o form m u n i c i p a l utility districts.  These aqueduct developments d i d not,  however, s o l v e the problem o f water shortage,  i n s t e a d , as  had o c c u r r e d  i n the East, the water demands i n c r e a s e d  the shortage  remained.  With the continued  and  development i n a l l s e c t o r s o f  the economy and the ever i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n , the management o f domestic water supply systems became i n c r e a s i n g l y complex.  Water treatment f a c i l i t i e s improved g r e a t l y and  d i s t r i b u t i o n methods gained  i n e f f i c i e n c y and r e l i a b i l i t y .  23  Watershed management p r a c t i c e s e v o l v e d i n response tog (1) the l a n d ownership p a t t e r n o f the a r e a , (2) the e s t a b l i s h e d water r i g h t s system, and  (3) the enacted water  laws.  Recreation * A Complicating Factor  The Development o f R e c r e a t i o n  The advancement o f domestic water s u p p l y t e c h nology t o p r e s e n t l e v e l s spanned over t h r e e hundred y e a r s . D u r i n g t h i s time v i r t u a l l y every a s p e c t o f European American  s o c i e t i e s underwent dramatic changes.  c e n t u r y England l e i s u r e was  and North  Zn seventeenth  almost e x c l u s i v e l y the p r e r o g a t i v e  o f the landed n o b i l i t y , and the w e a l t h i e r c l a s s e s i n the towns.  The l i v e s o f the lower c l a s s e s were o c c u p i e d l a r g e l y  i n e a t i n g , d r i n k i n g , working, and s l e e p i n g . a f t e r the g e n e r a l l y compulsory  However, Sundays,  church attendance, were o f t e n  g i v e n over t o r e c r e a t i o n - rough-and-tumble s p o r t s , m o r r i s dances and Hay games enjoyed by the young - s k i t t l e s q u o i t s p l a y e d by t h e i r s e n i o r s (Hyde, 1935), amount o f *joy* was  condemned by the P u r i t a n s ;  and  Even t h i s s m a l l "all  idle  24  p u r s u i t s were a S a t a n i c t r a p t o l u r e the g o d l y from the p a t h o f duty"  ( D u l l e s , 1965)*  Consequently,  m i n o r i t y groups sought out t h e New  when these r e l i g i o u s  World t o escape p e r s e c u t i o n ,  they brought w i t h them t h e i r a u s t e r e code and t h e  determinat-  i o n that t h e r e s h o u l d be no t r a c e o f w o r l d l i n e s a i n t h i s U t o p i a a c r o s s the s e a s . colonists well.  I n i t i a l l y these ideas s e r v e d t h e  The V e r y s u r v i v a l o f the e a r l y s e t t l e m e n t s  depended on day-long labour*  As the c o l o n i e s gained economic  s e c u r i t y and more and more non-Puritans a r r i v e d , p r o h i b i t i o n o f 'recreation« became l e s s and l e s s f e a s i b l e .  By the e a r l y  e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y farmers and merchants a l i k e had sought  out  and developed o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r a wide v a r i e t y o f r e c r e a t i o n a l activities*  L e i s u r e time was,  however, s t i l l a v e r y minute  p o r t i o n of the average c i t i z e n ' s l i f e .  Acceptance  o r con-  demnation o f p l e a s u r a b l e a c t i v i t i e s depended v e r y g r e a t l y on the r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h s o f t h e r e l i g i o u s f a c t i o n s , and  the  p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e c r e a t i o n having some c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the development o f s a f e water s u p p l i e s was  n o t even c o n c e i v e d o f  a t t h a t time. The b e g i n n i n g o f the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y found post-' r e v o l u t i o n America e n j o y i n g such amusements ass  dancing,  music, walking, r i d i n g , s a i l i n g , s h o o t i n g , chess, c a r d s  and  25  dramatic exhibitions.  Changes were soon to come.  The f i r s t  h a l f of the century brought a transformation from a r e l a t i v e l y simple a g r i c u l t u r a l community into a complex urbanised and i n d u s t r i a l i z e d society.  Coincident with t h i s s p a t i a l and  economic t r a n s i t i o n came a s t i f f e n i n g of r e l i g i o u s attitudes toward recreation and an emphasis on the n o b i l i t y of 'honest toil'.  The V i c t o r i a n Age of repression was at hand.  a c t i v i t i e s were once again the f i r s t step to h e l l .  Leisure  Long hours  of work were encouraged by the Church to prevent idleness and welcomed by the d o l l a r hungry merchant-manufacturer class.  The attempted p r o h i b i t i o n of pleasurable a c t i v i t i e s  did  not succeed.  The forces generated by urbanization and  the  r i s e of a new working class overpowered V i c t o r i a n prudery.  During the same period i n England, France and other western European countries s i m i l a r technological advances created s i m i l a r s o c i a l pressures with the r e s u l t that the working classes began t o demand shorter hours and a chance to d i s ^ cover the joy of l i v i n g .  So i t was that V i c t o r i a n repression  and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n a c t u a l l y promoted the gradual expansion of  l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s which have ever since played an i n -  creasingly important part i n our s o c i e t i e s . Zn the l a t t e r h a l f of the nineteenth century enter-  26  tainment f a c i l i t i e s i n c r e a s e d g r e a t l y w i t h i n the U.S. theatre flourished; wide p o p u l a r i t y . went.  The  amusement parks and c a r n i v a l s enjoyed  R o l l e r - s k a t i n g and c y c l i n g f a d s came and  B a s e b a l l and f o o t b a l l developed and became n a t i o n a l  i n s t i t u t i o n s , but as s p e c t a t o r entertainment r a t h e r than participation sports,  w i t h the advent o f the automobile people  began t o v e n t u r e *out i n t o the c o u n t r y the b i g c i t y * .  1  or conversely, 'into  M o b i l i t y f o r the masses was  soon t o come.  E a r l y automobiles were extremely u n r e l i a b l e , expensive t o buy and expensive t o m a i n t a i n . rich.  They were a new amusement f o r t h e  By 1911, however, Henry F o r d had e n t e r e d the automobile  b u s i n e s s , and by 1914 h i s Model T was  the most f a m i l i a r o f  a l l makes and c o u l d be purchased f o r as low as f o u r dollars.  hundred  The u n v e i l i n g o f the ' r e v o l u t i o n a r y * Model A i n  1927 v e r y n e a r l y caused r i o t s i n D e t r o i t , C l e v e l a n d , Kansas c i t y and.New York.  Succeeding y e a r s saw the p o p u l a r i t y o f  the automobile r i s e s t i l l h i g h e r ;  more and more p e o p l e were  e n j o y i n g a Sunday o u t i n g or a h o l i d a y t r i p i n t o the c o u n t r y , and by the 1930*s more than t w e n t y - f i v e m i l l i o n passenger c a r s were on the road* (Dulles,  America had become a n a t i o n on wheels  1965). A u t o m o b i l i t y combined w i t h the i n c r e a s i n g amounts  27  of  l e i s u r e time a v a i l a b l e to the masses g r e a t l y stimulated  what can be termed the 'outdoor movement*.  The car made week-  end excursions to hunt or f i s h v a s t l y easier?  i t made camping  possible f o r many people f o r whom woods, mountains and streams had formerly been i n a c c e s s i b l e . The people were beginning to move 'back to the good earth*.  The i s o l a t i o n of c i t y  life  and the r e p e t i t i v e nature of factory work had eliminated pride of craftsmanship and the s a t i s f a c t i o n that comes from transforming raw materials into a f i n i s h e d product. t h i s unconscious of  To  fill  need many people were seeking the 'challenge*  l i v i n g i n the out-of-doors;  f o r some the challenge  was  merely journeying into the country and enjoying a p i c n i c by a stream;  f o r others the challenge was to compress oneself,  one's family, and the n e c e s s i t i e s of l i f e into the ' t i n L i z z i e * and bump o f f across country f o r a week or more i n what might approximate a second pioneer movement.  From a l l  urban centres people were venturing out i n search of recreation space. i n Europe the development of recreation followed a somewhat s i m i l a r pattern, but without the great 'back to the good earth* movement. A c t i v i t i e s such as c y c l i n g , hiking, and mountain climbing had remained, i n many locales, much  28  closer t o the everyday way of l i f e , and the generally lower standards of l i v i n g precluded the development of the •car for of  every family' philosophy that engulfed the American way life.  Recreation and Domestic Water Supply  An examination of man's past reveals that t r a d i t i o n a l l y man i s a p o l l u t e r ,  with almost u n f a i l i n g r e g u l a r i t y man  has destroyed h i s surroundings t o better h i s material position* The growth of the North American culture has demonstrated most c l e a r l y .  this  As the c i t i e s , both eastern and western, i n -  creased i n p h y s i c a l s i z e and population, the q u a l i t y of the environment ion  i n and around them s t e a d i l y decreased.  Concentrat-  of i n d u s t r i a l and domestic a c t i v i t i e s into r e l a t i v e l y  small areas resulted i n rapid deterioration i n the q u a l i t y of water obtained from both r i v e r s and wells.  Advances i n  medical research made c l e a r the dangers of polluted water supplies, and, combined with public pressure, i n i t i a t e d the quest f o r new sources of water. secured;  Increased supplies were  the urban expansion continued;  p o l l u t i o n of water  courses increased, and the new supplies became i n s u f f i c i e n t  29  i n quantity  and  water  o f t e n l a c k i n g i n q u a l i t y once a g a i n ,  agencies pushed f u r t h e r i n t o the h i n t e r l a n d t o f i n d more pure water,  Always the answer was  given to curbing The necessitated  new  sources w i t h no  thought  the p o l l u t i o n o f l o c a l waterways.  economic development and  population  growth t h a t  the c r e a t i o n o f s o p h i s t i c a t e d water systems  brought w i t h i t ever i n c r e a s i n g demands f o r r e c r e a t i o n and  facilities.  J u s t as water purveyors were l o o k i n g  undeveloped areas, so were the i n c r e a s i n g l y a f f l u e n t mobile c i t i z e n s o f t h e s e c i t i e s .  Areas t h a t were  space to  and  supplying  'pure* water were i n demand f o r p i c n i c k i n g , camping, h i k i n g , f i s h i n g , and h u n t i n g .  By t h i s time m e d i c a l s c i e n c e had  t h a t d i s e a s e s such as t y p h o i d were water-borne, and  f e v e r , d y s e n t e r y and  proved  cholera  numerous o t h e r b a c t e r i a l d i s e a s e s a l o n g  w i t h the v i r u s e s , almost unknown q u a n t i t i e s , were suspected o f b e i n g spread through water s u p p l i e s .  Consequently, t h i s  ' i n v a s i o n ' o f the c o u n t r y s i d e by r e c r e a t i o n i s t s was welcomed by those r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r supplying  not  water t o  the  public. As the e a s t e r n  a r e s u l t o f the e a r l y s e t t l e m e n t p a t t e r n s States  and  the e a r l y F e d e r a l  land  in  disposal  p o l i c i e s throughout the S t a t e s , much o f the r u r a l and  un-  30  developed land was  i n private ownership.  In the development  of domestic supply watersheds private control of the land proved to be quite inconvenient.  Agencies wishing to control  watershed uses were forced to e i t h e r purchase the lands i n volved, press f o r l e g i s l a t i v e controls, or convince the land owners of the d e s i r a b i l i t y of sanitary controls and educate them i n the necessary techniques. a c q u i s i t i o n was the most favoured.  Where possible land Experience soon showed ,  however, that the general p u b l i c considered  lands owned by  p u b l i c agencies to be public property and therefore open f o r any desired use  (Banks, 1940).  'No trespassing* signs did  l i t t l e good and minor p o l i c i n g regulations were disregarded. Conversely, private water companies generally received the respect due private ownership. allowed was  Limited public access when  viewed as a p r i v i l e g e and necessary r e s t r i c t i v e  measures were respected.  This misconception that access and  use of p u b l i c l y owned lands i s a 'right' and not a  'privilege'  s t i l l p r e v a i l s i n North American society. As demands f o r recreation areas continued  to out-  grow the supply, many water supply agencies were forced to ease the unwanted pressure on t h e i r lands by providing designated areas f o r l i m i t e d a c t i v i t i e s (Banks, 1940).  While  31  the general p o l i c y continued to be the exclusion of p u b l i c access t o watersheds and reservoirs, by 1940 some o f f i c i a l s were p u b l i c l y supporting properly planned and Integrated use of these lands.  At the Annual Conference of the American  Water Works Association, May 6th, 1948, s i x of the seven participants i n a panel discussion of the 'Public Use of Reservoir lands and Waters  1  supported a t least p a r t i a l use  of these areas f o r recreation (Bonyun, 1948).  During the  next decade the question of p u b l i c access to domestic water supply areas was the basis f o r much controversy, with soc a l l e d experts advocating both open and closed p o l i c i e s ,  in  May of 1957 the A.W.W.A. Board of Directors accepted and passed the following resolutions Resolved; that any decision on recreation, or other secondary uses of r e s e r v o i r s , be l e f t e n t i r e l y t o l o c a l d i s c r e t i o n , and that the American Water Works Association r e g i s t e r i t s opposition t o state l e g i s l a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o opening domestic water supply reservoirs t o f i s h i n g or other secondary uses. This statement was considered by many Association members t o be i n s u f f i c i e n t l y e x p l i c i t t o s e t f o r t h the o f f i c i a l attitude of the A.W.W.A. on what was becoming an ever more v i t a l problem.  An ad hoc committee was formed t o  study the subject i n d e t a i l and submit a more comprehensive  32  p o l i c y proposal*  At the 1958 Annual Meeting the Board of  Directors unanimously passed a p o l i c y statement, presented i n f u l l i n Appendix IV, which b a s i c a l l y excludes recreation from a l l supply areas except upstream reservoirs that are already polluted to a degree requiring treatment techniques i n addition t o d i s i n f e c t i o n .  I f and when recreation i s per-  mitted on such an area, "determination of the kind and extent of r e c r e a t i o n a l use s h a l l be the sole r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the water works executive of the system involved" (A.W.W.A*, 1958).  At the time that t h i s p o l i c y statement was  Issued the  actual practices of water agencies throughout the United States varied from complete exclusion of a l l uses to complete freedom of a l l uses.  Similar v a r i a t i o n i n management p r a c t i c e between  regions and within regions exists at present. Xn the continuing debate between proponents and opponents of r e c r e a t i o n a l use of domestic water supply areas, the arguments put f o r t h by each side have tended to become somewhat standardised  ( T e l l e r , 1963).  The p r i n c i p a l reasons  given f o r advocating recreation on watersheds and  reservoirs  seem to be: (1)  The supply of available recreation land that i s close to metropolitan areas i s becoming severely  33  limited,, therefore single-use lands such as domestic water supply areas should be opened f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use, (2)  The r a p i d l y increasing density of population w i l l make f i l t r a t i o n of supplies inevitable;  therefore  early i n s t a l l a t i o n of required treatment  facilities  w i l l save money i n the long run. (3)  Municipally-owned  watershed and reservoir buffer  lands should not be regarded as "private" but as "public" property.  S i m i l a r l y , federal and state  lands are "public" lands and a l l should be u t i l i s e d to t h e i r f u l l e s t capacity. (4)  Presently there are metropolitan water systems operating without trouble which do not f i l t e r t h e i r water, but do allow r e c r e a t i o n a l use of t h e i r reservoirs and catchment areas.  (5)  Recreational user fees would o f f s e t a d d i t i o n a l expense to water agency.  (6)  Payment of any d e f i c i t due t o recreation a c t i v i t i e s from general taxation i s comparable t o the p r o v i s i o n of other p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s from general tax funds*  34  Some of the usual counter-arguments given by those opposing recreation on domestic catchments ares (1)  Where the water agency owns the catchment lands enforced opening of them f o r recreation would cons t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n o f property r i g h t s without compensation.  (2)  The opening of reservoirs and lands would reduce the l e v e l o f c o n t r o l over watershed sanitation, but would not free the c i t y or municipality from the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of supplying t h e i r consumers with pure water.  (3)  Increased p u b l i c access to watershed areas increases the r i s k of p o l l u t i o n and would necessitate more intensive treatment of water supply - often a t considerable expense to the consumers.  (4)  P o t e n t i a l l i a b i l i t y i n case of accidents on municipally-owned property.  (5)  Forest f i r e danger would be greatly increased by the presence of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s .  (6)  Increased use o f roads would mean higher maintenance costs.  35  (7)  Level of user fees which the p u b l i c i s w i l l i n g to pay i s i n s u f f i c i e n t to meet the costs of providing and maintaining adequate and safe f a c i l i t i e s .  This on-going b a t t l e by water purveyors to hold t h e i r domains ' i n v i o l a t e * , and by vested i n t e r e s t recreation groups to secure the 'forbidden pleasures' of 'Lake Pure water  1  has  clouded many of the r e a l issues concerning the wise development of these water and land resources.  36  III.  METHODS AND PROCEDURES  General Procedure  As outlined i n Chapter I the study was I n i t i a t e d p r i m a r i l y as a r e s u l t of two newspaper a r t i c l e s concerning the closed watershed p o l i c y of the Greater Vancouver Water District.  During the month of October 1968 the author made  a search of the l i t e r a t u r e concerning r e c r e a t i o n a l and multiple use of domestic supply watersheds and found that no studies of t h i s nature had been conducted i n B r i t i s h Columbia and that nearly a l l the published discussions of t h i s subject were non-Canadian i n o r i g i n .  The decision was made t o  study B r i t i s h Columbia i n conjunction with the American States of Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a f o r the reasons suggested previously and c l a r i f i e d i n the subsequent section. The time and funds available dictated that the survey method should be a mailed questionnaire t o ascertain present management p o l i c y and practices i n the regions studied.  Available  l i t e r a t u r e would be used to e s t a b l i s h both the 'facts' and the opinions concerning the hydrological and b i o l o g i c a l impact of various uses on watersheds and water production. The  37  a n a l y s i s was t o be computerized t o t h e extent p o s s i b l e and f o l l o w e d by i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by the author.  The  Study Area  T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l use o f m u n i c i p a l water supply r e s e r v o i r s and watersheds i n c l u d e d o n l y t h e f o u r p r e v i o u s l y s p e c i f i e d areas o f : B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada, and Washington S t a t e , Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a .  These  r e g i o n s have i n common e x t e n s i v e ocean s h o r e l i n e s , n o r t h south o r i e n t e d c o a s t a l and i n t e r i o r mountain ranges, and t h e r e s u l t i n g i n t e r i o r v a l l e y s and p l a t e a u x .  On a broad  classi-  f i c a t i o n l e v e l t h e c l i m a t e s grade from m i d - l a t i t u d e c o a s t a l evergreen f o r e s t and mountain types t o m i d - l a t i t u d e steppe, Mediterranean s c r u b woodland, and d e s e r t .  T h i s g r a d a t i o n , by  no means a r e g u l a r o r uniform phenomenon, i s e s s e n t i a l l y a r e s u l t o f the l a t i t u d i n a l d i f f e r e n c e s o f the r e g i o n s .  The  differences i n l a t i t u d e i n turn give r i s e t o v a r i a t i o n s i n the d i r e c t i o n and temperature o f t h e p r e v a i l i n g a i r and ocean currents.  The i n t e r a c t i o n s o f these v a r i a b l e s w i t h t h e p h y s i o -  g r a p h i c f e a t u r e s o f an area r e s u l t i n what has been termed the  'climate* o f t h e a r e a .  Considered  at a regional level  38  these Interactions produce the broad c l i m a t i c types mentioned previously.  At a sub-regional l e v e l the physiographic com-  p l e x i t i e s of a l l four areas r e s u l t i n extreme c l i m a t i c variations from one l o c a l i t y t o another.  In addition to these  physiographic and c l i m a t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , c e r t a i n demographic and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the regions exhibit s i g n i f i c a n t s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences.  What these are and how they  r e l a t e to the i n t e g r i t y of these regions as a study area w i l l be discussed i n the succeeding pages.  B r i t i s h Columbia  B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada's most westerly Province, l i e s between the forty-ninth and s i x t i e t h p a r a l l e l s of North latitude.  Nearly a l l of the Province i s situated within the  c o r d i l l e r o n region and consequently at l e a s t three-quarters of the land surface has an elevation of more than 3,000 feet (Brink, 1953)(Fig. 1). The area can be divided into nine main physiographic regions;  from west to east these are:  (1) Insular Mountains, (2) Coastal Trench,  (3) Coast Mountains,  (4) Plateaux System, (5) Omineca Mountain System - i n the north, (6) Columbia Mountain System - i n the south, (7) Rocky  40  Mountain Trench,  (8) Rocky Mountains, (9) Tramontane P l a i n s .  The r e l a t i v e s i z e s and p o s i t i o n s o f these areas a r e shown i n F i g u r e 2.  The c l i m a t e o f B r i t i s h Columbia c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e  broad t y p e s ;  (1) m i d - l a t i t u d e c o a s t a l evergreen  (2) mountain, (3) b o r e a l f o r e s t  (Rumney, 1963).  forest, Within a  B r i t i s h Columbia c o n t e x t these c l i m a t i c types c a n a l s o be c l a s s i f i e d and s u b - d i v i d e d on a l o c a t i o n a l b a s i s . l a t i t u d e c o a s t a l evergreen as:  The mid-  f o r e s t type c a n be r e - c l a s s i f i e d  (!) west c o a s t type, and (2) southwest c o a s t type  (Government o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963).  The west c o a s t type  r e c e i v e s a mean annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n r a n g i n g from f i f t y t o more than one hundred inches and has mean monthly  temperatures  v a r y i n g from t h i r t y - f i v e t o s i x t y degrees F a h r e n h e i t .  The  windward, o r g e n e r a l l y western, s i d e s o f t h e i s l a n d s , r i d g e s and mountains r e c e i v e t h e most p r e c i p i t a t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e the s m a l l e s t range i n temperature*  The southwest c o a s t type  occurs over a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l a r e a i n c l u d i n g t h e lower F r a s e r v a l l e y , the Sechelt penninsula, the southeastern p o r t i o n o f Vancouver I s l a n d and most o f t h e G u l f I s l a n d s .  This area  o c c u p i e s a l e e p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e normal p a t h o f t h e P a c i f i c storms*  c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e average annual  precipitation  i s l e s s than f i f t y inches and t h e s o u t h - e a s t e r n c o a s t o f  42  Vancouver Island receives less than t h i r t y inches annually. The mean monthly temperatures range from t h i r t y - f i v e to s i x t y - f i v e degrees Fahrenheit and the growing season averages two hundred and f i f t y - f i v e days. In a similar fashion the 'mountain  1  c l i m a t i c type  can be subdivided into at least four sections, southwestern i n t e r i o r , southeastern i n t e r i o r , c e n t r a l i n t e r i o r , and northern interior.  Although these sections are s u f f i c i e n t l y uniform  to warrant c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as types, throughout each the c l i m a t i c factors vary considerably depending on aspect and elevation.  The southwestern and southeastern sections have  quite s i m i l a r temperature regimes, mean monthly temperatures varying from zero to seventy degrees Fahrenheit?  however,  the southeastern section i s more mountainous and consequently receives more p r e c i p i t a t i o n .  The southeastern v a l l e y bottoms  receive as low as f i f t e e n inches annually while the higher elevations receive up to s i x t y - f i v e inches.  In contrast t o  t h i s the southwestern section averages less than twenty inches of p r e c i p i t a t i o n annually with some well-protected valleys receiving less than ten inches.  The c e n t r a l i n t e r i o r section  has r e l a t i v e l y humid conditions r e s u l t i n g from increased prec i p i t a t i o n and lower average temperatures compared to the  43  southwest s e c t i o n .  Annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n averages twenty  inches and t h e mean monthly temperatures  v a r y from a January  low o f t e n degrees t o a J u l y h i g h o f s i x t y degrees F a h r e n h e i t , w i t h i n t h i s r e g i o n t h e f r o s t - f r e e p e r i o d i s s h o r t and unr e l i a b l e , as evidenced by t h e Vanderhoof a r e a which has exp e r i e n c e d f r o s t d u r i n g every month o f t h e y e a r .  The f o u r t h  s e c t i o n , t h e n o r t h e r n i n t e r i o r , i s s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y undeveloped and few c l i m a t i c r e c o r d s a r e a v i i a b l e .  Characteristically  the w i n t e r s a r e l o n g and c o l d , the summers s h o r t and c o o l . Average monthly temperatures  range from zero t o s l i g h t l y  less  than s i x t y degrees F a h r e n h e i t and annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n v a r i e s from e i g h t e e n t o t h i r t y i n c h e s . W i t h i n B r i t i s h Columbia t h e • b o r e a l f o r e s t '  climatic  type occupies t h e n o r t h e a s t e r n c o r n e r where i t i n t e r m i x e s w i t h the 'mountain* t y p e .  T h i s a r e a because o f i t s c o n t i n e n t a l  l o c a t i o n experiences c o n s i d e r a b l y more extreme c o n d i t i o n s than the r e g i o n t o the west.  B r i t i s h Columbia's c o l d e s t  w i n t e r s occur here w i t h mean monthly temperatures minus e i g h t degrees F a h r e n h e i t .  Conversely,  as low as  i t a l s o experiences  h o t summers and the f r o s t - f r e e p e r i o d i s s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w a r a b l e a g r i c u l t u r e i n t h e Peace R i v e r b a s i n . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f these l o c a t i o n a l l y based  44  c l i m a t i c regions t o the broad vegetational c l i m a t i c types, and t o the r e l a t i v e l y complex vegetative cover types of the Province, are presented i n Figure 3. Within t h i s vast expanse of mountains and v a l l e y s , over 350,000 square miles, are scattered approximately 1.8 m i l l i o n people.  Of t h i s t o t a l , over f i f t y percent i s con-  centrated within one hundred miles of the largest c i t y , Vancouver.  Zn common with a l l areas of North America, urban  dwellers f a r outnumber non-urban dwellers.  According t o the  l a s t Dominion Bureau of s t a t i s t i c s Census i n 1966,  just over  seventy-five percent of B r i t i s h Columbians l i v e i n urban areas (Government of Canada, 1969).  C l e a r l y the s p a t i a l d i s -  t r i b u t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia's population i s very uneven, a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c common to most of Canada.  Youthfulness i s  another population c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of great importance t o B r i t i s h Columbia's future development.  Nearly h a l f of her  c i t i z e n s are under twenty-five years of age and over seventy percent are under f o r t y - f i v e years of age (Government of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969).  During the period from 1961 t o 1966  the population increased an average of three percent, the highest i n Canada. due to migration;  Of t h i s increase, f i f t y - s e v e n percent was i n no other Province did the rate of i n -  45 Vegetatlvely-based Regions.  Climatic CLIMATIC REGIONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  Mid-latitude Coastal Evergreen Forest  A  Mountain  B  Boreal  C  Forest  Locatlonally-based Regions.  West C o a s t Southwest Coast Southwest Interior Southeast I n t e r i o r Central Interior Northern I n t e r i o r Northeast  Climatic  1  2  I 7  Vegetative Alpine  Cover  Types,  j  Boreal Coast Columbia Grassland Montane Subalpine Sources  Figure  3.  F o r e s t Regions o f Canada J.S. Rowe, 1959-  L o c a t i o n a l and V e g e t a t i o n a l C l i m a t i c Regions, and V e g e t a t i v e C o v e r T y p e s o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a .  46  crease from migration exceed the natural rate of increase. An examination of c e r t a i n economic s t a t i s t i c s shows why. This Province possesses a superabundance of natural resources. Her forests contain approximately one quarter of the standing timber i n North America and y i e l d an annual lumber production worth nearly f i v e times as much as any other Province of Canada (Government of Canada, 1969).  Her mountain r i v e r s and  r i c h ocean waters support a f i s h i n g industry which, on a value produced basis, consistently ranks f i r s t i n Canada.  British  Columbia also ranks second i n the production of furs, t h i r d i n manufacturing,  f i f t h i n mineral production and s i x t h i n  a g r i c u l t u r a l production.  Within the Province, forestry, mining  and agriculture rank f i r s t , second and t h i r d respectively among the primary industries.  Secondary processing of raw  materials i s becoming increasingly important to the economy, and the r e l a t i v e importance of manufacturing seen from Table 1.  industries can be  The prosperity of B r i t i s h Columbians i s  evidenced by the followings 1. Wages and salaries/employed person - highest i n Canada  -  $4,724.00 (1967)  2. Per capita personal income - second highest i n Canada  -  $2,579.00  47  3. Average number of hours worked/week - lowest i n Canada  -  37?9  4. Ratio of passenger cars to people ^ h i g h e s t i n Canada  -  Is3  This 'good l i f e ' that i s enjoyed by the 'average' c i t i z e n of B r i t i s h Columbia has brought with i t c e r t a i n 'complications' f o r resource managers;  increased demand f o r recreation  space and f a c i l i t i e s i s the one most pertinent t o t h i s study and i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e w i l l be discussed i n subsequent sections.  The P a c i f i c Coast States  natural phenomena occur i n time and space completely independent of man and h i s contrived boundaries and subdivisions. So i t i s that the physiographic types found i n B r i t i s h Columbia extend into Washington State, often known by d i f f e r e n t names, but nevertheless the same formations.  S i m i l a r l y , some of these  formations extend into Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a and some give way to new types.  The Insular Mountains of the Queen  Charlottes and Vancouver Island become the Olympic  Mountains  of northern Washington, the Klamath-Siskiyou Ranges of southern Oregon and northern C a l i f o r n i a , and f i n a l l y the Los Angeles and San Diego Ranges of southern C a l i f o r n i a (Eighsmith, 1968; United States Bureau of the Census, 1969).  A l l are  48  T a b l e 1.  Ten Leading Manufacturing I n d u s t r i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia  Industries  Net V a l u e o f P r o d u c t i o n 1966  Sawmills and p l a n i n g m i l l s  608.8  P u l p and paper m i l l s  474.3  Veneer and plywood m i l l s  151.3  ($1,000,000)  Petroleum and c o a l - p r o d u c t s industries  145.6  F i s h products  113.9  S l a u g h t e r i n g and meat p r o c e s s o r s  87.3  Dairy factories  72*5  Manufacturing o f i n d u s t r i a l chemicals  63.7  M i s c . food manufacturing  58.7  S h i p b u i l d i n g and r e p a i r  52.6  Sources  B.C. F a c t s and S t a t i s t i c s 1969, Dept. o f Zndust. Devel., Trade & Commerce, Economics and S t a t i s t i c s Br., Gov't, o f B.C. 76 pp.  49  portions of the most westerly ramparts of the North American C o r d i l l e r o n Region.  The Coastal Trench extends southward i n  the form of the Puget Sound Lowland, the Cowlitz Lowland and the Willamette River Lowland.  B r i t i s h Columbia's Coast Mountains  are known as the cascades i n the states.  Xn west-central  Oregon these mountains merge with the Klamath Ranges t o the west and i n doing so terminate the c o a s t a l trench.  Further  south these ranges divide once again t o form the Coast Ranges on the west, and the famous S i e r r a Nevada Mountains on the east with the Central V a l l e y of C a l i f o r n i a l y i n g between them (see F i g . 4).  To the east of the Cascades l i e s what i s known as  the Columbia Xntermontane.  This physiographic province i s  dominated i n the north by the Columbia River Basin.  Xn c e n t r a l  Oregon i t takes the form of mountains and uplands bounded on the south by the Harney High Lava P l a i n which i n turn grades into what i s known as the Basin and Range Province,  This area  consists of numerous f a u l t block mountains and troughs, and extends i n a southeasterly d i r e c t i o n into northeastern C a l i f o r n i a , Nevada and southeastern C a l i f o r n i a .  The Canadian  regions known as the Columbia Mountains, the Rocky Mountain Trench and the Rocky Mountains also extend southward but do not f a l l within the p o l i t i c a l bounds of Washington, Oregon or California.  , ,...»4Cey t o Phy s^teferaph i c : Ty,;es J t  Columbia  Mountain '*System  Columbia  Intermontane  ;  :  '2  Columbia B a s i n C e n t r a l Mountains Harney High Lava Plain B a s i n and Range P r o v i n c e Cascade  6  Mountains  " S i e r r a Nevada Mountains  7  W i l l a m e t t e - C o w l i t z - P u g e t r';  8  Lowland ' Central  Valley  C o a s t a l Mountains Olympics Coast Range KLamath-Siskiyou Mtns. C o a s t a l Uplands Los Angeles Ranges San Diego Ranges -y  :  F i g u r e !+.  10 ; 11' 12,. i y :  Ik:  15  P h y s i o g r a p h i c Regions o f P a c i f i c Coast S t a t e s . (Source: Highsmith, R.M. 1968.)  t w (Sistiss©^ molmtws® x&g'te&BQatela©salS^a? arafi wQ&t®w  If&ia d l s l s o & M y ©o^liestea  ©stt®®&3  iateras'&oii 62 ^fe© C e a t e a l  fiqp  s@utfewaj?(i l o g i c a l l y  (&mm®m  8&o£$&©ffn © o l i g e m i a *  teitag©  i t  g?a£ua&  tat  wallQy  tecraae®©  f o r W a s h i n g t o n and @reg®a<> SiSBtsnitb* m.ea. 1968•)  ie'ga&elcly  &<2^?©©s&  in tto  52  s i a i l a r locations.  These l a t i t u d i n a l d i f f e r e n c e s are con-  s i d e r a b l y suppressed a l o n g the c o a s t by the s t r o n g l y e f f e c t o f the P a c i f i c Ocean.  moderating  A t i n l a n d l o c a t i o n s , however,  and d u r i n g the w i n t e r months, the d i f f e r e n c e s are more e v i dent.  Throughout  t h i s a r e a from the B r i t i s h Columbia  border  t o the n o r t h e r n end o f the C e n t r a l V a l l e y the c l i m a t i c types can be summarized under broad headings a s :  Mid-latitude  c o a s t a l evergreen f o r e s t - west o f the Cascades:  Mountain  type - e a s t of the Cascades except f o r s o u t h e a s t e r n Oregon and n o r t h e a s t e r n C a l i f o r n i a which i s M i d - l a t i t u d e Steppe t o Desert.  The Mountain type p e r s i s t s t o the southern end of  the S i e r r a Nevada Mountains  and average annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n  throughout t h i s a r e a v a r i e s from twenty inches or l e s s a t lower, e l e v a t i o n s up t o s i x t y inches a t h i g h e l e v a t i o n s . c o a s t evergreen f o r e s t of B r i t i s h Columbia Cascades  The  and the n o r t h  undergoes a g r a d u a l t r a n s i t i o n u n t i l i n C a l i f o r n i a  j u s t n o r t h o f San F r a n c i s c o i t i s f i n a l l y r e p l a c e d by a Mediterranean type o f s c r u b woodland.  T h i s type dominates  the C e n t r a l V a l l e y and the r e s t of southwestern  California.  On the e a s t e r n s i d e o f the S i e r r a and throughout the s o u t h e a s t e r n q u a r t e r o f the s t a t e , d e s e r t c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t and annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n r a r e l y reaches t e n i n c h e s .  53  Within t h i s d i v e r s i t y of environments have developed three p o l i t i c a l regions which exhibit demographic and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of marked s i m i l a r i t y to each other and t o B r i t i s h Columbia.  At the same time d e f i n i t e differences  e x i s t and must be recognized. A comparison of t o t a l land areas shows that B r i t i s h Columbia i s twelve percent larger than Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a combined.  Conversely,  the population of C a l i f o r n i a i s over nine times that of B r i t i s h Columbia.  Details on these facts are shown i n Table 2.  The r e s u l t i n g differences i n population densities are considerable.  B r i t i s h Columbia's average density of population  i s 5.2 people per square m i l e ; per square mile.  C a l i f o r n i a ' s i s 119.2 people  Washington and Oregon occupy intermediate  positions with 44.8 and 19.8 people per square mile respectively.  A comparison of the densities within the major c i t i e s  reveals that Vancouver with 9,471 people per square mile i s second only to San Francisco which has 16,307 people per square mile.  Urban dwellers i n these States, as i n B r i t i s h  Columbia, h e a v i l y outnumber r u r a l residents.  The l a t e s t  data available f o r the areas (1960) indicates that i n C a l i f o r n i a 86.4 percent of the people l i v e i n towns and c i t i e s .  Wash-  ington and Oregon have somewhat larger numbers of 'country  54 Table 2*  Demographic Characteristics of Study Regions. British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  California 156,537  Land Area (sq. mi.)  359,279  66,663  96,209  Total Population  1,873,674 (1966)  2,990,000 (1965)  1,900,000 (1965)  18,600,000 (1965)  Density of Population  5*2/mi  44.8/mi  19.8/mi  119.2/mi  Density of Main C i t i e s  2  2  Vancouver  Seattle  9,471/mi  6,810/mi  2  2  Portland 2  5,630/mi  San Francisco 2  Tacoma 3,135/mi  2  16,307/mi  2  Los Angeles 2  5,447/mi  2  Percentage Urban Popul.  75.3 (1966)  68.1 (1960)  62.2 (1960)  86.4 (1960)  Age D i s t r i b . of Popul.  (1966)  (1960)  (1960)  (1960)  < 25 y r s . 25- < 45 y r s .  46.0% 25.1  44.7% 25.7  43.6% 24.8  43.5% 28.0  <45 y r s .  71.1%  70.4%  68.4%  71.5%  Personal Income/Capita (1967)  $2,373 (U.S.)  $3,389 (U.S.)  $3,090 (U.S.)  $3,697 (U.S.)  0.786 MM  1.659 MM  1.119 MM  9.989 MM  0.623 MM  1,310 MM  0.907 MM  8.371 MM  1/3.00  1/2*28  1/2.08  1/2.22  Motor Vehicle Registration (1965) (pass, only) Cars/Person Sources  B.C. Facts & S t a t i s t i c s , 1969. Gov't, of B.C. Canada Year Book, 1969. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s S t a t i s t i c a l Abstract of the United states, 1969.  55  folk* with only s i x t y - e i g h t and sixty-two percent of t h e i r respective populations r e s i d i n g i n urban areas. From an economic viewpoint these three southern neighbours of B r i t i s h Columbia provide both competition and marketing opportunities. The coast evergreen f o r e s t that i s common to a l l four regions forms the basis f o r t h r i v i n g forest industries i n each area.  During 1968 Oregon led i n t o t a l  softwood lumber production and out-produced by approximately four percent (Table 3)* measure of a g r i c u l t u r a l importance, out-produced  B r i t i s h Columbia  Farm income, as a  showed that C a l i f o r n i a  Washington, the next highest State, by over four  hundred percent;  c a t t l e and d a i r y products were the main  commodities i n a l l areas.  S i m i l a r l y , C a l i f o r n i a led i n  mineral production and manufacturing with Washington next i n both cases.  In the f i s h i n g industry C a l i f o r n i a , with a catch  value of 51.4 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s , ranked f i r s t .  B r i t i s h Columbia  ranked a close second with a catch value of 50.2 dollars.  million  These comparisons of production l e v e l s show that  a l l four regions have extensive primary industries;  however,  the major commodities within each industry vary from area to area (Table 3).  Comparison of secondary i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y ,  as measured by the value of manufacturing  shipments, indicates  56  Table 3.  Comparison of Major Industries by Region.  Region Indus t r y "  British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  California  Forestrvs Total Softwood Lumber Production 1963  7,846 MM Bd. f t .  3,356 MM Bd. f t .  3,135 MM Bd. f t .  4,858 MM Bd. f t .  82.0 MM US$  67.0 MM US$  1,696.0 MM USS  sand and gravel, cement, stone  sand and gravel, stone, cement  petroleum, nat. gas, cement  794.9 MM US$  506.6 MM US$  4,263.2 MM USS  Mining: Value of Production 1967  355.852 MM US$  Principal Minerals (order of importance) A g r i c u l t u r e : Cash 180.0 Income from Farms MM US$ 1968 dairying, Principal livestock Commodities (order of importance)  wheat, cattle, dairying, apples  cattle, dairying, wheat, potatoes  cattle, dairying, cotton lint, eggs  F i s h e r i e s : Total Catch Value 1967  50.2 MM USS  24.9 MM USS  16.3 MM US$  51.4 MM US$  Manufacturing 8 Value of Shipments 1967  2,946 MM US$  7,849 MM USS  4,451 MM US$  47,053 MM US$  1,571.00  2,625,00  2,343.00  2,530.00  Value/Capita  Source:  B.C. Facts & S t a t i s t i c s , 1969. Gov't, of B.C. Canada Year Book, 1969. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . S t a t i s t i c a l Abstract of the United states, 1969.  57  t h a t C a l i f o r n i a v a s t l y out-produces t h e o t h e r r e g i o n s when c o n s i d e r e d on a t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n b a s i s *  On a v a l u e p e r  c a p i t a b a s i s , however, Washington exceeds C a l i f o r n i a by f o u r percent* dollars  B r i t i s h Columbia ranks f o u r t h w i t h a v a l u e o f 1,571 (U,S« funds) p e r c a p i t a *  R e l a t i v e t o t h e whole o f  t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , C a l i f o r n i a ranks no lower than t h i r d i n any o f t h e b a s i c i n d u s t r i e s c o n s i d e r e d .  A further indication  o f t h e advanced economic development o f C a l i f o r n i a i s t h e l e v e l o f p e r s o n a l income p e r c a p i t a , f o u r t h h i g h e s t i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s (see T a b l e 2 ) . Washington and Oregon p l a c e e l e v e n t h and twenty-second r e s p e c t i v e l y and B r i t i s h Columbia ranked on an e q u i v a l e n t b a s i s would be f o r t y - s e v e n t h .  This r e l a t i v e  p o s i t i o n i n g o f B r i t i s h Columbia shows t h a t although t h e P r o v i n c e has t h e second h i g h e s t income p e r c a p i t a i n Canada, i t ranks v e r y low i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e S t a t e s t o t h e s o u t h . Passenger c a r s p e r c a p i t a , an i n d i c a t o r o f 'standard o f l i v i n g and m o b i l i t y , c o n f i r m t h i s  ' l e s s e r stage o f development*.  With one c a r f o r every t h r e e people, B r i t i s h Columbia  still  does n o t equal t h e Washington, Oregon, and C a l i f o r n i a average o f one c a r f o r e v e r y 2.2 people* I t would appear from t h e p r e c e d i n g s t a t i s t i c s t h a t B r i t i s h Columbia e x h i b i t s many fundamental s i m i l a r i t i e s t o  1 1  58  these three States, but d i f f e r s i n scale and stage of development*  Her economy i s founded upon primary production  as are those of Washington, Oregon and to a somewhat lesser extent, C a l i f o r n i a .  Secondary industry, while of major  s i g n i f i c a n c e t o B r i t i s h Columbia's economy, i s r e l a t i v e l y small and lacking i n d i v e r s i t y when compared to development i n the three P a c i f i c states.  Demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are  comparable i n r e l a t i o n to national averages;  however, i n  t h i s respect also, B r i t i s h Columbia shows differences of scale and stage of development.  These economic and demographic  factors, coupled with the c l i m a t i c and physiographic attributes of the four regions, provide a sound basis f o r comparing and contrasting resource management p o l i c i e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r the management of watersheds and t h e i r reservoirs with regard t o r e c r e a t i o n a l use.  The Survey Design  Preliminary investigations into the nature of the water-supply systems f o r the study areas were directed t o P r o v i n c i a l and State government departments.  In B r i t i s h  Columbia l e t t e r s of enquiry were sent to the Department of  59  Health Services and Hospital Insurance, and to the Water Rights Branch of the water Resources Service.  Mr William  Bailey, Director, D i v i s i o n of Public Health Engineering, i n formed the author that i n general each community i n B r i t i s h Columbia operates i t s own water system.  The exceptions i n -  clude the Greater Vancouver Water D i s t r i c t , the Greater V i c t o r i a water D i s t r i c t , and a few p r i v a t e l y operated systems such as the E l k Creek water Works Company Ltd., which serves Chilliwack.  Mr H.D. DeBeck of the water Rights Branch pro-  vided a complete l i s t of the municipal corporations and t h e i r mailing addresses, which, i n conjunction with the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s 1961 Census figures f o r B r i t i s h Columbia, formed the base from which the agencies were selected. The survey of Washington, Oregon, and C a l i f o r n i a u t i l i z e d population figures obtained from the United States Census f o r i960 and information from the various State agencies concerned with water resources and p u b l i c health.  Mr J.C.  Plantze of the Sanitary Engineering Section, Washington State Department of Health, suggested that enquiries addressed to the "Water Superintendent, C i t y H a l l " at the respective c i t y should reach the proper authority, with the exceptions of Bellevue water D i s t r i c t No.63, and Darrington, Washington,  so  f o r which he provided the correct addresses.  Information  about the Oregon water systems was provided by Mr L.G. Parr* J r . , of th© Oregon State Board of Health, i n the form of a complete l i s t of a l l water systems i n the State.  The  f o r the systems surveyed are l i s t e d i n Appendix 12,  addresses After  some delay through misdirected l e t t e r s , d e t a i l s on the domestic water supply systems of C a l i f o r n i a were received from Mr  CL.  Young, Senior Sanitary Engineer, of the Department of Public Health. As stated previously i n the section concerned with the l i m i t a t i o n s of the study, only agencies serving incorporated places with a population of one thousand or larger were to be surveyed.  With the further r e s t r i c t i o n s that the American  agencies must a l s o u t i l i z e a surface source and provide water f o r domestic consumption, the t o t a l number of agencies within the defined populations was two hundred and f o r t y - t h r e e . Because of the small s i z e of the t o t a l populations and the high p r o b a b i l i t y of non-response to the questionnaire, i t was decided to survey one hundred per cent of the agencies. Table 4 indicates the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the t o t a l population among regions or sub-populations.  61  Table 4.  Regional D i s t r i b u t i o n of Agencies Surveyed,  Region Br i t lab Columbia  Sub-population  Restrictions  i ) Serve incorporated places 1,000 pop. and larger  Ho. of Ageneiei  74  i ) Serve incorporated places 1,000 pop. and larger U Oregon - i i ) t i l i z e surface source i i i ) Produce water f o r domestic consumption California.  '45  Total  243  Washington^  57 .67  The questionnaire consisted of three sectionst (1) general information, (2) general management p o l i c y , (3) p o l i c y on r e c r e a t i o n a l use.  Sections One and Two were  t o be completed by a l l agencies, whereas Section Three was be completed only by agencies allowing r e c r e a t i o n a l use.  to In  t o t a l the questionnaire occupied t h i r t e e n pages and had twenty-two questions.  The i n i t i a l questionnaire design and  content was patterned a f t e r that used i n a s i m i l a r study of Hew York State municipal water supply areas (van Nierop, 1963). C r i t i c a l examination  of the f i r s t d r a f t i n r e l a t i o n to the  objectives and hypotheses of the study resulted i n many changes i n both questionnaire format and content i n order to  ascertain more exactly the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and management p o l i c y of each agency.  The f i n a l d r a f t i s presented i n  Appendix IX. The questionnaire, a cover l e t t e r explaining the purpose of the study, and a self-addressed return envelope were mailed to a l l selected agencies*  Because the respondents  were municipal agencies and not individuals and because f i n a n c i a l support f o r the study was limited, a l l questionnaires were sent as printed matter and return postage was not provided.  The f i r s t questionnaires, those f o r B r i t i s h  Washington and Oregon, were mailed June 4th, 1969.  Columbia, The  C a l i f o r n i a mailing was delayed approximately three weeks by the d i f f i c u l t y encountered i n obtaining a complete l i s t of agency addresses.  Xt was planned to allow about s i x weeks  between communications f o r the agencies to react and return the questionnaire. The actual mailing schedule i s presented i n Table 5.  By necessity t h i s schedule was open-ended and  could be terminated at any stage.  The desired minimum per-  centage response was set at 70 to 75.  After s i x months, the  maximum that the author could allow, the t o t a l response received just equalled 70 per cent. was terminated.  At t h i s stage the survey  63  The Analysis  During the design of the survey and questionnaire the author conceived the analysis t o consist of computerized tabulation and possibly regression and c o r r e l a t i o n analyses, to be supplemented by subjective analysis where required and/or s u i t a b l e . Subsequent t o the mailing of the questionnaire the author learned of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the U.B.C. M u l t i variate Contingency Tabulations Program (MVTAB).  This pro-  gram produces frequency and percentage tables f o r the responses to a single question (univariate) or two questions  (bivariate).  When performing b i v a r i a t e tabulation the program w i l l also produce a c h i square value to t e l l whether or not the two questions being considered are independent.  Examination of  the questionnaire with respect t o the requirements of MVTAB showed that t h i s canned program could be u t i l i z e d f o r the tabulation portion of the analysis.  A code scheme to trans-  l a t e the responses i n t o a form s u i t a b l e for MVTAB was developed subject t o the following r e s t r i c t i o n s !  (1) the  number of responses to each question must not be greater than sixty-one - the t o t a l number of alphanumeric and s p e c i a l characters available on the keypunch machine, (2) the r e s -  64 Table 5.  Questionnaire Mailing Schedule.  June 4, 1969  1st questionnaire and cover l e t t e r mailed to B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon  June 23, 1969  1st questionnaire and cover l e t t e r mailed to C a l i f o r n i a  J u l y 18, 1969  1st reminder l e t t e r mailed to B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon  J u l y 30, 1969  1st reminder l e t t e r mailed to California  Sept. 8, 1969  2nd questionnaire and cover l e t t e r mailed to B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon  Sept. 25, 1969  2nd questionnaire and cover l e t t e r mailed to C a l i f o r n i a  Oct. 30, 1969  3rd and l a s t reminder l e t t e r mailed to a l l regions, B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a  ponse code f o r each question must occupy only one computer card column, (3) a maximum of ten data cards can be u t i l i z e d per respondent.  Tabulation was c a r r i e d out and summary tables  prepared f o r each question and each pair of questions analyzed. In preparation for regression and c o r r e l a t i o n analysis a l l quantitative questions were selected and transferred on to data cards to form two data sets.  One set consisted of a l l  65  those variables r e l a t i n g to the water supply agency i n general;  the second set consisted of variables which des-  cribed the i n d i v i d u a l reservoirs and t h e i r watershed (Appendix I I I ) .  The dependent variables or 'Y* variables  were derived from the possible responses to the questions concerning secondary uses and recreation a c t i v i t i e s .  For  Data Set One the dependent variables were as followss Y l - Multiple-use Score  « summation of secondary resource uses as coded by management (Question 12, Appendix XI)  Y2 - Recreation-use Score 1  <=> summation of a l l a c t i v i t i e s allowed as indicated i n Question 14 (Appendix II)  Y3 - Recreation Score 2  « sum(activlty x mgm't. l e v e l wt.)  For Data Set Two, which incorporated only r e c r e a t i o n a l uses, the dependent variables were derived i n the same manner as f o r Set One.  Because the a c t i v i t i e s were related to i n d i v i d -  u a l reservoirs and t h e i r respective catchments, the recreation scores were coded independent of the Set One scores and as followss Y4 - Water Recreation Score 1  • summation of water-oriented a c t i v i t i e s as indicated i n Question 14a  66  Y5 - Water Recreation score 2  = sum (water a c t i v i t y x mgm'-t. l e v e l wt.)  Y6 - Recreation Score 3  » summation of a l l a c t i v i t i e s as indicated i n Question 14  Y7 - Recreation Score 4  = sura(activity x mgm't. l e v e l wt.)  Once the data had been punched on to cards each of the *Y* variables, the multiple-use and recreational-use scores, was p l o t t e d against each 'X' v a r i a b l e , within the respective data set.  Each p a i r was p l o t t e d with the observations f o r a l l  four regions combined and f o r each region separately. The p l o t t i n g was done predominantly with a scattergram routine written by Dr A. Kozak, Associate Professor of Forest S t a t i s tics.  Some use was made of the p r i n t e r p l o t routines a v a i l -  able from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre. The purpose of the p l o t t i n g was t o indicate whether or not regression analysis would be u s e f u l . A f t e r examining the p l o t t i n g output and consulting with Dr Kozak, the author decided to proceed.  The analysis was done using both Dr  Kozak's multiple regression program and the Triangular Regression Package (TRIP) from the Computing Centre. Data Set One, the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the agencies, was analyzed f o r each of the four regions and with  6?  a l l r e g i o n s combined. two  Data Set Two  was  f i r s t separated  into  groups, s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r s and t e r m i n a l r e s e r v o i r s , and  then analyzed  i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n t o Set One.  H i s s i n g data,  a r e s u l t o f non-response t o p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n s ,  hindered  the e f f i c i e n c y o f the procedures by c a u s i n g v a r i a t i o n i n sample s i z e depending on the v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d .  Missing  d a t a cannot be compensated f o r i n r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s t h e r e f o r e incomplete s e t s of o b s e r v a t i o n s p r i o r t o running  and  had t o be removed  a regression.  I n i t i a l l y , multiple regressions with  step-wise  e l i m i n a t i o n were run i n c o r p o r a t i n g a l l the v a r i a b l e s .  Subsets  o f the independent v a r i a b l e s (maximum o f 5) were then run u s i n g the a l l - c o m b i n a t i o n s r e g r e s s i o n program.  r o u t i n e a v a i l a b l e i n the m u l t i p l e  F i n a l l y , step-wise e l i m i n a t i o n r e g r e s s -  ions were run again w i t h the v a r i a b l e s s e l e c t e d by the preceding  two  stages. I n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the a n a l y s i s o f the  data, an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e s t a b l i s h e d ' f a c t s ' water contamination,  questionnaire regarding  t r a n s m i s s i o n o f d i s e a s e v i a water, water  treatment methods, and  the e f f e c t s o f l a n d uses on water y i e l d  and q u a l i t y , was  conducted on a l i t e r a t u r e survey b a s i s .  T h i s survey was,  o f course,  l i m i t e d t o those p u b l i c a t i o n s  a v a i l a b l e through the U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y and the Vancouver Public Library.  68  IV.  RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION  The Established Data Base  Land Use E f f e c t s  The f i r s t aspect of t h i s investigation, land use e f f e c t s on water q u a l i t y , revealed the close relationships between a l l land uses and environmental q u a l i t y .  Historically  man's a c t i v i t i e s have had predominantly adverse e f f e c t s upon the natural system within which he e x i s t s .  His constant  search  for better ways of producing food, and providing shelter and security has resulted i n an ever increasing flow of contaminants i n t o the environment.  The magnitude and d i v e r s i t y of  t h i s flow i s unexpectedly large*  For centuries f i e l d  cropping,  grazing, and f o r e s t harvesting have been exposing the s o i l to erosion and consequently increasing sedimentation i n streams,  69  r i v e r s and l a k e s .  "Progress* has brought w i t h i t v a s t road,  powerline, and p i p e l i n e networks which a l s o promote e r o s i o n and s e d i m e n t a t i o n .  The development o f c o n c r e t e and a s h p h a l t  p a v i n g combined w i t h u r b a n i z a t i o n has blanketed e x t e n s i v e p o r t i o n s o f t h e e a r t h w i t h non-absorptive m a t e r i a l s and p r o duced almost one hundred p e r c e n t r u n o f f o f any p r e c i p i t a t i o n f a l l i n g on these a r e a s .  T h i s f l u s h i n g o f pavements, sidewalks  and r o o f t o p s y i e l d s a c o n s i d e r a b l e stream l o a d o f dust, ash, s o o t and o i l s  (Weibel, 1964).  Continual s t r i v i n g f o r higher  l e v e l s o f a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n has r e s u l t e d i n v a s t q u a n t i t i e s o f i n s e c t i c i d e s , f u n g i c i d e s , h e r b i c i d e s and r o d e n t i c i d e s being a p p l i e d t o the land. ion  In conjunction with the a p p l i c a t -  o f these t o x i c substances man has been ' f e e d i n g ' t h e  environment w i t h tons o f f e r t i l i z e r , both n a t u r a l and manufactured.  Excessive or Ill-timed f e r t i l i z a t i o n  o f commercial  c r o p l a n d , home gardens and lawns, and now o f f o r e s t l a n d ha@ t r i g g e r e d u n n a t u r a l l e v e l s o f p l a n t growth i n t h e waterways which a r e the r e c i p i e n t s o f these unused n u t r i e n t s . other human a c t i v i t i e s r e l e a s e such contaminants  ass  Similarly, deter-  gents, d e - i c i n g compounds, d u s t - s e t t l i n g agents, s o i l b i n d e r s .  70  wood p r e s e r v a t i v e s , f u e l o i l and g a s o l i n e , s c r a p metal, p l a s t i c and g l a s s c o n t a i n e r s , waste paper products,  inorganic  a c i d s and bases, m e t a l l i c s a l t s and a r t i f i c i a l l y produced o r g a n i c chemicals ( B u i l a r d , 1966). However, man's a s s a u l t on the environment has  not  been r e s t r i c t e d t o the p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f p o l l u t a n t s throughout the waters o f the e a r t h .  A g r i c u l t u r e , l o g g i n g , mining  u r b a n i z a t i o n have s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r e d v a s t d r a i n a g e  and areas.  Removal o f the n a t u r a l f o r e s t , shrub, or grass cover not p e r m i t s e r o s i o n and subsequent sedimentation, the b a l a n c e o f the hydr©logic c y c l e .  only  but a l s o a l t e r s  A g r i c u l t u r a l uses, i n -  c l u d i n g g r a z i n g , a f f e c t water q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y p r i m a r i l y through the exposure o f the s o i l t o e r o s i v e a c t i o n and the r e d u c t i o n o f the i n f i l t r a t i o n s o i l i s transported r a t e and  Consequently,  i n t o the stream channels by the  amount o f r u n o f f .  pebbles and  capacity.  Frequently  stones i s l e f t behind and  s o i l m o i s t u r e d e f i c i e n c y may  through  increased  an e r o s i o n pavement o f l a t e r an  accentuated  develop ( B u l l a r d , 1966).  management p r a c t i c e s can c r e a t e s i m i l a r problems o f e r o s i o n , stream t u r b i d i t y and sedimentation  Timber  soil  i f planned  and  executed w i t h o u t f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the h y d r o l o g i c i m p l i c a t i o n s o f such o p e r a t i o n s ing  as road and  and s k i d d i n g , and s l a s h - b u r n i n g .  landing construction,  yard-  C o n t r a s t i n g l y , proper  71  planning of timber harvesting can produce an increase i n water y i e l d quantity without s i g n i f i c a n t l y reducing the q u a l i t y (Jeffrey and Goodell, 1969).  Cutting of the forest  cover also a f f e c t s streamflow regime, by allowing e a r l i e r and faster snowmelt.  This can have varied e f f e c t s on the peak  flows of a watershed depending on the proportion of the area cleared, the p o s i t i o n i n g of the logging settings i n r e l a t i o n to the natural progression of snowmelt, and numerous other factors.  Spring peaks of streamflow may be increased or de-  creased depending on whether or not synchronization of y i e l d from d i f f e r e n t parts of the catchment i s increased or (Jeffrey and Goodell, 1969).  decreased  The exact e f f e c t s produced by  timber harvesting are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the b i o t i c characteri s t i c s of the forest, the edaphic and topographic nature of the land base, and to the type and seasonal d i s t r i b u t i o n of the p r e c i p i t a t i o n . Just as agriculture and f o r e s t r y have e f f e c t s on the q u a l i t y and quantity of our water resource, so also does recreation.  Perhaps the most noticeable impacts of recreation  on an area are s o i l erosion and the increased t u r b i d i t y and sediment load of the streams i n the area.  This type of  deterioration can be observed at any p i c n i c ground, or camp-  72  ground, and along any t r a i l whether i n an urban park or a wilderness area.  The prevention and control of t h i s type of  damage i s one of the park and wildland manager's major problems. In conjunction with t u r b i d i t y , or l e v e l of c l a r i t y , man has t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e l i e d upon taste and odour to determine the s u i t a b i l i t y of water f o r use.  Quite l o g i c a l l y therefore,  these gross c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s influence considerably the average person's assessment of water q u a l i t y .  In present day society  these basic water q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a cannot adequately detect the presence of numerous possible contaminants.  With regard  to recreational a c t i v i t i e s , water taste and odour can be i n fluenced through the introduction of human wastes, domestic wastes, and chemical residues from motorized c r a f t .  The  nature of these contaminants and the significance of t h e i r impacts on water q u a l i t y vary with the s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y , the watershed and reservoir c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the magnitude and timing of t h e i r release, and the desired uses of the water. When domestic consumption i s one of these desired uses r e l a t i v e l y s p e c i f i c q u a l i t y standards have been recommended by the U.S. National Technical Advisory Subcommittee Public Water Supplies (1968).  on  S i m i l a r l y the Subcommittee  on  73  Research and Aesthetics has made recommendations regarding water q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a f o r recreation and aesthetic uses.  A  comparison of these two sets of raw water q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a i s presented i n Table 6;  where quantitative standards were not  l i s t e d by these subcommittees, s p e c i f i c tained from other sources as indicated.  values have been obTable 6 presents  only the most basic water q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a .  In addition to  these there are seventeen inorganic chemicals, sixteen organic chemicals and three radioactive isotopes f o r which permissible concentrations have been established. These t h i r t y - s i x  sub-  stances are not removed to any appreciable extent by the d e f i n ed water treatment plant (Table 6) and i f present i n the raw water could be transmitted undetected to the consumer.  No  quantitative l i m i t s have been established f o r these substances when present i n r e c r e a t i o n a l waters;  however, they must not  occur i n concentrations which produce undesirable physiol o g i c a l responses i n human, f i s h , and other animal l i f e and plants. The other major land uses, which include mining, industrial  development, and urban development, also exert  adverse pressures on the basic water q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a l i s t e d in Table 6.  In addition, these uses are the primary sources  Table 6.  Comparison of Recommended Raw water Quality C r i t e r i a .  Use Type Criteria  Public water Supplies Permissible  Colour units) Odour Temperature  Fecal Coliform  10  v i r t u a l l y absent  absent  max. 85°F  notes  **  Other Than Primary Contact  Primary Contact 30*  •  v i r t u a l l y absent  40-50°F **  v i r t u a l l y absent max. 85°F  5 ppm 10,000/100 ml  100/100 ml  2,000/100 ml  20/100 ml  20 ppm * 1,000/100 ml  200/100 ml  6.5-8.3  6.0-8.5  PH  *  Desirable  75  Turbidity Coliform Organisms  Recreation and Aesthetics  Standards given above f o r public water supplies assume treatment consisting of: coagulation, sedimentation, rapid sand f i l t r a t i o n , and c h l o r i n a t i o n .  Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962. Water f o r Recreation Values and Opportunities. O.R.R.R.C. Study Report 10. 73 pp. H.S. Babbitt, J . J . Doland, J.L. Cleasby, 1959. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Hew York.  Water Supply Engineering, 6th E d i t i o n .  75  of  the chemical contaminants mentioned above.  In the past,  and to a considerable extent i n the present, these chemicals have been released i n t e n t i o n a l l y or unintentionally into the environment with l i t t l e or no regard f o r the e f f e c t s on human, animal, and plant l i f e . C l e a r l y , as man manipulates h i s environment to s a t i s f y h i s wants, the water resource i s subjected to a great v a r i e t y of unnatural pressures.  To the extent that a l l of  these manipulations disrupt the natural vegetative cover, expose the s o i l mantle to abnormal stresses, and change the temporal balance between p r e c i p i t a t i o n and streamflow, a c t i v i t i e s can promote undesirable r e s u l t s .  these  Watercourses which  are subjected to abnormally rapid fluctuations i n flow create problems f o r nearly a l l types of water use.  Flooding causes  deposition of sediment and debris that i s most often d e t r i mental i n nature;  channel banks can be eroded r e s u l t i n g i n  a change i n the r i v e r course, or i n the loss of roads and bridges.  A g r i c u l t u r a l , i n d u s t r i a l and domestic users are  burdened by increased treatment costs to remove the high sediment load and reduce the t u r b i d i t y of waters o r i g i n a t i n g on deteriorated watershed lands.  These undesirable q u a l i t i e s  destroy the aesthetic appeal of streams and lakes, and reduce  76  r e c r e a t i o n a l opportunities (Bullard, 1966).  Low flows meant  water shortages unless a r t i f i c i a l storage i s provided, r e duction i n the usefulness of the stream as a recreation f o c a l point, and lessening of the q u a l i t y of aquatic habitat. This degradation of the land base, the consequent disruption of the natural water flows, and the dispersion of the innumerable contaminants are promoted by such s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s ass  c u l t i v a t i o n of excessively steep slopes;  a p p l i c a t i o n of i r r i g a t i o n water and f e r t i l i z e r s ; of rangelands;  over-grazing  h y d r o i o g i c a l l y unsound logging methods and  road construction;  c l e a r i n g f o r i n d u s t r i a l , r e s i d e n t i a l , and  r e c r e a t i o n a l developments; ion;  over-  powerline and p i p e l i n e construct-  mining operations including dredging, augering, and  stripping;  and disposal of waste from mining, manufacturing,  domestic and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . e s s e n t i a l to our society;  The a c t i v i t i e s are  the accompanying destruction of  our v i t a l land and water resources i s not necessary (Bullard, 1966), and can no longer be condoned.  Transmission of Disease v i a water  We have seen how water can be polluted by both natural and man-made substances, and that these substances  77  a f f e c t both the consumptive and non-consumptive use of water.  One often neglected non-consumptive use of water i s  i t s service as a transportation medium.  Zn t h i s study we are  concerned with one s p e c i a l aspect of t h i s r o l e , water as a transporter of disease.  This unfortunate f a c t was not recog-  nized u n t i l approximately 1885 (Blake, 1956).  Investigations  have since confirmed the spread of typhoid fever, dysentery and cholera through water.  These types of b a c t e r i a l diseases  are, however, r e l a t i v e l y easy t o guard against through c h l o r i n a t i o n of domestic water supplies.  The threat of v i r a l  diseases being spread by water has not been remedied so simply. Researchers i n virology have stated that "any virus excreted i n the feces and capable of producing i n f e c t i o n when ingested should t h e o r e t i c a l l y be transmissible by drinking water", however, "apart from t h e o r e t i c a l considerations, there are very few viruses f o r which epidemiological evidence suggests transmission by drinking water" (Mosely, 1965).  The viruses  most suspect are those of the enteric group which includes p o l i o v i r u s , coxsackie v i r u s , echovirus, infectious h e p a t i t i s (IH) v i r u s , the adenoviruses and the reoviruses; p o l i o v i r u s and IH pose the greatest threat.  of these,  Although numerous  studies have been done to t r y and r e l a t e the incidence of IH  78  and p o l i o m y e l i t i s to such factors as f i n i s h e d water t u r b i d i t y , and r e s i d u a l chlorine l e v e l , none have produced s i g n i f i c a n t correlations (Chang, 1968).  At present, infectious h e p a t i t i s  i s the only v i r a l disease f o r which there i s epidemiological evidence indicating that i t i s water-borne.  Furthermore, the  exact nature of the ZH agent i s not known because i t has not yet been propagated i n the laboratory. To complicate the picture s t i l l more, marginal c h l o r i n a t i o n of water i s not adequate treatment t o deactivate most viruses;  t h i s does not imply that water cannot be made  safe from v i r a l transmission.  I t has been pointed out that  although l i t t l e concrete evidence f o r water-borne transmission e x i s t s , i t may be because detection techniques are too i n s e n s i t i v e , and not because water-borne v i r a l disease i s rare (Goldfield, 1965).  This proposition i s p e r f e c t l y v a l i d ,  however, speculation or inadequate evidence cannot be used as a substitute f o r proof (Mosely, 1965).  A more d e f i n i t i v e  statement on t h i s problem w i l l have t o await the c o l l e c t i o n of more r e l i a b l e data on:  "(1) virus concentrations i n raw  and finished water, (2) e n t e r o v i r a l i n f e c t i o n rates among children ascertained i n rectal-swab surveys, (3) e n t e r o v i r a l antibody development patterns i n children, from s e r o l o g i c a l  7®  surveys, (4) incidence of c l i n i c a l cases of infectious h e p a t i t i s and possibly other e n t e r o v i r a l diseases with caref u l l y worked-out case records, and (5) c a r e f u l l y checked water treatment data" (Chang, 1968).  Treatment of Water  I f the proposition that v i r a l diseases can be spread through domestic water systems i s accepted, how can t h i s occurrence be guarded against? sufficient.  Marginal chlorination i s not  The basic treatment techniques available includes  (1) storage, (2) aeration, (3) d i s i n f e c t i o n , (4) f i l t r a t i o n , (5) sedimentation - either p l a i n or with f l o c c u l a t i o n , (6) softening, and (7) taste and odour c o n t r o l .  In a recent  a r t i c l e i n the world Health Organization B u l l e t i n (Chang, 1968) the available information on the prevention of waterborne v i r a l infections by water treatment was reviewed recommendations were made.  and  InactivatiOn of viruses by storage  was rejected on the basis that the storage time normally available i n domestic water treatment systems would not give dependable reductions i n virus concentrations.  The process  of f l o c c u l a t i o n was found to be quite useful and under f i e l d  80  conditions should r e s u l t i n a 90-95 percent removal of water-borne viruses.  The chemical process Involved i s a  r e l a t i v e l y non-specific metal-protein reaction, and  therefore,  the e f f i c i e n c y of removal for various viruses should not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y . own,  F i l t r a t i o n of any type w i l l not, on i t s  produce any consistently s i g n i f i c a n t reductions  concentrations.  in v i r a l  The combination of chemical f l o c c u l a t i o n  with s e t t l i n g , followed by rapid sand f i l t r a t i o n gave better than 99.7  percent removal i n a study using p o l i o v i r u s 1  (Robeck et a l , 1962). Supplementary to these virus removal techniques i s the process of virus destruction.  This can be accomplished  through the v i r i c i d a l action of chlorine i n several forms, iodine, ozone, or u l t r a v i o l e t l i g h t .  Chlorine i s most commonly  used for treatment of large volumes of water and can be i n troduced as a s o l i d , a l i q u i d or a gas.  When molecular  chlorine i s dissolved i n water i t hydrolyses into hypochlorous acid (H0C1) and hydrochloric acid (HC1).  HOCl i s known as  •free chlorine*, and when i t reacts with ammonia or amino compounds to form amnion ia-ch l o r am ines or organic ch l o r amine, i t i s known as 'combined chlorine*. e f f i c i e n t disinfectant.  Free chlorine i s the more  Chlorine dioxide i s also used and  81  has the advantages that i t does not react with ammonia or amino compounds and i t i s not as greatly affected by pH as i s H0C1.  lodination, while less e f f i c i e n t than free chlorine  treatment, i s very easy to use i n r u r a l areas and less developed regions.  Iodine dosages of less than 4 ppm have  not produced undesirable  p h y s i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s among adults,  but i t s e f f e c t s on pregnant women, infants and small children are uncertain and therefore, the process should be r e s t r i c t e d to experimental use (Chang, 1968).  The e f f i c i e n c y of ozone  compares favourably with free chlorine and i t has the advantages of absence of odour and taste.  Disadvantages are that  i t does not disperse evenly and i t i s hard to maintain a r e s i d u a l concentration  i n the water.  Ozonation seems best  suited f o r use p r i o r to chlorination, thus reducing the pathogen load and chlorine demand, and enabling the desired l e v e l of protection to be achieved with less chlorine. t h i s manner the objectionable  In  odour and taste of highly  chlorinated water can be avoided.  The use of u l t r a v i o l e t  l i g h t to reduce the v i r a l concentration  i n water has been  shown experimentally (Oppenheimer et a l , 1959), but a rapid f i e l d t e s t to determine the l e v e l of virus i n a c t i v a t i o n has not been devised.  82  Zn summary, the 'free chlorine' technique appears to be, at present, the most e f f i c i e n t process f o r the destruction of viruses (and bacteria) i n water.  For the  o v e r a l l elimination of v i r a l agents from water the desirable treatment combination seems t o be f l o c c u l a t i o n with s e t t l i n g followed by rapid sand f i l t r a t i o n and then 'free chlorine' d i s i n f e c t i o n , 0.25-.30 ppm chlorine r e s i d u a l f o r 30 minutes, to obtain a t o t a l virus reduction of 99.9993% from 'moderately polluted water' (Chang, 1968).  With a l l of the mentioned  disinfectants the l e v e l of i n a c t i v a t i o n achieved varies with* (1) concentration of the d i s i n f e c t a n t , (2) pH of the water supply, (3) temperature of the water, and (4) the contact time (Kabler e t a l , 1961).  Given that good environmental manage-  ment i s practiced throughout the contributory watershed of a stream, a wholesome supply of water can be produced i r r e s p e c t ive of the p a r t i c u l a r kinds of secondary uses occurring on the watershed.  Given a l s o that good environmental management  r a r e l y occurs, water supplies can be r e l i a b l y freed of bacteri a l and v i r a l contamination by use of present treatment techniques (Chang, 1968).  83  The Recreational Use Controversy  As i n any controversy, truth and falsehood are considerably intertwined i n the discussion of recreation on water-supply  areas.  The consistently expounded reasons f o r  and against such use were detailed i n Chapter Two and are discussed i n the following pages.  The common argument that  recreation space adjacent to metropolitan areas i s becoming severely limited i s a l l too true, and i n many areas poor land use planning or no planning at a l l i s aggravating the problem.  More and more, single-use p o l i c i e s are becoming an  excessively c o s t l y luxury.  Population densities are increas-  ing i n previously sparsely populated areas and water treatment w i l l become e s s e n t i a l .  With t h i s l i k e l i h o o d i n mind, r e c r e a t -  i o n i s t s advocate i n s t a l l a t i o n of required equipment now a t lower costs;  thus reducing future c a p i t a l expenses and allow-  ing immediate r e c r e a t i o n a l use.  This argument does not apply  equally i n a l l areas and each s i t u a t i o n should be evaluated independently;  yet not i n i s o l a t i o n from other regional con-  siderations. The claim that municipal, state, and f e d e r a l lands are not 'private', but 'public' lands i s true;  however, t h i s  84  f a c t does not convey to anyone the 'right' to use them i n any manner that they may choose.  Indeed, these lands should be  u t l i z e d to t h e i r f u l l e s t capacity and so as t o provide the maximum public benefit (McEwen, 1965). In the f i g h t to open these areas, examples are given where reservoirs are used f o r recreation and the water i s subsequently d i s t r i b u t e d f o r consumption with only marginal chlorination.  This f a c t does not prove anything except the  extreme v a r i a t i o n i n management practices and the existence of d i f f e r e n t concepts of what i s safe water and what i s an acceptable l e v e l of hazard. The counter-argument  that enforced opening of agency  owned lands would be a v i o l a t i o n of property rights without compensation has v a l i d i t y only i f t h i s t a c t i c i s u t i l i z e d ? however, p u b l i c l y owned u t i l i t i e s are subject to public c o n t r o l and 'enforced* opening becomes i r r e l e v a n t .  In the case of  private water agencies, compensation f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use can and undoubtedly has been made. The claims of reduced c o n t r o l over watershed  sani-  t a t i o n and increased treatment costs are open to much debate and i t has been suggested that unregulated trespassers pose a greater threat to watershed sanitation than c a r e f u l l y con-  85  t r o l l e d reservoir patrons (Dodson, 1963). The threat of l i a b i l i t y i n case of accidents i s not exclusive to watersheds and r e s e r v o i r s ; as much to any other property.  i t applies equally  This threat can be n u l l i f i e d  through adequate accident Insurance and an active safety program.  User-fees can often include such expenses, and programs  can frequently be operated without added cost to the  non-  p a r t i c i p a t i n g consumer. Those opposed to recreation on these areas point out that road maintenance costs would be increased and that the f o r e s t f i x e danger would be much higher.  Increased main-  tenance of roads i s not an inevitable r e s u l t , and often f a c i l i t i e s can be located so as to minimize the amount of road use. With regard to increased f i r e hazard, experience has shown that t h i s i s not inevitable either;  i n fact, some f o r e s t  companies have found that many of t h e i r f i r e s are reported by the public and that the number of recreationist-caused f i r e s decreases each year (Dube, 1966). In summary, i t seems evident to the author that much of what i s presented as unconditional f a c t i s i n r e a l i t y subject to wide v a r i a t i o n depending upon s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the area and the users.  Some arguments, both f o r and  36  against r e c r e a t i o n a l use, while true as stated, deal with problems that are not unsolvable and often can be avoided by sound planning and management.  Questionnaire Survey Results - MVTAB Analysis  Perhaps the f i r s t item to be discussed at t h i s point should be the functioning of the survey i t s e l f .  As stated  previously the f i r s t d r a f t of the questionnaire was patterned a f t e r a study done i n New York State.  A f t e r extensive modifi-  cation and expansion with the a i d of the author's program adv i s e r the f i n a l d r a f t was prepared and mailed out.  As returns  were received and reviewed i t became obvious that there were ambiguities and hidden assumptions i n some of the questions. These problems could have been at least p a r t i a l l y eliminated by a t r i a l survey of a few nearby agencies with subsequent a l t e r a t i o n of the questionnaire before the main survey initiated.  This measure was,  was  unfortunately, overlooked i n the  rush to get the survey underway.  With regard to the mailed  questionnaire survey technique, the author now f e e l s that i t was a very i n e f f i c i e n t way of gathering data.  This survey  extended over a period of s i x months, June 4th, 1969 to  87  November 30th, 1969, to 70 per cent*  and the t o t a l response received amounted  T o t a l useable response was only 60.5 per cent;  d e t a i l s are shown i n Table 7.  I t was evident i n communicat-  ions from several agencies that questionnaires often get misplaced or misdirected, and that re-mailing of a questionnaire upon request s t i l l does not guarantee a response.  Furthermore,  the r e l i a b i l i t y of the information obtained i s uncertain and d i f f i c u l t to v e r i f y *  Aside from the p o s s i b i l i t y of deliberate  misrepresentation, there are the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of misreading of questions, misinterpretation of questions, simple c a r e l e s s ness i n answering, and ignorance of either what the question asks or of the correct answer f o r the given agency.  Non-  response to p a r t i c u l a r questions r e s u l t s i n incomplete sets of observations and complicates the analysis considerably. With reference to the conducted survey, non-response to s p e c i f i c questions caused s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n the sample s i z e s that could be used i n the regression analysis and consequently portions of the data were wasted at various stages of the a n a l y s i s . The above-mentioned problems became evident as analysis of the returns progressed, but other than the f a c t o r of non-response, none of these p o t e n t i a l errors could be either  88  Table 7.  Details of Questionnaire Response.  \Category  Region  Total Agencies Surveyed f %  Total Response f *1  Useable Response f  Useable for Regr ess ion f  British Columbia  74  30.4  58  78.4  52  70.3  21  28.4  Washington  45  18.5  23  51.1  21  46.7  11  24.4  Oregon  57  23.5  35  61.4  30  52.6  19  33.3  California  67  27.6  53  79,1  44  65.8  25  37.3  243  100.0  169  70.0  147  60.5  76  31.3  A l l Regions  *X  *I  Based on t o t a l number of agencies surveyed f o r each region  confirmed or rejected, thus the major disadvantage of t h i s data c o l l e c t i o n method proved to be i t s unknown r e l i a b i l i t y .  This  s i t u a t i o n was undesirable i n r e l a t i o n to the f u l f i l m e n t of the basic assumptions upon which the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis procedures are based.  89  General Characteristics of the Agencies  In the i n i t i a l portion of the analysis done with the MVTAB program the objective was to define the basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the water supply systems which were (1) currently operating within each of the four regions surveyed, and  (2) within the r e g i o n a l population as defined under  the l i m i t a t i o n s of the study.  Although 100 per cent of each  population was surveyed, the r e s u l t s are based upon samples which were, i n f a c t , determined by indefinable non-response factors.  B r i t i s h Columbia  Population Served  For B r i t i s h Columbia the sample obtained amounted t o 70.3 per cent of the t o t a l surveyed.  In r e l a t i o n to the  t o t a l population of the province, the people served by the responding agencies represented approximately 75 per cent. Of the f i f t y - t w o respondents, thirty-seven, or 71.2 per cent, of them served less than ten thousand customers?  twenty-five  90  per cent served between ten and f i f t y thousand, and only  3.8  per cent served f i f t y thousand or more people.  water Consumption and Percentage Domestic Use  With regard to the average water consumption per day s a t i s f i e d by these agencies 59.6 per cent of them delivered less than one m i l l i o n Imperial gallons per day;  26.9 per cent  delivered between one and f i v e m i l l i o n gallons and only one agency, the Greater Vancouver Water D i s t r i c t , provided over 100 m i l l i o n gallons*  Of p a r t i c u l a r Interest to t h i s study  was  the amount of domestic consumption i n r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l supplied. .Results showed that forty-four out of f i f t y - t w o B r i t i s h Columbia agencies, 84.6 per cent, delivered 51 per cent or more of t h e i r water f o r domestic use (Table 8).  I t was  hoped that l a t e r analysis would show t h i s factor to be of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n r e l a t i o n to the amount of secondary resource use allowed on a given watershed area.  Nature of Water Supply and Treatment  For B r i t i s h Columbia a l l types of water supply were  Table 8.  Basic Agency Characteristics - by Region.  British Columbia f 56  Washington f %  Oregon f  %  California f %  Present Population Served  *10 M 10- < 50 M >50 M  37 13 2  71.2 25.0 3.8  7 10 4  33.3 47.6 19.1  19 8 2  63.3 26.7 6.7  15 16 13  34.1 36.4 29.5  Projected Population Served - 1980  <10 M 10- < 50 M >50 M  26 17 5  50.0 32.7 9.6  5 8 6  23.8 38.1 28.6  13 11 2  43.3 36.7 6.7  10 16 15  22.7 36.4 34.1  Water Consumption Avg. / Total/ y  <1 MM 1— < 5 MM 5- <25 MM >25 MM  31 14 3 1  59.6 26.9 5.8 1.9  6 6 4 4  28.6 28.6 19.0 19.0  14 9 3 1  46.7 30.0 10.0 3.3  12 11 11 8  27.3 25.0 25.0 18.2  ^51 51-<75 75 +•  4 9 35  7.7 17.3 67.3  5 3 10  23.8 14.3 47.6  5 9 11  16.7 30.0 36.7  3 5 28  6.8 11.4 63.6  D a  Percentage Domestic Use  Notes  M - thousands, MM - m i l l i o n s Water consumption i s i n Imperial Gallons  92  included i n the survey whereas f o r the P a c i f i c Coast States, ground supplies were excluded. two reasons!  This approach was taken f o r  (1) i t was desired t o obtain as complete an idea  of the B r i t i s h Columbia water supply s i t u a t i o n as possible, (2) i t was not possible t o t e l l beforehand which agencies u t i l i z e d ground water sources. includedt  The water supply types l i s t e d  (1) extracted from r i v e r or creek, (2) natural  lake - controlled flow, (3) natural lake - uncontrolled flow, (4) a r t i f i c i a l impoundment of r i v e r or creek, and (5) ground water.  The most frequent type of water source was ground  water which was l i s t e d by sixteen of f i f t y - t w o systems? most frequent was extraction from a r i v e r or creek.  next  These  two types represented approximately 31 per cent and 27 per cent r e s p e c t i v e l y of the B r i t i s h Columbia systems.  The com-  p l e t e d i s t r i b u t i o n of the water supply types and the comparative situations i n Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a are presented i n Table 9.  Xn r e l a t i o n to recreational use of  reservoirs the above-mentioned 58 per cent were automatically eliminated?  however, with reference t o watershed land uses  only those systems u t i l i z i n g ground water could be disregarded. Xn the investigation of water treatment  facilities,  i t was hoped to obtain r e l a t i v e l y d e t a i l e d information about  93  Table 9.  Nature of Water Supply by Region.  Region Supply T y p e ^ \ .  British Columbia f  Washington  %  f  %  Extracted from River or Creek  14  26.9  11  52.4  Natural Lake Control*d flow  10  19.2  1  4.7  1  1.9  Artificial Impoundment of River or Creek  11  21.2  6  Ground Water  16  30.8  3  Natural Lake Uncontrol'd flow  No Response T o t a l Number of Agencies Notes  52  100.00 21  Oregon f %  California f  %  13  43.3  11  25.0  1  3.3  1  2.3  28.6  13  43.3  27  61.3  14.3  2  6.7  4  9.1  1  3.3  1  2.3  100.00 30  99.9  44  100.0  For Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a , proportion of ground water supplies i s not a true proportion - see text f o r explanation  not only the types of treatment, but also the s p e c i f i c methods. Unfortunately t h i s question was misinterpreted quite frequently and most responses indicated only the basic type.  The B r i t i s h  Columbia portion of the survey showed that less than h a l f of  94  the agencies from which data was obtained employed treatment of any s o r t .  I t should also be noted that of the twenty-eight  agencies operating without treatment exactly f i f t y per cent of them u t i l i z e d ground water supplies and therefore were subject to considerably lower p r o b a b i l i t i e s of contamination.  Of the  various types of water treatment only d i s i n f e c t i o n was  utilized  by more than f i v e of the agencies.  F i l t r a t i o n was employed i n  f i v e systems, sedimentation i n four, softening and taste and odour control both were l i s t e d twice, and no agency used aeration.  Xn general the investigation suggested that water t r e a t -  ment procedures are of only moderate importance i n B r i t i s h Columbia at the present time.  Land Status  Xn any discussion of the r e c r e a t i o n a l or multiple use of domestic water supply areas the factor of l e g a l ownership and control of the lands assumes considerable importance. When the supply agency owns or controls the watershed lands and the lands surrounding the supply reservoirs, the formation and implementation of management p o l i c y i s greatly s i m p l i f i e d . This does not necessarily mean that the area w i l l be managed  95  i n the most b e n e f i c i a l manner.  Where ownership and control  of the catchment or buffer lands are d i s t r i b u t e d among several p a r t i e s each with d i f f e r e n t objectives, and management f o r domestic water supply must operate under co-operative agreements and l e g i s l a t i v e controls, the r e s u l t i s frequently less than optimum,  An examination of the land status data f o r the  B r i t i s h Columbia water supply agencies shows that 51 per cent had no reservoir buffer lands and 40 per cent had no watershed lands.  These agencies were, of course, the ones u t i l i z -  ing either ground water supplies or merely extracting water from a r i v e r .  Of the agencies that recognized reservoir buffer  lands, 52 per cent enjoyed complete c o n t r o l of these lands while only 10 per cent of the agencies had complete c o n t r o l of t h e i r watershed lands.  The major land owner and manager was  the p r o v i n c i a l government.  F i f t e e n out of twenty-nine water  supply systems obtained water from catchments that were at l e a s t 75 per cent owned and managed by the government.  Management Agreements  Closely linked to the question of land status i s the matter of management agreements regarding s a n i t a t i o n on buffer  96  and watershed lands, and regarding land treatment measures on these lands.  -When the water;"agency lacks f u l l control-'over  the lands which -provide i t s water,- protection of the water supply must he achieved through 'agreements or legislation*/" Within B r i t i s h Columbia the survey, showed that p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n was t h e only formal c o n t r o l over watershed use and sanitation.  Only two agencies indicated that they had verbal  agreements with either private' or public landowners; written agreements were reported.-  no ;  Thus, where the water  supplier does not l e g a l l y c o n t r o l the lands either 'through-, ownership or lease,- the maintenance of sanitary conditionsand the prevention .of land abuse i s attempted s o l e l y through p r o v i n c i a l statutes such as the Health Act, the P o l l u t i o n  .  Control Act,- the Forest Act, and the water Act. Authority f o r the implementation of these Acts and t h e i r regulations i s dispersed .among several government '. departments each of which has a'vested i n t e r e s t i n -some p a r t i c u l a r aspect of the land-use question.  Seldom are these  interests f u l l y compatible with-each other.  This lack of  unity of purpose allows frequent opportunities f o r mismanagement of the resource base and jeopardizes th® future of a l l a c t i v i t i e s except e x p l o i t a t i o n .  97  Agency Personnel  Of the f i f t y - t w o responding agencies twenty-two reported no personnel, and twelve f a i l e d to answer t h i s p a r t i c u l a r question,  s i x of the agencies with no f u l l - t i m e  s t a f f reported the use of government or private consultants. Among the various f i e l d s of knowledge indicated, engineering was by f a r the most prevalent with sixteen agencies employing between one and f i v e people knowledgeable  i n t h i s f i e l d and  one agency, the Greater Vancouver Water D i s t r i c t , twenty-five.  employing  The f i e l d s of a n a l y t i c a l chemistry and f o r e s t r y  were each l i s t e d by two respondents, but no other d i s c i p l i n e s were given.  Of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s respect was the absence of  anyone q u a l i f i e d i n f o r e s t hydrology.  The q u a l i f i c a t i o n  l e v e l was limited to bachelor degrees and lower.  The P a c i f i c Coast States  Xn the analysis of the data f o r Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a , the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the water supply agencies d i f f e r e d i n several respects from the B r i t i s h Columbian systems.  The survey returns from these areas yielded  samples of 46.7 per cent, 52.® per cent and 65,8 per cent . respectively*  the customers served by these responding . -  agencies represented between 44 and 53 per cent of the i n d i v i d u a l State populations.  This low©r percentage representat-  ion, compared to B r i t i s h Columbia, was p r i m a r i l y because agencies u t i l i z i n g ground water supplies were not surveyed* The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the agencies according to .present population served .and projections f o r 1980 showed Oregon to b© quite s i m i l a r to B r i t i s h Columbia (Table 8),  while Washington  and C a l i f o r n i a had much higher percentages of systems serving i n excess of f i f t y thousand people.  The proportion of agencies  providing 51 per cent or more of t h e i r water f o r domestic  use  was high i n a l l four regions with B r i t i s h Columbia being the highest followed by C a l i f o r n i a . For the P a c i f i c Coast States the o r i g i n a l d e f i n i t i o n of the study population excluded those agencies obtaining water from underground sources.  The basis f o r t h i s s t r a t i -  f i c a t i o n was the United States Public Health Service p u b l i c a t ion. Municipal Water Supply F a c i l i t i e s Inventory (1964).  The  questionnaire responses, however, indicated that some of the agencies surveyed were, i n f a c t , u t i l i z i n g ground water* Percentages calculated f o r a l l four regions, disregarding  99  the  ground water systems, showed that B r i t i s h Columbia u t i l -  ized many more natural lakes than her American neighbours. Washington obtained 61 per cent of her water supply through extraction from r i v e r s , 33 per cent from a r t i f i c i a l impoundments and only 5*6 per cent from natural lakes.  Oregon depended  equally on man-made lakes and r i v e r extraction, 43 per cent from each;  natural lakes supplied only 3.7 per cent.  In the  State of C a l i f o r n i a a r t i f i c i a l impoundment predominated, 69 per cent, and extraction from a r i v e r or creek accounted f o r most of the remainder. With regard to water treatment, these three States were much more deeply involved than B r i t i s h Columbia, as i s indicated i n Table 10.  Procedures such as f i l t r a t i o n and  sedimentation were included by considerably higher proportions of the respondents.  C a l i f o r n i a appeared to r e l y most heavily  on treatment of her water supplies, followed by Oregon. Possible reasons f o r these differences i n the prominence and s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of treatment f a c i l i t i e s  includes  CD higher  population densities as i n C a l i f o r n i a , (2) greater concentrations of non-natural a c t i v i t i e s , (3) d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s of c o n t r o l over watershed uses, and (4) d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s of awareness of p o t e n t i a l hazards.  100 T a b l e 10  Summary o f Water Treatment b y Region - A l l Agencies I n c l u d e d .  British Columbia f  Washington  %  f  %  Oregon f  California  %  TREATMENT: Yes No No Response  24  46.15  15  71.43  25  83.33  40  90.91  28  53.85  5  23.81  4  13.33  4  9.09  1  4.76  1  3.33  AERATION: Type n o t s p e c i f i e d Contact beds o r t r a y s Patented a e r a t o r Spray a e r a t o r Overflow t r a y s , cascade or other splash aerator  6.67  9.09  4.76  DISINFECTION! Type n o t s p e c i f i e d Chlorination Hypochlorination Ozone  5  9.62  4  19.05  10  33.33  22  50.00  16  30.77  7  33.33  12  40.00  17  38.64  16  36.36  FILTRATION i Type n o t s p e c i f i e d Slow sand Rapid sand Roughing o r c o n t a c t Oiatomaceous e a r t h Microstrainer Rainney c o l l e c t o r Anthracite  5.77  7  33.33  1  4.76  1.92  4.76  8  26.67  3  10.00  3  10.00  3  6.82  5  11.36  1  2.27  2  4.55  1.92  SEDIMENTATION: Type not s p e c i f i e d Basins Microfloc Alum tank Clarifier  3.85  4  19.05  3.85  9  30.00  17  38.64  3  10.00  2  4.55  1  3.33  4.76  6.82 4.55  SOFTENING: Type n o t s p e c i f i e d . Alum Iron s a l t s Lime Soda ash Activated s i l i c a  1.92  3.33.  1 .92  2.27  TASTE AND ODOR CONTROL: Type not s p e c i f i e d A c t i v a t e d carbon Chlorine dioxide Sulphur d i o x i d e Ozone Potassium permanganate TOTAL NUMBER OF AGENCIES  1.92  4.76  13.33  10  22.73  3.33  2  4.55  1  2.27  1.92  6.67  52  21  30  44  101  The land status data f o r these regions indicated' ;  that the proportion of agencies owning and managing' at least 75 per cent of t h e i r reservoir buffer lands and watershed ' lands was roughly the same as f o r B r i t i s h Columbia.' For the other agencies, however, the ownership pattern was d i s t i n c t l y different.  Whereas 51.7 per cent of the responding B r i t i s h  Columbia systems operated with a t least three-fourths of t h e i r watershed lands under p r o v i n c i a l government ownership and control, i n the three P a c i f i c Coast States comparable levels of State ownership and control occurred i n only 3.7 t o 9.1 per cent of the respondents.  Conversely, federal owner-  ship was non-existent in' B r i t i s h Columbia and private ownership was limited, while i n the States both of these categories accounted f o r very s i g n i f i c a n t proportions of the catchment lands (Table 11). Management agreements with public or p r i v a t e owners of watershed lands f o r the purpose of c o n t r o l l i n g sanitary and land treatment practices were more common than i n B r i t i s h Columbia, but most agencies reported no agreements or else indicated state health and p o l l u t i o n control regulations. h detailed comparison can be made from Tables 12a and 12b. With respect t o numbers, types and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  102  Table 11. Summary of Land status - by Region.  British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  California  •O  u © m  ?! 75-100% Agcy. &/or Munic. Owned & Mgd.  f  o  J3  *o  il  12 52  3 10.3  5 62.5  f %  1 4.3  3 10.3  75+% Prov. (State)? Owned & Mgd.  f %  5 22  15 51.7  5 22  12 41.4  f 5 6  3Q-<?5% Fed. Owned & Mgd.  f %  75+% Fed. Owned & Mgd.  f %  30-<75% P r i v . Owned & Mgd.  f %  1 4.3  2 6.9  75+% P r i v . Owned & Mgd.  f %  4 17.4  4 13.8  23  29  T o t a l Number of Agencies  to  I  75+% Leased from Govt.  90+% Prov. (State) Owned & Mgd.  o  CO  A  a  u  a  I S2 18.2  V4  9 50.0  3 13.0 1 4.3  16 57.2  2 7.4  1 3.6  1 4.3  1 9.1  e  o "0  m s3  1 5.6 1 12.5  x: a  1 3.7  1 4.3 1 4.3  1 9.1 2 18.2  2 11.1  2 8.6  1 9.1 1 12.5 3  7 30.3  3 27.3  3 16.7  5 21.7  11  18  23  I 5 3.6 18.5 3 10.8 1 3.6  7 25.9 4 14.8  1 6 3.6 22.2 28  27  103  Table 12a. Agreements Regarding Sanitary F a c i l i t i e s . Region Agree-^\^^ ment Type  British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  California  £  %  £  %  f  %  f  %  22  42.31  6  28.57  12  40.00  17  38.64  Verbal with P r i v . Owner or Iiessee  1  1.92  1  2.27  Verbal with Govt.  1  1.92  No Agreements  Written with P r i v . Owner or Lessee  1  4.76  1  3.33  1  2.27  Written (Gen.) 2 or more Types  4  19.05  1  3.33  , 1  2.27  14.29  3  10*00  5  11.36  1  2.27  11  25.00  1  2.27  Prov* (State) Healthr----Regulations  2  3.85  3  P o l l u t i o n Cont r o l Board Regulations  1  1.92  1  4.76  Fed. Legislation to Reserve Land  1  3.33  3  10.00  20  38.46  Blank  1  1.92  No Response  4  7.69  2  9.52  9  30.00  6  13.64  52  100.00  21  100.00  30  100.00  44  100.00  Not Applicable  Total Notes  4  19.05  A l l Responding Agencies Included  104 Table 12b.  Agreements Regarding Land Treatment Measures.  Region . Agreement Type  British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  California  f  %  f  %  f  %  f  %  No Agreements  23  44.23  8  38.10  12  40.00  22  50.00  Verbal with P r i v . Owner or Lessee  I  1.92  • 1  1.92  1  3.33  1  3.33  1  2.27  2  6* 67  1  3.33  2  4.55  3  10.00  11  25.00  1  2.27  7  15.91  44  100,00  Verbal with Govt. Written with P r i v . Owner or Lessee Written (Gen.) 2 or more Types Prov. (State) Health Regulations  2  1  9.52  1.92  P o l l u t i o n Cont r o l Board Regulations Legally req'd. reforestation program  1  4*76  4  19.05  20  38.46  Blank  1  1.92  No Response  5  9.62  6  28.57  10  52  100*00  21  100.00  30  Not Applicable  Total Notes  a l l Responding Agencies included  33 • 33 100.00  105  of agency personnel i n Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a , the survey showed that fewer agencies operated without  full-time  s t a f f , consultants were u t i l i z e d less, and the l e v e l of prof e s s i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n was on the average somewhat higher (Table 13 and Appendix IV).  Xn addition to the d i s c i p l i n e s  of engineering, a n a l y t i c a l chemistry and forestry, of biology was l i s t e d by a l l three states.  the f i e l d  Significantly,  these regions, l i k e B r i t i s h Columbia, f a i l e d t o report the employment of any ecologists or f o r e s t hydrologists.  Present Management P o l i c i e s  General P o l i c i e s  The primary objective of t h i s study, as stated i n the f i r s t chapter, was t o ascertain the present management p o l i c i e s of B r i t i s h Columbia water-supply agencies.  Xn con-  junction with t h i s i t was desired t o compare B r i t i s h Columbian p o l i c i e s t o present p o l i c i e s i n the P a c i f i c coast States of Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a .  The following discussion  of these topics i s based upon the r e s u l t s of the questionnaire survey Of the four regions.  Regional Summary of Agency Personnel - Numbers and D i s c i p l i n e s .  Biology  »  2  1  14  1  o  H  1  e  3 rt  to ffi  1  26  4  1  1  1  2  8  2  4  Analytical Chemistry  m  Blank  H  « c S3 O  46-50  11  i aH H  16-20  1  O  SB  m t *-i  II- 15  1  C  x  California  6-10  16  tn  Oregon  I- 5  Blank  Engineering  Washington  21-25  Disciplined^  None  Region  None  British Columbia  1-5  Table 13.  2  2  11  1  Ecology Forestry  3  2  1  2  Forest Hydrology No Personnel No Response Notes  4  22 12  3  5 4  Tabulated values are numbers of agencies  10  5  10?  Single Use Agencies  The f i r s t aspect of management p o l i c y investigated was the question of single-use or *multiple-use*•  Single-use  agencies were defined as agencies whose p o l i c y allowed only f o r the supplying of potable water.  The term 'multiple-use'  was not used i n the questionnaire because of the numerous and c o n f l i c t i n g interpretations of i t .  I t was hoped t o avoid t h i s  confusion by enquiring about the i n c l u s i o n of 'secondary r e source uses*.  For B r i t i s h Columbia the responses indicated  that forty-one out of f i f t y - t w o systems were involved with potable water supply only; uses;  f i v e systems included secondary  four questionnaires were returned without an answer to  t h i s p a r t i c u l a r question, and two agencies said that the question was not applicable t o them.  The corresponding  dis-  t r i b u t i o n s of r e p l i e s f o r Washington, Oregon, and C a l i f o r n i a are presented i n Table 14.  Agencies l i s t i n g themselves as  'single-use* were asked t o rank i n order the three most important reasons f o r t h i s p o l i c y .  Seven possible reasons were  suggested and space was provided f o r others. use agencies subsequently volved i n land management.  Several s i n g l e -  indicated that they were not i n The true r e l a t i o n s h i p between  108  Table 14.  Summary of Indicated Management Policy. British Columbia f  Indicated Single-use Sot involved in land mgm*t  e  %  Washington f  %  Oregon f  %  California f  41  12  17  23  -7  -1  —2  -3  %  Corrected Single-use  34  87.2  11  68.8  15  57*7  20  54.0  Secondary Uses  5  12.8  5  31.2  11  42.3  17  46.0  Not Applicable  2  3  -  No Response  4  1  2  3  52 39  21 16  30 26  44 37  Total No. of Agencies Percentage Base  •mm  single and secondary use agencies would exclude these systems, and therefore, the corrected figures are presented as part of Table 14.  The quality of response to this question was lower  than expected;  for approximately forty per cent of the reasons  listed no rank was given. Of the responses which indicated the relative importance, the reason for single use most often placed f i r s t was lack of public demand for secondary uses.  An  examination of the response distributions (Table 15) shows that  Table 15.  Summary of Reasons f o r Single-use Management P o l i c y - by Region British Columbia  Region Rank Reason  1  2  Restricted Authority  4  Limited Budget  1  1  Lack o f Public Demand  13  1  More Problems Than Benefits Legal Obligat'n.  1 1  3  Not Involved i n Land Mgm't.  5  No Response Notes  1  2  2  9  ?  1  3  7  1  2  5 3  2  1  5  1  3  9  T  1  1  2  2  1  2  2  1  1  1  1  5  3  2  2  3  2  5  9  T  1  1  3  1  2  4  1  1  3  9  2  2  2  4  4  6  1  1  3  6  2  2  2  3  2  0  1  1  2  1  3  7  1  7  1  4  2  1  5 19  3  2  Poten. L i a b l l . for Injury Sec. Uses Incompatible  3  1  California  Oregon  Washington  2  1  1  2  1  9 • no rank indicated, T * t o t a l frequency. Figures indicate number of agencies.  1  1  2  3  9  1  2  1  2  3  7  1 4 4  T  1  1  5 9 15 1  2  2  1  7 13 1  3 1  1X0  t h i s reason gained i t s prominence primarily from B r i t i s h Columbia.  On a t o t a l frequency of response basis the most im-  portant reason was s t i l l the lack of public demand.  Second  most frequently l i s t e d was the l e g a l obligation t o supply pure water.  The statement that secondary uses are incompatible  with the production of potable water was given only s l i g h t l y less frequently than l e g a l obligation* If the reasons f o r a single-use management: p o l i c y are  examined f o r each region, c e r t a i n differences are evident.  For  B r i t i s h Columbia the three most frequently l i s t e d reasons  were*  f i r s t - lack of public demand, and t i e d f o r second -  r e s t r i c t e d authority and secondary uses are incompatible with production of potable water.  In reXation to t h i s study of the  r e c r e a t i o n a l use of water-suppXy areas and to the general question of secondary uses on such areas, the f i r s t two reasons are  e a s i l y defensible.  I f public demand f o r other uses i s low  and the resource base i s s u f f i c i e n t l y large to permit s i n g l e use p o l i c i e s , then there i s no r e a l necessity f o r i n i t i a t i n g secondary uses on domestic watersheds and reservoir buffer lands. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the prominence of t h i s public demand factor would seem to substantiate the supposition that as the i n t e n s i t y of p u b l i c pressure f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use of water-supply f a c i l i t i e s  increases, the l e v e l of recreation allowed w i l l increase. Secondly, i f the l e g a l authority of the agency encompasses' only the production and d i s t r i b u t i o n of water, the question of permitting secondary resource uses becomes i r r e l e v a n t . Thus, an agency may consider boating t o be an improper use of i t s r e s e r v o i r , but the decision t o permit or p r o h i b i t such use may be outside the agency's range of authority.  Conversely  an agency may wish to incorporate various a c t i v i t i e s i n t o i t s management program;  yet, because of r e s t r i c t i o n i n i t s found-  ing l e g i s l a t i o n , or ' l e t t e r s patent', authority t o do so.  i t may not have the l e g a l  The premise- that secondary .uses are i n -  compatible with the production of potable water i s less e a s i l y defended.  Rather, the author would suggest that while c o n f l i c t s  occur, even quite frequently, they are not inevitable and can most often be eliminated or made minimal (Bullard, 1966; Chang, 1968), as has been indicated i n the e a r l i e r discussion of land-use e f f e c t s and water contamination. The Washington State responses placed lack of public demand and l e g a l obligation t o supply pure water i n a t i e f o r f i r s t place.  The t h i r d most frequent reason was that second-  ary uses create more problems than benefits.  Oregon agencies  l i s t e d , i n descending order, lack of public demand, l e g a l  112  o b l i g a t i o n to supply pure water, and incompatibility as the three most important reasons f o r a single-use management policy,  C a l i f o r n i a placed l e g a l obligation t o supply pure  water f i r s t , with incompatibility of secondary uses and lack of public demand ranking second and t h i r d respectively.  Fur-  ther discussion of these l a s t two reasons would not seem warranted because they have been discussed i n r e l a t i o n to the B r i t i s h Columbia responses.  However, the question of l e g a l  obligation t o supply pure water should be considered.  Courts  have ruled that municipal corporations which undertake to s e l l water f o r private consumption are subject to the same r u l e s concerning l i a b i l i t y as any private owner of a water u t i l i t y (Campbell, 1959).  L i a b i l i t y can a r i s e i n two wayss  ligence, and (2) implied warranty,  (1) neg-  Negligence could be charged  i f the product f a l l s below the standard of good p r a c t i c e and the consumer i s thereby injured (Maloney, 1960). injury i s often d i f f i c u l t , i s not c l e a r l y defined.  Proof of  and the standard of good p r a c t i c e  The doctrine of implied warranty  holds that the sale of a product "gives r i s e to an implied warranty or promise on the part of the s e l l e r that the goods are reasonably f i t f o r the purpose f o r which they are purchased".  Under these terms, should the purchaser s u f f e r i n -  113  jury because o£ a l a c k of such f i t n e s s , the s e l l e r could be held l i a b l e , regardless of whether or not there was negligence on h i s part.  In the l i g h t of these'circumstances, Maloney  (i960) has further suggested that compliance with the united States Public Health Service (USPHS) drinking water standards would be the "best possible evidence" that the water purveyor had l i v e d up to the "standard of good p r a c t i c e " and thus could not be charged with negligence*  S i m i l a r l y , compliance with  the USPHS standards would provide the best defence to an action based on implied warranty.  Thus, l e g a l obligation to provide  'pure' water does i n f a c t e x i s t , but t h i s i s true i r r e s p e c t i v e of the management p o l i c y of the agency.  A single-use p o l i c y  merely s i m p l i f i e s , f o r the water purveyor, the problem of meeting t h i s l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n .  The contention that secondary  uses create more problems than benefits can also be supported on the basis of s i m p l i f i e d operation. The r e a l i t y of the s i t u a t i o n , however, seems to indicate that such uses as flood c o n t r o l and hydro-electric power production have beon incorporated with domestic water production quite frequently and without undue c o n f l i c t .  Research into timber management has  produced abundant evidence that properly conducted harvesting can improve the u t i l i s a t i o n of the water resource both i n terms  114  of water y i e l d and defrayal of water production expenses (Jeffrey, 1969}.  With regard t o r e c r e a t i o n a l use of these  areas, a San Diego, C a l i f o r n i a , water u t i l i t y administrator admitted that " s t r i c t l y from the point of view of water u t i l i t y management, and i n a narrow sense, be simpler without i t " .  , l i f e would  At the same time he recognized the  community benefits of reservoir recreation and held the view that a r e s e r v o i r multiple-use program can be maintained i f proper education, planning, and management techniques are employed (Dodson, 1963).  Secondary Use Agencies  The p o l i c y discussion thus f a r has concerned only those agencies which classed themselves as single-use agencies. The a l t e r n a t i v e p o l i c y i s , of course, one which allows f o r secondary resource uses.  Zn the B r i t i s h Columbia portion of  the survey, only f i v e out of t h i r t y - n i n e agencies involved i n land management indicated that t h e i r p o l i c y included secondary uses of t h e i r catchment, area, buffer lands, or r e s e r v o i r s . The survey samples of Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a a l l showed higher percentages of agencies incorporating other r e -  115  source uses with the production of domestic water.  California?!  systems appeared to be most oriented towards integrated use of t h e i r water resources, as evidenced by the f a c t that f o r t y s i x per eent of the respondents included secondary uses (Table 14) and f o r t y per cent considered that they operated under a philosophy of integrated resource use. The assessment of secondary uses was made according to f i v e management categoriess  (1) not allowed, (2) allowed  unregulated, (3) allowed regulated, (4) a c t i v e l y planned and managed, and (5) not applicable,  Xn r e l a t i o n to these cate-  gories, one major f a u l t i n the questionnaire design became evident;  e x p l i c i t d e f i n i t i o n s should have been provided f o r  a l l terms and answer categories used.  Instead, i m p l i c i t  d e f i n i t i o n s derived from the context of the p a r t i c u l a r question were r e l i e d upon. interpretation was  Consequently, th© p o s s i b i l i t y of mis-  increased and the l e v e l of uncertainty  associated with the tabulated answers was raised.  In the  case of the above l i s t e d management categories i t was assumed that, f o r example, "allowed unregulated", taken within the context of the immediate question and the preceding one, would be defined as "allowed unregulated by the responding agency".  The error i n t h i s assumption was r e a l i s e d from a  1X6  comparison of the responses to d i r e c t l y r e l a t i o n questions Consequently, r e l i a b l e statements could be made only i n r e l a t i o n to the presence or absence of a use and not i n r e l a t i o n to the nature of i t s management*  Seven land uses were l i s t e d  i n the questionnaire and space was provided f o r any other uses to be s p e c i f i e d .  The f i n a l l i s t of land uses tabulated wass  (1) commercial logging, (2) salvage logging only, (3) grazing, (4) other a g r i c u l t u r e , (5) mining, (6) hydro-electric power generating,  (7) flood control, and  (8) recreation.  Of these  uses, hydro-electric power generation and flood c o n t r o l have n e g l i g i b l e adverse influences on raw water q u a l i t y .  Zn f a c t ,  flood c o n t r o l measures should improve the q u a l i t y of water received at downstream locations. Both of these secondary uses Influence the r e s e r v o i r levels and would also a f f e c t any streamfiow regime manipulations*  The remaining uses have  d i r e c t e f f e c t s on both water q u a l i t y and quantity, and therefore, are of greater s i g n i f i c a n c e and more c o n t r o v e r s i a l with respect to t h e i r being included on lands used f o r the production or protection of domestic water supplies.  B r i t i s h Columbia?  Tabulation of the resource uses allowed  by *secondary use* agencies i n B r i t i s h Columbia showed that  117  commercial  logging, hydro-electric development and recreat-  ion were th® most common additional uses, and occurred on three out of the f i v e areas (Table 16). Grazing and flood control occurred on two areas, and other a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s and mining were each allowed on one out of the f i v e areas.  Because of the evident confusion i n the interpretat-  ion of the terms used t o describe the type of secondary-use regulation, d e f i n i t i v e statements on t h i s matter cannot be made.  For two respondents, a c t i v i t i e s were classed as reguc  lated merely i f they were known to be controlled by some government agency.  Thus, logging, grazing, mining, and hydro-  e l e c t r i c development were regulated while other a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s , flood control, and recreation seemed to be viewed as unregulated a c t i v i t i e s .  Two of the f i v e agencies indicated  that they a c t u a l l y controlled r e c r e a t i o n a l use, one by proh i b i t i n g i t , and one by allowing hunting and f i s h i n g by permit only.  These same two agencies indicated that grazing,  other agriculture, and mining were not allowed, while logging was 'allowed regulated' by one and prohibited by the other. The regulatory classes were confirmed by cross-checking with related questions, however, i n many cases t h i s was impossible because of c o n f l i c t i n g answers or non-response.  118  Table 16.  Secondary Uses Allowed - A l l Regions British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  California  Logging  3  4  11  10  Grazing  2  0  S  14  Other Agriculture  1  0  1  12  Mining  1  3  2  10  Hydro-electric  3  2  4  9  Flood c o n t r o l  2  2  5  12  Recreation  3  2  6  17  T o t a l Number Secondary Use Agencies  5  5  11  17  Zn addition to enumerating the resource uses occurring, the questionnaire attempted to ascertain whether these uses were present by consent of the agency or whether they occurred because the agency could not r e s t r i c t them.  One of  the f i v e agencies reported uses occurring because they had no l e g a l r i g h t to control them. Of the remaining four, only one system considered i t s management philosophy to be one of i n tegrated resource use.  Zt should be noted, however, that  119  only logging was a c t i v e l y incorporated into t h i s agency's operation. In summary, the r e s u l t s seem t o indicate that a l though these f i v e water supply agencies have stated that secondary resource uses are included i n t h e i r management p o l i c i e s , i n r e a l i t y the uses either occur i r r e s p e c t i v e of agency p o l i c y , or are extremely  limited.  In most investigations, what o r i g i n a l l y seems black and white usually turns out t o be mostly grey.  This seems  to be true with regard to water supply management p o l i c y .  Of  the t h i r t y - f o u r 'single-use* agencies involved i n land management, fourteen were also Involved with resource uses other than water production,  nine of these agencies stated that  uses occurred because they had no l e g a l r i g h t t o c o n t r o l them; three said t h i s was not the case, and two f a i l e d to respond to t h i s question*  L o g i c a l l y , none of the fourteen 'single-  use' agencies professed to operate under a philosophy of Integrated resource use. Tabulation of the uses reported by these agencies showed that commercial logging occurred on eleven areas, and recreation on ten.  Each of the remaining  a c t i v i t i e s occurred on f i v e Or fewer areas (Appendix I V ) . A factor which appeared to be of s i g n i f i c a n c e was the degree  120  of control over land-use, possessed by the water supply agency.  Of the fourteen systems under consideration only  one, the Greater Vancouver water D i s t r i c t , had c o n t r o l of i t s catchment lands.  This D i s t r i c t allowed only controlled s a l -  vage logging of timber either k i l l e d or endangered by balsam woolly aphid (Adelges piccae)•  For the other areas land-use  decisions appeared to be p r i m a r i l y the prerogative of the p r o v i n c i a l government with some private c o n t r o l .  The P a c i f i c Coast States*  Zn comparison with B r i t i s h Columbia,  the 'secondary-use* agencies of Washington and Oregon seemed to favour the i n c l u s i o n of timber harvesting over other possible supplementary land uses.  Zn Oregon the next most  frequent use was recreation followed by grazing and flood control.  Washington agencies indicated that mining was  included  on three out of f i v e areas and recreation was present twice. The nature of the mining was not s p e c i f i e d , therefore, the r e a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s use i s unknown. The State of C a l i f o r n i a , i n which seventeen out of thirty-seven respondents classed themselves as  'secondary-use'  agencies, showed a considerable d i v e r s i t y of co-ordinated uses.  Nine systems included at least one use other than  121  water supply and a l l seventeen indicated that recreation was allowed,  A complete comparison of the a c t i v i t i e s allowed by  •secondary-use'  systems Is given i n Table 16.  In response t o  the question concerning the l e g a l r i g h t t o control uses, t h i r teen out of thirty-two American agencies indicated that they lacked the necessary authority. This s i t u a t i o n would seem t o echo the diverse l e g a l status of these regions * catchment lands.  Responses t o the question, "Does your agency operate  under a philosophy of integrated resource use?", were a f f i r m ative from twenty-three agencies, negative from four, and no response from f i v e .  The reason offered most frequently i n  support of t h i s p o l i c y was that reservoirs and catchment lands should be managed so as to provide the maximum l e v e l of r e source use that i s consistent with water supply safety. The opinions that secondary uses should be provided t o the extent possible without loss of raw water q u a l i t y and that integrated use i s permissible when water i s treated, were expressed several times and one C a l i f o r n l a n agency held the view that i t was good business t o incorporate other uses with the production of potable water. As was the case i n B r i t i s h Columbia, c e r t a i n of the respondents from Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a indicated  122  that although they considered themselves t o be single-use agencies, t h e i r watersheds and reservoirs served other functions besides water supply.  About one out of every four  areas was u t i l i z e d f o r some secondary purpose compared t o one out of every three i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  The types and f r e -  quencies of these uses are shown as part of Appendix XV.  A  regional summary of a l l the reported uses and t h e i r respective frequencies of occurrence or non-occurrence, disregarding agency p o l i c y , i s presented i n Table 17 and shows that f o r B r i t i s h Columbia and Oregon logging and recreation occurred considerably more often than the other uses.  Washington  agencies incorporated logging r e l a t i v e l y frequently, but other uses were somewhat l i m i t e d .  In C a l i f o r n i a the frequencies  were more uniform i n d i c a t i n g that i n d i v i d u a l agencies included a wider range of a c t i v i t i e s . and grazing was next.  Recreation was the most common  The lesser importance of logging, com-  pared to the other regions, resulted from the lower percentage of catchment and buffer lands that were supporting commercial timber.  Table 17,  Regional Summary of Reported Uses - Irrespective of Agency P o l i c y British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  California  No  Yes  $  No  Yes  $  No  Yes  $  No  Yes  $  24  14  1  8  7  1  10  16  mm-  26  11  -  Grazing  32  7  mm  12  2  2  18  6  2  19  18  -  Other Agriculture  33  5  1  13  1  2  20  2  4  23  14  -  Mining  34  4  1  11  3  2  19  3  4  25  11  1  Hydro-elec, development  33  5  1  12  2  2  20  4  2  23  10  4  Flood Control  31  6  2  11  3  2  18  S  3  21  14  2  Recreation  25  13  1  12  3  1  16  9  1  17  20  -  Commercial Logging Salvage Logging only  Notes  $  indicates no response  124  Recreational Use P o l i c i e s  Within the general theme of integrated uses on municipal water supply reservoirs, t h e i r buffer zones, and t h e i r catchment lands, there arises the s p e c i f i c subject of r e c r e a t i o n a l use of these areas*  The importance, and frequency  of occurrence of recreation i n r e l a t i o n t o other secondary uses have been discussed i n the preceding pages.  The reasons  for 'single-use* as put f o r t h by the survey respondents,  and  the concepts supporting a philosophy of integrated resource use have been presented.  In the following section the d e t a i l e d  'facts' concerning recreation, as revealed by the water purveyors of B r i t i s h Columbia and the P a c i f i c coast States, are considered.  Recreation P o t e n t i a l and Opportunity  As a prelude t o the a c t u a l recreation p o l i c i e s of these agencies, the questionnaire included a request f o r each respondent t o estimate the recreation p o t e n t i a l of t h e i r  own  lands, and also t o estimate the recreation opportunities within a one hundred mile radius of t h e i r most important raw water  125  r e s e r v o i r and/or watershed.  Both estimates were to be made  using a f i v e point scale and eight a c t i v i t y groups were i n cluded i n the opportunity question.  Responses to the question  of recreation p o t e n t i a l showed that f o r B r i t i s h Columbia approximately one t h i r d of the agencies to which the question applied considered  t h e i r lands t o have a high t o excellent  p o t e n t i a l f o r recreation*  S i m i l a r l y , f o r Washington, Oregon  and C a l i f o r n i a estimates of high t o excellent p o t e n t i a l were given by f i f t y to f i f t y - f i v e per cent of the agencies. I t was suggested that agencies with a single-use management p o l i c y might tend t o underrate the p o t e n t i a l of t h e i r lands f o r r e creation.  An examination of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of high and  excellent ratings does not confirm t h i s suspicion (Table 18). In the assessment of recreation opportunities  sur-  rounding the surveyed water supply systems there d i d not appear to be any obvious regional differences that would promote differences i n recreation p o l i c y .  For the eight  a c t i v i t y groups l i s t e d , the percentages of high t o excellent ratings were consistently high as were frequencies response.  of non-  Only the s k i i n g and skidooing ratings f o r the  C a l i f o r n i a agencies appeared to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower (Appendix IV).  These two factors, s e l f - r a t e d recreation  Table lit*  Summary of Respondent-rated Potential o f Their Own Lands British Columbia  Region ^^~~-\policy Rating  1  2  Excellent  3  -  High  3  Average  Oregon  Washington  All  1  California All  1  2  All  • 1  7  1  8  9  2  All  I  2  -  -  5  3  mm  1  4  2  2  4  -  3  3  3  4  7  4  1  5  am  1  1  3  4  5  2  7  Low  3  1  4  2  2  i  2  3  2  1  5  1  6  1  2  1  3  2  -  -  3  Very Low  -  -  -  21  7  8  6  6  9  2  JL  JL  JL  J5  JZ  12  5  21  17  11  50  75  66  70.  50  50  56  40  Hot Applicable So Response  16 J  L  T o t a l Agencies  41  5  % Average or Higher  56  50  % High t o Excellent  33  25  52  32  1  -  50  30  50  3 13  _1  -  _2  23  17  44  69  93  31  30  55  Notes Management P o l i c y 1 = Single Use; Management P o l i c y 2 » Secondary Uses I n c l . Percentages based on* (Total Agencies - Not Applic. • No Response ) Rows do not necessarily sum because of non-response t o p o l i c y question.  127  p o t e n t i a l and recreation opportunity l e v e l , were incorporated into subsequent regression analysis.  Recreation A c t i v i t i e s  The investigation into the types of recreation a c t i v i t i e s that were allowed on domestic watersheds and reservoirs was o r i g i n a l l y to be limited to only those agencies which s p e c i f i c a l l y allowed by choice r e c r e a t i o n a l use. cations o f t  The  compli-  (1) agencies which supported a single-use con-  cept, but d i d not have the l e g a l means to enforce i t ,  and  (2) agencies which gave incomplete or inconsistent responses to the management p o l i c y questions, made i t necessary to d i s regard the stated p o l i c y and summarize the types of recreation and t h e i r frequencies s t r i c t l y as indicated i n Section Three of the questionnaire.  The only q u a l i f y i n g c r i t e r i a used i n  the i n i t i a l tabulation were that recreation occurred on the area and that the relevant section of the questionnaire had been completed. The a c t i v i t i e s were grouped under two land-oriented and water-oriented.  headings,  The land a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d  i n the questionnaire were p i c n i c k i n g , camping, hiking, horse  128  r i d i n g , nature observation, hunting, snow s k i i n g , and ing.  Golf was  skidoo-  added to the l i s t by one agency i n C a l i f o r n i a  and consequently had to be included i n the tabulation. oriented recreation was  '  Water-  divided into f i s h i n g - from shore  only, f i s h i n g - from boat only, f i s h i n g - both types, canoeing and rowing, motorboating - e l e c t r i c powered, motorboating gasoline powered, waterskiing, s a i l i n g , swimming, and scuba diving. ents.  No other water a c t i v i t i e s were indicated by respondDifferences between the numbers of agencies that i n d i c a t -  ed the occurrence of recreation and the numbers of agencies f o r which a c t i v i t i e s were recorded resulted from non-response. For B r i t i s h Columbia the analysis showed that p i c nicking, camping and hunting were the most frequently occurring land a c t i v i t i e s , and f i s h i n g and gas-powered motorboating were the most common water a c t i v i t i e s .  I t i s suggested that  e l e c t r i c powered boating i s r e l a t i v e l y rare and f o r t h i s reason occurred less frequently.  A l l other land and water  a c t i v i t i e s occurred on at l e a s t three out of eight areas.  Of  the Washington agencies involved i n recreation, two out of three completed the a c t i v i t y section.  Both agencies indicated  that picnicking, hiking, nature observation, hunting and snow s k i i n g occurred, but only one indicated camping, horse r i d i n g  129  and skidooing*  Water a c t i v i t i e s , i n comparison with B r i t i s h  Columbia (Tables 19a and 19b), were almost nonexistent;  only  f i s h i n g , and canoeing and rowing occurred on one area. S i m i l a r l y , i n Oregon water-oriented a c t i v i t i e s were quite limited;  f i s h i n g occurred four times out of f i v e ;  canoeing  and rowing occurred once, and swimming occurred on two areas. Land-based recreation was somewhat more prevalent with hunting being most frequent, and s k i i n g and skidooing l e a s t frequent. Responses from C a l i f o r n i a placed p i c n i c k i n g and hiking f i r s t among the a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d . f i f t e e n of sixteen areas.  These two uses occurred on  As can be seen from Tables 19a and  19b, other land a c t i v i t i e s were quite prevalent except f o r s k i i n g and skidooing.  In contrast to Washington and Oregon,  water recreation proved to be quite common among C a l i f o r n i a n agencies.  F i s h i n g from shore and boat occurred on fourteen  areas with the remaining two agencies allowing f i s h i n g from shore only.  Swimming and scuba d i v i n g occurred on seven of  sixteen areas.  This more prominent p o s i t i o n of recreation  probably resulted from factors such as greater p u b l i c pressure for use of water supply f a c i l i t i e s ,  higher average l e v e l of  water treatment, greater o v e r a l l emphasis on integrated use of natural resources, and lesser supply of alternate recreation  Table 19a.  Recreation A c t i v i t i e s Occurring on Watershed Stands - by Survey Region British Columbia  \. Region Activity  Yes  No  $ Total  5  15  1  16  1  5  11  5  16  2  1  5  15  1  16  2  2  1  5  9  7  16  2  2  2  1  5  12  4  16  2  2  4  1  5  8  8  16  8  2  2  1  3  1  5  4  8  4  16  1  8  1  1  2  1  3  1  5  3  8  5  16  S  8  2  2  5  5  1  15  16  Yes  No  $ Total  2  2  2  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  a  2  Yes  Yes  NO  $ Total  Picnicking  5  2  1  8  2  Camping  5  2  1  8  1  Hiking  4  3  1  8  2  Horse Riding  4  3  1  8  1  Nature Observ.  4  3  1  8  Hunting  5  2  1  Snow Skiing  3  3  Skidooing  3  3  Golf Notes  $  California  Oregon  Washington  indicates no response  No  $ Total  1  1  Table 19b.  Recreation A c t i v i t i e s Occurring on Reservoirs - by Survey Region British Columbia  Region Activity^\^ Fishings Shore Only  Ho  $ Total  8  1  1  2  6  8  1  1  2  Yes  Ho  $ Total  1  1  6  2  Fishings Boat Only  Yes  Yes  Ho  $ Total  2  1  2  5  3  2  5  Fishings Both  5  2  1  8  1  1  2  2  3  Canoeing & Rowing  4  3  1  8  1  1  2  1  3  Motorboats Electric  2  2  4  8  2  2  Motorboat § Gas  5  2  1  3  2  Waterskiing  3  4  1  8  Sailing  4  3  1  Swimming  3  4  Scuba  3  4  Hotes  $  California  Oregon  Washington  Yes  HO  2  $ Total 14  16  16  16  2  16  5  14  I  5  11  3  2  16  4  1  5  12  1  3  16  2  4  1  5  13  2  1  16  2  2  4  1  5  8  7  1  16  8  2  2  4  1  5  8  7  1  16  I  8  2  2  5  7  8  1  16  1  8  2  2  5  7  8  1  16  indicates no response  2  3 4  1  132  facilities.  The attempt t o i d e n t i f y some of these factors  through regression analysis i s discussed i n l a t e r sections, Although i t was stated that the attempt to e s t a b l i s h the management l e v e l of each secondary use was unsuccessful because of inconsistent interpretation of the terms used, i t i s worthwhile t o observe that ho agencies i n C a l i f o r n i a i n dicated  'unregulated' r e c r e a t i o n a l use, and that no agencies  i n either B r i t i s h Columbia or Washington indicated any recreation occurring on an 'actively planned and managed' basis (Appendix IV).  Furthermore, twelve of the sixteen C a l i f o r n i a  agencies l i s t i n g recreation a c t i v i t i e s , considered ' a c t i v e l y planned and managed' t o be the appropriate description of t h e i r management p o l i c y .  In s p i t e of the acknowledged un-  c e r t a i n interpretation of the management l e v e l terms, the r e s u l t s mentioned above and presented i n Appendix XV seem t o indicate a considerably  more sophisticated type of management  i n C a l i f o r n i a and t o a lesser extent i n Oregon, than i n Washington and B r i t i s h Columbia*  Recreation Controls  In the management of any land u n i t a prime requirement i s t o have an adequately defined and e f f e c t i v e system  133  of controls t o enable regulation of the planned resource uses.  In the case a t hand, r e c r e a t i o n a l use of domestic  water supply areas, t h i s i s a v i t a l aspect of the management policy.  The survey enquired about the methods of user access  control, use i n t e n s i t y control, and conduct control,, and also about the type of regulations u t i l i z e d t o support the c o n t r o l techniques. The assessment of user access c o n t r o l was made on the basis of eight types which were as followss  (1) none,  (2) area design, (3) area zoning, (4) permits - free (5) permits - fees, (6) fee charge - no permits, (7) clubs and associations only, and (8) voluntary r e g i s t r a t i o n .  Res-  ponses t o these questions of controls and regulations were rather limited, and those received were predominantly California.  from  The most common method of user access^ c o n t r o l i n  t h i s region was the issuance of access permits f o r a fee; f i f t y per cent of the respondents used t h i s technique by I t s e l f or i n conjunction with other c o n t r o l methods.  For C a l i f o r n i a  the next most common method was area design followed by area zoning.  Control through area design would imply s p e c i f i c  p h y s i c a l arrangement of recreation f a c i l i t i e s so as t o d i r e c t users away from desired non-use areas.  In contrast, area  134  zoning would seem to imply a delineation of r e s t r i c t e d areas and use areas through signing and/or fencing.  Responses  from B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon t o t a l l e d only eight.  Of these, four agencies indicated that no access con-  t r o l was exercised. One B r i t i s h Columbia agency u t i l i z e d free access permits »  one Washington agency used voluntary  r e g i s t r a t i o n , and one Oregon respondent indicated t h a t area design, free permits, and area zoning were respectively f i r s t , second and t h i r d l e v e l control methods. Coupled with access control i s the question of useintensity control.  As recreation planners and managers are  unhappily r e a l i z i n g , areas of a l l types have c e r t a i n load l i m i t s beyond which d e t e r i o r a t i o n i s magnified greatly and the p r o b a b i l i t y of adverse e f f e c t s on the environment i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher.  In r e l a t i o n to water q u a l i t y t h i s  factor i s of v i t a l importance.  The enquiry i n t o i n t e n s i t y  c o n t r o l i n t h i s survey was open-ended i n that no methods were l i s t e d *  Consequently, the r e s u l t s were not as inform-  ative as they could have been.  Out of twenty-four respond-  ing agencies, ten indicated t h a t they controlled the i n t e n s i t y of r e c r e a t i o n a l use. methods.  Two agencies d i d not l i s t any c o n t r o l  Three areas regulated use by releasing only a  135  l i m i t e d number of access permits.  The remaining f i v e areas  indicated that once the design capacity of t h e i r f a c i l i t i e s had been reached the area was closed to additional: users. A l l the agencies employing t h i s s p e c i f i c design capacity technique were i n C a l i f o r n i a and incorporated recreation on an 'actively planned and managed' basis (Appendix IV). Conduct c o n t r o l was divided into three types, education and persuasion, rules and regulations - honour system, and rules and regulations - enforcement and penalty system. Space was provided f o r other methods, but none were reported. As i n the previously discussed questions, only C a l i f o r n i a responded w e l l to t h i s enquiry.  Enforced rules and regulations  was the prime method of conduct control employed.  Next i n  importance was the honour system with defined rules and regulations.  Education and persuasion was seldom used by i t s e l f  and quite frequently combinations were used.  of a l l three techniques  Only i n B r i t i s h Columbia were there any agencies  which did not indicate some method of conduct c o n t r o l (Appendix IV). As a l o g i c a l supplement to the examination of cont r o l methods i t was enquired as to what regulations on r e c r e a t i o n a l use had been established with respect to protection  136  of: and  (1) the watershed and/or the reservoir buffer (2) the water q u a l i t y .  dicated that municipal  lands,  One B r i t i s h Columbia agency i n -  ordinances had been established.  One  agency i n Oregon and seven i n C a l i f o r n i a also indicated that municipal ordinances were i n e f f e c t .  In addition, three  C a l i f o r n i a agencies had established t h e i r own lations.  zoning regu-  The remaining s i x systems that responded to t h i s  question had not i n s t i t u t e d any regulations of t h e i r own,  but  instead, r e l i e d upon f o r e s t service regulations, and state and county health regulations.  Examples of these agency, municipal  and state ordinances are provided  Recreation  i n Appendix  XV.  Implications  The i n c l u s i o n of recreation on domestic water supply reservoirs and watersheds undoubtedly has c e r t a i n implications with regard to management f o r water production.  It i s typic-  a l l y stated that raw water q u a l i t y i s reduced by the presence of recreation on an area.  In contrast to t h i s i s the s t a t e -  ment from the San Diego, C a l i f o r n i a , U t i l i t i e s Department that "absolutely no evidence e x i s t s of any contamination of the r e s e r v o i r waters or shorelines because of the c i t y ' s present  137  r e s e r v o i r recreation program" (Dodson, 1963). troversy prompted the author to enquire about:  This con(1) changes  in water q u a l i t y as a r e s u l t of recreational use, (2) the l e v e l of treatment that would be necessary i f recreation were not permitted, and (3) the method used to meet the costs added by recreational use (Appendix I V ) . Response to the question about changes i n water q u a l i t y showed that only two agencies out of thirty-one had detected changes which they would a t t r i b u t e to recreation. One B r i t i s h Columbia agency said water t u r b i d i t y had  increased  and one Oregon respondent said the coliform bacteria count had increased.  None of the sixteen C a l i f o r n i a systems to  which the question applied, reported any changes i n water q u a l i t y as a r e s u l t of recreation.  The enquiry about studies  of the impact of recreation programs on water q u a l i t y and y i e l d indicated that, e i t h e r r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e has been done i n these regions, or the study reports have not been very widely disseminated.  A U.S. Public Health Service study was  reported by the Seattle, Washington, Water Department, but the findings had not yet been published.  The C i t y of The  Dalles, Oregon, indicated that they were currently involved i n a watershed study i n co-operation with the U.S. Forest  Service,  X38  U.S. S o i l Conservation  Service and Oregon State Forestry*  One other study was reported by the C i t y of Bellingham, Washington;  t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n had been conducted by the  I n s t i t u t e of Freshwater Studies at Western Washington State College, Bellingham. The enquiry i n t o the l e v e l o f water treatment that would be required i f recreation were not permitted  revealed  that twenty-one out of thirty-one agencies f e l t that the same l e v e l would be necessary.  Bight agencies d i d not respond t o  t h i s question, one said the question d i d not apply, and one C a l i f o r n i a agency r e p l i e d that surface supply treatment was mandatory.  An examination of treated water costs i n r e l a t i o n  to the l e v e l of recreation reported shows that of twenty agencies with water costs of less than t h i r t y cents per thousand Canadian Imperial gallons, exactly one h a l f indicated f i v e or more a c t i v i t i e s occurring on t h e i r lands.  Of the  agencies reporting eight or more recreation a c t i v i t i e s , seventy per cent had treated water costs of less than t h i r t y cents per thousand gallons.  In comparison, sixty-four per  cent of the agencies reporting no recreation had treated water costs o f l e s s than t h i r t y cents per thousand gallons; therefore, on the basis of the survey data i t would appear  139  that no simple cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p exist© between l e v e l of recreation and water cost. In conjunction with the consideration of raw water q u a l i t y and treatment cost i n r e l a t i o n to recreation,  one  should also consider the question of compensation f o r the costs incurred from recreation.  I f indeed water q u a l i t y i s  lowered and therefore treatment costs are r a i s e d , who  should  pay these a d d i t i o n a l costs incurred to produce high q u a l i t y water?  The usual accusation i s that the water consumer w i l l  be forced to assume the added expenses of recreation (Riehl, 1956). sented.  In response to t h i s , the following r e s u l t s are preOf the twenty-four water supply agencies which com-  pleted the question, nine operated completely self-supporting recreation programs.  Five areas had p a r t i a l l y self-support-  ing recreation programs.  Other methods of meeting recreation  costs included increased water rates, a general tax levy, government grants, and payment of any recreation d e f i c i t from general funds;  these techniques were implemented a t o t a l of  seven times (Appendix IV).  C l e a r l y , self-supporting recreat-  ion programs are being accepted*  As use of a l l types of  recreation f a c i l i t i e s has increased even the Canadian and American national parks systems have recognized l o g i c i n the assessment of user fees.  the value and  140  The foregoing discussion has focused on possible costs of r e c r e a t i o n a l use of domestic water supply reservoirs and watersheds.  Some of these cost increases can a l s o r e s u l t  from uses such as grazing, mining and logging, and so should not be attributed t o recreation alone.  Just as there are  costs associated with use there are a l s o costs associated with non-use of these reservoirs and catchments; and some are not*.  some are tangible  In r e l a t i o n t o secondary uses such as  timber harvesting, grazing, and forage production, the f a i l u r e to Incorporate them where f e a s i b l e may mean loss of revenue to the water agency, and i n the case of timber harvesting, loss of p o t e n t i a l water y i e l d increases.  In some areas r e -  moval of catchment lands from the supply of grazing lands available, can place unnecessary s t r a i n s on l i v e s t o c k operators.  Non-use from a r e c r e a t i o n a l viewpoint has t r a d i t i o n a l l y  not resulted i n a loss of revenue t o the agency;  however,it  can force the population of the area t o incur greater costs to obtain t h e i r recreation.  As the l e v e l s of discretionary  income and l e i s u r e time continue t o increase, the use loads on a l l recreation f a c i l i t i e s become heavier and heavier* Beaches, p i c n i c areas and campgrounds within a one hundred mile radius of modern urban centres are subjected t o tremendous  141  weekend loads,  Alouette Lake and Coitus Lake P r o v i n c i a l  Parks i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Lower Fraser V a l l e y are both prime examples of t h i s s i t u a t i o n , as are the numerous p u b l i c beaches throughout the Greater Vancouver area.  As these  pressures grow, the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of single-use land management p o l i c i e s becomes ever more d i f f i c u l t ;  the cry f o r  'recreation on the watersheds' becomes ever more common.  In  t h i s regard I t i s f u l l y accepted that the water supply industry has a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the public f o r the production of safe, high q u a l i t y water*  I t must also be r e a l i z e d by water pur-  veyors that they cannot concentrate on t h i s primary responsi b i l i t y to the exclusion of a l l other needs of society;  in-  deed, society w i l l not permit t h i s attitude (McEwen, 1965), As i s becoming increasingly recognized, the protection of public health Involves more than protection from p h y s i c a l disease;  other e s s e n t i a l human needs must be provided f o r  and recreation i s one very human need.  I f t h i s i s recognized,  " i t would seem better f o r the water supplier to approach the r e c r e a t i o n i s t and ask his assistance i n determining  how  reservoirs and watersheds can best serve r e c r e a t i o n a l needs without jeopardizing the health of the water consumer,  The  objective should be to a r r i v e at a combination of uses that w i l l provide the greatest public benefit." (McEwen, 1965),  142  I f t h i s p o s i t i v e approach were taken, and resource managers and planners would s e t aside t h e i r vested interests and attempt to integrate t h e i r ideas to obtain t h i s maximum p u b l i c benef i t , the problem of 'public health', i n i t s broadest sense, would be i n f i n i t e l y reduced.  Too often short-term p r o f i t s or  p o l i t i c a l expediency are the c r i t e r i a upon which land-use allocations and development plans are based;  frequently ex-  pert opinions, studies, and proposals are disregarded comp l e t e l y , opportunities f o r co-ordinated and complementary developments throughout  a region are Ignored or missed a l -  together and the malignant, d i s j o i n t e d growth continues.  Regression and C o r r e l a t i o n Analysis  As outlined i n the statement of the problem, a major objective of the study was t o determine what factors influence the i n t e n s i t y of recreation occurring on municipal water supply areas.  I t was hoped that an insight into the  nature of these factors could be gained through regression and c o r r e l a t i o n analysis of the data gathered i n the survey of water supply agencies.  143  Preliminary Examination of the Data  P r i o r to the i n i t i a t i o n of any detailed analysis, the dependent variables - multiple use and recreation scores, were plotted against each of the independent v a r i a b l e s .  Ex-  amination of the r e s u l t i n g scattergrams showed very weak relationships between the multiple use and r e c r e a t i o n a l use scores and any single independent v a r i a b l e .  For Data Set X,  with a l l four regions combined, the scattergrams of multiple use score versus present population served, degree of water treatment, average percentage p r i v a t e l y controlled watershed lands, and average percentage forest cover of watershed lands showed the most promise of being s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d .  The  variables which appeared to be most related to recreational use were percentage domestic use, average percentage forest cover of reservoir' buffer lands, average percentage f o r e s t cover of watershed lands, and s e l f - r a t e d recreation p o t e n t i a l of agency lands.  When plotted by region, the X variables  which appeared to have the strongest relationships with the use scores varied between regions and were not always those which showed promise i n the scattergrams of a l l areas combined. For Data Set XX the p l o t t i n g of the variable pairs was even  144  less enlightening than f o r the f i r s t set; any possible r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t a l l .  very few showed  I t should be noted, how-  ever, that the evaluation of the suggested r e l a t i o n s h i p s depicted by the scattergrams was hindered  somewhat by the  f a c t that non-responses could not be distinguished from legitimate zero values because the computer program interprets blank f i e l d s as zero values. Zn r e l a t i o n t o the application of regression and c o r r e l a t i o n analysis there are several assumptions upon which the v a l i d i t y of the techniques depend.  These assumptions are,  according t o S t e e l and T o r r i e (1960), that (1) the X's or independent variables should be measured without error, and (2) the variances of the Y-values through the range of X-values are homogeneous.  A t h i r d assumption of importance  i s that experimental errors are random, independently and normally d i s t r i b u t e d about a zero mean and with a common variance.  This i s not a requirement of the regression tech-  nique, but rather i s a requirement of the F-test or variance r a t i o t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e . As S t e e l and T o r r i e point out, " i n practice, we are never c e r t a i n that a l l these assumptions hold;  often there i s good reason t o believe some are f a l s e " .  Very r a r e l y do data exactly f u l f i l the requirements of the  145  t h e o r e t i c a l model, and therefore, procedures f o r t e s t i n g hypotheses and estimating confidence intervals should be regarded as approximate rather than exact.  Analysis of Data Set One  A l l Regions Combined  As pointed out i n the preceding description of the analysis techniques employed, complete sets of variables are required f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n of regression equations. f i r s t t r i a l a step-wise elimination regression was  In the  performed  for  each dependent v a r i a b l e with the i n i t i a l equation i n c l u d -  ing  a l l of the independent v a r i a b l e s .  Consequently,  number of observations that could be u t i l i z e d was from seventy-six t o thirty-nine*  the  reduced  t h i s represented a sixteen  per cent sample of the t o t a l population to which questionnaires were sent. Calculation of simple l i n e a r c o r r e l a t i o n coe f f i c i e n t s from these basic s t a t i s t i c s showed that multiple use was most highly correlated t o the s i z e of the present population served (Xl) with a c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.49502.  146  Recreational use was  most c l o s e l y correlated with the average  percentage of forested watershed lands (X22).  Both the  weighted recreation score (Y2) and the weighted score  un(Y3)  showed inverse relationships with the percentage of forest cover (Table 2 0 ) . A l t h o u g h the correlations of present popul a t i o n served to the r e c r e a t i o n a l use scores were non-significant at the f i v e per cent l e v e l , they were p o s i t i v e which coincided with the multiple-use case.  S i m i l a r l y , the other  s i g n i f i c a n t correlations were consistently p o s i t i v e or negat i v e for a l l three dependent variables. E z e k i e l and Pox  As pointed out  by  (1963) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s calculated  from small samples have a tendency towards upward bias should be adjusted.  Accordingly  they have derived  and  graphical  adjustments from the r e s u l t s of e a r l i e r investigations into the r e l i a b i l i t y of observed correlations (Fischer, 1928). The adjustment charts are based on the idea that, "although we cannot be sure of the true c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t i n g i n the universe on the basis of the c o r r e l a t i o n shown i n a given sample, we can estimate a minimum value for the true correl a t i o n , with a given chance of being wrong" (Ezekiel and 1963).  Fox,  I f the above calculated correlations are adjusted  with the aid of the simple c o r r e l a t i o n chart (Figure 6), the  Table 20. Simple Correlation Coefficients - A l l Variables - A l l Regions Combined .Dependent Variables Independent Variables Present population served Xl Water consumption X2 % domestic use X3 Degree o f treatment X4 Avg. % munic. eontr'ld. buffer lands X5 Avg. % p r i v a t e l y eontr'ld. buffer lands X6 Avg. % f e d e r a l l y eontr'ld. buffer lands X7 Avg. % prov.(state) eontr'ld.buffer lands X8 Avg. % munic. eontr'ld. watershed lands X9 Avg. % p r i v . eontr'ld. watershed lands X10 Avg. % f e d e r a l l y cOntr* Id. watershed lands X l l Avg. % prov. (state) eontr'ld.watershed landsX12 T o t a l number of personnel X13 Number of engineers X14 Number of b i o l o g i s t s X15 Number of a n a l y t i c a l chemists X16 Number o f foresters X17 Number of bachelor degrees X18 Number of post-graduate degrees X19 Avg. % f o r e s t covered buffer lands X20 Avg. % shrub covered buffer lands X21 Avg. % f o r e s t covered watershed lands X22 X23 Avg. % shrub covered watershed lands X24 Recreation potential X25 Recreation opportunity Notes  Multiple Use Score Yl 0.49502 0.45894 -0.14524 0.21737 -0.14398 -0.06507 0.30414 -0.07101 -0.22329 -0.03296 0.35793 -0.12676 0.45532 0.44459 0.14037 0.45555 0.11520 0.46478 0.14411 -0.21393 0.32003 -0.45928 0.44726 0.08162 0.12154  * - s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l •* - s i g n i f i c a n t at .01 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l N.S. - non-significant at .05 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l  N.S.  * N.S. ** •**. N.S. ** N.S. •**• N.S. N.S. *  ** **  N.S. N.S.  Recreation Score 1 Y2 0.21595 0.25292 -0.16270 0.26448 -0.15589 -0.01044 0.16876 -0.04045 -0.18327 0.05232 0.08168 0.07895 0.22399 0.22991 -0.00714 0.24660 0.00673 0.22727 -0.11340 -0.29450 0.30250 -0.53060 0.42930 0.36699 -0.09960  N.S.  Recreation Score 2 Y3  0.24482 N.S< 0.27199 -0.07451 0.31648 -0.03105 -0.02907 0.24461 -0.04972 -0.13535 0.01125 0.16985 -0.04654 0.29859 0.31521 -0.02950 0.31262 -0.05275 0.29468 -0.14899 -0.29896 0.43050 ••• ** -0.62720 ** ** 0.56453 ** 0.44091 ** * N.S, -0.12904 N.S.  Minimum correlation in universe, for varying observed correlations and size of sample  1.00  0.90  0.80  0.70  0.60  0.50  0.40  0.30  0.20  0.10  0.10  58  0.20  0.30  0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 Correlation observed in sample  0.80  0.90  1.00  Mjuoteenfe Chart. Boekiei* M. and K,A* Fox* ' 19i  c o r r e l a t i o n o f multiple-use with present population served i s 'reduced from «HS.49 t o a 'minimum true c o r r e l a t i o n * 'of approximately +0.27 with the p r o b a b i l i t y that t h i s statement w i l l be wrong f o r 1 sample out of 20, on the '.average.' The' c o r r e l a t i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n a l us© with average percentage of forested watershed lands would be reduced from -0.53 t o a  149  minimum of approximately -0.31 with the same p r o b a b i l i t y f o r error.  I t i s recognized, therefore, that c o r r e l a t i o n and  regression analysis based on r e l a t i v e l y small samples can lead to over-estimates of the s t a t i s t i c s r(R) and r  (R ) and under-  2  2  estimates of standard errors, and that r e s u l t s must be caref u l l y and somewhat cautiously interpreted. The f i r s t step-wise elimination performed showed that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t regression r e l a t i o n s h i p between multiple-use score (Vi) and the combination of present popul a t i o n served (XI), average percentage of municipal and/or agency controlled buffer lands (X5), and average of shrub covered buffer lands (X2I).  percentage  The l i n e a r regression  equation incorporating the variables yielded an unadjusted c o e f f i c i e n t of determination (R ) of 0.39760. 2  A detailed  description of the calculated equation i s presented i n Table 21.  Further elimination of independent variables pro-  duced a simple regression of Y l on present population served (Xl), s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l , which had an unadjusted R  2  of 0.24061.  The R  2  s t a t i s t i c i s a measure of the proport-  ion of the variance i n the dependent variable (Y) which i s accounted f o r by differences i n the independent variable (x)? R  2  i s commonly expressed as a percentage.  In the regression  150  of Y l on XI, X5, and X21 only 39*8% of the v a r i a t i o n In Y l i s explained by the independent v a r i a b l e s .  The corresponding  standard error of estimate i s *5.8 or +61.5%;  p l a i n l y the  calculated equation, while s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f l e a n t , could not p r e d i c t the l e v e l o f m u l t i p l e - u s e with any reasonable degree of p r e c i s i o n . Another aspect that must be considered  independently  from the s t a t i s t i c a l accuracy and p r e c i s i o n of the equation i s the l o g i c a l explanation of apparently s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s . In r e l a t i o n to multiple-uses on municipal water supply areas the i n i t i a l analysis showed that as the present population served increased the l e v e l of multiple-use increased also. This could be accounted f o r on the basis that agencies serving larger populations would have larger or more numerous reservoirs and catchment areas.  This s i t u a t i o n would seem  to lend i t s e l f to the co-ordination of secondary uses with water production.  A d d i t i o n a l l y , larger agencies tend to have  more.intensive management with better q u a l i f i e d personnel and more extensive treatment f a c i l i t i e s .  Similarly,  secondary  resource use increased as the percentage of shrub cover on reservoir buffer lands increased i  t h i s would hot seem to be  d i r e c t l y related but rather a r e f l e c t i o n . o f the more dominant  151  p o s i t i o n of shrublands i n C a l i f o r n i a which happens- to be coincident with the more dominant p o s i t i o n of secondary uses i n that region.  The t h i r d s i g n i f i c a n t variable, average -  percentage of miihicipaily or agency controlled buffer lands, exhibits ah inverse relationship' with multiple-use score, The high proportion of single-use agencies throughout the study area would lead one t o expect that as the degree of agency c o n t r o l increased t h i s singie^use p o l i c y would become more apparent. The regression of Recreational-use Score One (Y2) on the Combined s e t of twenty-five independent  variables  resulted i n one s i g n i f i c a n t equation involving nine of these factors (Table 22),  Reference t o Table 20 shows that of these  variables only average percentage of f o r e s t cover on watershed lands (X22) and recreation p o t e n t i a l of agency lands (X24) had a s i g n i f i c a n t simple l i n e a r c o r r e l a t i o n with r e creational-use score*  The other seven variables taken i n -  dependently had C o e f f i c i e n t s ranging from a maximum of 0.25 (X2) t o a minimum of 0.007 (X17).  The combined regress-?  ion of these nine independent variables showed:an R  2  value  of 0*6329 and a standard error of estimate of +3; 9 (71%)* > Relationships such as t h i s are v i r t u a l l y useless and the most  15-2  Table 21.  Y-var.  Description of I n i t i a l Multiple-use Regression Equations - A l l Regions Combined x-var.  Simple Correl* Coeff.  Yl XI X5 X21  0.4950 -0.1440 0.3200  Xl  Y-Var.  R  8.9122  .3976  5.84  .2406  6« 33  0.4950  2  SEy  X.1B-05 -0.0498 0„0882 8.1962  Yl  Table 22.  Intrcpt. or Regr. Coeff.  1.1E-05  Description of I n i t i a l Recreational Use Regression Equations - A l l Regions Combined x-Var.  Simple Correl. Coeff.  Y2 X2 X5 X6 X8 Xll X17 X13 X22 X24  0*4589 -0.1440 -0.0651 -0.0710 0.3579 0.1152 0.4648 -0.4593 0.0816  intrcpt* or Regr. Coeff,  R  11.1818  .6329  1.6E-07 -0*0635 -0.0668 -0.0914 -0.0460 -0.0437 -0,4933 -0.0908 0*1714  2  SE. 3.86  153  meaningful results from t h i s phase of the analysis would seem to be the i n d i c a t i o n that f o r the study area as a whole, recreational use varied inversely with the percentage of f o r e s t covered watershed lands and d i r e c t l y with the estimated r e c r e a t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l of these lands*  Further analysis with  a l l regions combined d i d not seem warranted.  Analysis of Data Set One by Region  As a l o g i c a l follow-up t o the analysis of the study area as a single unit, each of the four p o l i t i c a l regions was examined separately.  Independent variables were selected  for the i n i t i a l calculations on the basis of the simple l i n e a r c o r r e l a t i o n from the previous combined analysis, strength of r e l a t i o n s h i p suggested from scattergrams, and with the aim of maximizing the number of complete sets of observations. A review of the data Indicated that while B r i t i s h Columbia and C a l i f o r n i a could be analyzed i n d i v i d u a l l y , Washington and Oregon would have to be combined t o obtain a workable number of observations and combination of v a r i a b l e s .  Simi-  l a r i t i e s i n the scattergram trends f o r these two regions also suggested t h e i r  combination.  134  B r i t i s h Columbia  For B r i t i s h Columbia, and the other regions also, the f i r s t regressions were calculated using the University of B r i t i s h Columbia TRIP Program.  The B r i t i s h Columbia sample  used amounted to f i f t e e n sets of observations or twenty per cent of the population surveyed.  The analysis showed no s i g -  n i f i c a n t regression f o r multiple-use score at the .05 probabi l i t y level.  The best equation f o r the unweighted r e c r e a t i o n a l -  use score (Y2) was a combination of degree of water treatment (X4), average percentage of forest covered Watershed lands (X22), arid average percentage of shrub covered watershed lands (X23)?  the unadjusted R  standard error was  3.62  2  (74;3%).  value was 0.7601 arid the Recreation score two  (Y3),  which was weighted by the management l e v e l , showed a s i g n i f i cant r e l a t i o n s h i p with the same variables, an R 0.7883 and a standard error of 7.71  2  (66,;9%), 7.4%  value of lower than  the Y2 equation (Table 23). The next phase was to perform all-combination r e gression runs f o r groups of up to f i v e independent v a r i a b l e s . The s i g n i f i c a n t equations from the f i r s t phase were examined using the all-combinations routine and the i n d i v i d u a l s i g n i f i -  155  Table 23*  Y-Var. Yl  Description of I n i t i a l Regression Equations - f o r B r i t i s h Columbia only X-Var.  Simple Correl. Coeff.  R  2  SEy  no s i g n i f i c a n t equation 33.2314  Y2 X4 X22 X23  0.6246 -0.5898 0.2198  X4 X22 X23  0.5827 -0.6673 0.2911  Number of observations  .7601  3.62  .7883  7.71  -1.1735 -0.3701 0.4765 80*8194  Y3  Notes  Intrcpt. or Regr. Coeff.  -2.1095 -0.9124 1.0616 (n) - 15  cant variables were tested i n combination with other c l o s e l y r e l a t e d independent variables such as the group dealing with the status of buffer lands.  The combinations tested, the  s i g n i f i c a n t groups, and the respective R  2  and SEy values are  presented i n Table 24. Subsequent t o the t e s t i n g of the all-combinations groups, variables were selected f o r further analysis using the step-wise elimination option i n the multiple regression program developed by Kozak and Smith (1965).  This program  156  Table 24.  Variables Tested Using All-Combinations Option - B r i t i s h Columbia only  Variables Tested Rec-1 on* X4,  n  18  X22, X23  S i g n i f . X's  ,R  2  SEy  Signif. Level  X4  .2546  5.56  .05  X22, X23  .5573  4.43  .05  Mult-use on8 XI - X4  15  Rec-1 ons XI - X4  15 . •. X4  .3066  5.55  .05  Mult-use on: X5 - X8  18  .3203  4.43  .05  .2706  12»62  *05  18  none none  X9 - X12 Rec-2 ons X5 — X8  X5 none  X9 - X12 Rec-1 ons X5 - X8  hone  18  X7 none  X9 - X12 Mult-use ons X20 - X24  13  none  Rec-1 ons X20 - X24  13  X22  .4596  4.98  .05  X22, X23  .7470  3.57  ,01  157  was substituted for the TRIP program i n order to be consistent with the all-combinations routine as to the c a l c u l a t i o n method used*  The simple l i n e a r c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s (r)  for the B r i t i s h Columbia portion of t h i s analysis are presented i n Table 25.  The regression of multiple-use score (Yl)  on the selected X-varlables produced one s i g n i f i c a n t equation involving only average percentage of municipally controlled buffer lands (X5);  the unadjusted R  2  the standard error was +3.34 (59.6%).  value was 0*5134 and The recreational-use  scores (Y2 and Y3) showed somewhat d i f f e r e n t relationships than i n e a r l i e r runs*  The unweighted recreation score (Y2)  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t simple regression r e l a t i o n s h i p with degree of water treatment  (X4)> and had an unadjusted R  0.3901 with a standard error of +5*31 (109%).  2  of  Although t h i s  r e l a t i o n s h i p i s l o g i c a l i t could not be considered very useful.  The weighted recreation score (Y3) produced a highly  s i g n i f i c a n t equation involving nine independent  variables;  i t accounted f o r 97.8 per cent of the Y v a r i a t i o n and had a standard error of estimate of +3.69 (32.0%). these equations are presented i n Table 26.  D e t a i l s of Continued elim-  ination of variables produced a s i g n i f i c a n t simple regressIon of Y3 on X22, average percentage of forest covered water"'  Table 25.  Simple Correlation Coefficients - B r i t i s h Columbia only  "~ ——-—: independent Var.  Dependent Var.  Mult-use  Rec-1  Rec-2  X l Present population served  -0.1287  -0.1282  -0.1194  X3 Percent domestic use  -0.2025  -0.2370  -0.2103  X4 Degree of treatment  0.2330  0.6246*  0.5827  X5 avg. % munie. eontr'ld. buffer lands  -0.7165**  -0.5128  -0.5023  X9 Avg. % munic. eontr'ld. watershed lands  -0.2718  -0.4199  -0.4392  X10 Avg. % p r i v . eontr'ld. watershed lands  0;3470  0.1388  0.2161  X12 Avg. % prov. eontr'ld. watershed lands  -0.1292  0.2044  0.1812  0.0122  0.3610  0.3680  X20 Avg. % forest covered buffer lands  -0.2631  -0.4653  -0.3983  X21 Avg. % shrub covered buffer lands  0.0076  0.0838  0.1831  X22 Avg. % forest covered watershed lands  -0.2827  -0.5899*  X23 Avg. % shrub covered watershed lands  -0.0625  0.2198  0.2911  0.0637  0.0352  -0.0776  X13 T o t a l number of personnel  X25 Recreation opportunity Notes  * - s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ** - s i g n i f i c a n t a t .01 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l  -0.6673**  159  Table 26,  Y-Var.  D e t a i l s of S i g n i f i c a n t Equations f o r Y l , Y2 and Y3 - B r i t i s h Columbia only X-Var.  Simple Correl, Coeff.  Yl X5  -0.7165  Intrcpt. or Regr. Coeff.  R  8.2415  .5134  3.34  *3901  5.31  *9779  3.69  .4453  11.49  -0*0655 1.0530  Y2 X4  0.6246  1.6825 227*58  Y3 X4 X9 Xl© X12 X13 3£20 X21 X22 X25  0.5827 -0.4392 0.2161 0.1812 0.3680 -0,3983 0.1831 -0.6673 -0.0776  3.7974 -0,8274 -0.7040 -0.8265 -17*338 0.1568 -0.9325 -1.1234 -1.2644 51.1346  Y3 X22  -0,6673  SE,  -0*4810  shed lands (Table 26). As was pointed out i n the discussion of the analysis with a i l regions combined, s t a t i s t i c s such as r , and R  2  are generally biased upwards when calculated from  small samples, and SEy i s generally biased downwards or under-estimated*  The amount of such bias i s d i f f i c u l t to  c a l c u l a t e and i s Complicated  by the f a c t that the data were  ISO  obtained through a mailed questionnaire survey i n which there was very l i t t l e p o s s i b i l i t y of determining i t s accuracy or p r e c i s i o n .  Furthermore, non-response to the questionnaire,  either i n t o t a l or i n part, added the p o s s i b i l i t y of other unknown biases which could not be compensated f o r . I t was noted by E z e k i e l and Fox (1963) that, "a s t a t i s t i c a l determination of the nature of any r e l a t i o n , no matter how complicated the methods used, t e l l s nothing of the 'reason* f o r the r e l a t i o n observed".  The analysis by i t s e l f  cannot provide the interpretation of cause and e f f e c t .  Hope-  f u l l y , the analysis w i l l e s t a b l i s h the 'facts' of the relations;  the meaning of these facts must be established  through reference to s p e c i f i c technical information and  through  clear, l o g i c a l thinking. An interpretation of the preceding 'facts* concerning the relationships of secondary uses to various c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of municipal water supply areas i n B r i t i s h Columbia, w i l l be made i n conjunction with s i m i l a r interpretations f o r the other regions surveyed.  P a c i f i c Coast States  For t h i s portion of the analysis i t was  necessary,  as indicated previously, to combine the samples from Washing-  161  ton and Oregon i n order to make best use of the data from these two regions.  The data base from C a l i f o r n i a was s u f f i c -  ient t o allow a separate a n a l y s i s . As f o r B r i t i s h Columbia, the f i r s t regressions were calculated using TRIP and the s i g n i f i c a n t equations are presented i n Table 27*  Only one  equation, multiple-use score (Yl) i n Washington and Oregon, i n volved more than One independent v a r i a b l e and had a reasonably high c o e f f i c i e n t of determination.  A l l combinations of t h i s  multiple regression were run as w e l l as a l l Combinations of related v a r i a b l e groups f o r both regions.  The best equation  from t h i s run included a i l four of the variables that were i n the o r i g i n a l equation produced by TRIP,  Because only four  independent variables were being considered the sample s i z e a v a i l a b l e was increased from sixteen t o twenty-seven; the resulting R  2  value f o r the same combination  of variables was  reduced from 0.8410 t o 0.6204 while the standard error was increased from *2.31 t o +3.42*  Tables 28a and 28b give the  r e s u l t s of the all-combinations a n a l y s i s . The t h i r d phase was, once again, the running of regressions using the step-wise elimination option of the multiple regression program and including independent variables selected with reference t o the preceding a n a l y s i s . A r e l a t i v e l y  162  Table 27. Description of I n i t i a l Regression Equations - f o r P a c i f i c Coast States Simple. - Intrept.-.' '•'••'^ C o r r e l . or Regr. R Coeff. • Coeff. ;  x-var.  Y-Vax.  2  SEj  Washington and Oregon 3.0947  Yl XI X3 X9 X25  2.31  .3522  3.58  .3288  10.22  .2403  7.92  .2561  '4*55  .2294  18*50  0.4639 0.9E-05 -0*3566 -0.0905 -0.4265 0.0689 0.3854 0,2319 8.3342  Y2 X3  .8410  -0,5935  -0*0943 22.4431  Y3  -0.5734 -0,2556 California 9.7186  Yl xi  0.4902  11.1976  Y2 X23  0*5061  -0*0974 42.0692  ' ' Y3 X23  Notes  I.0E-05  0.4789  -0.3682  Number of observations (n)  83  16 (Washington and Oregon) 17 (California)  163  Table 28a.  Variables Tested Using All-Combinations; Option - Washington and Oregon only  Variables Tested  n  Mult-use ons X l , 27 .313; X9, X25  S i g n i f . X*s  R  2  SE  y  Signif* Level  X25  *2129  4.62  .05  XI, X9  .2730  4.54  .05  X9, X2S  .3727  4.21  .05  X3; X9, X25  .5387  3,69  .01  XI, X3, X9, X25  .6204  3.42  ,05  Mult-use ons XI - X4  19  none  Rec-1 ons XI - X4  19  X2  .2388  3,78  ,05  X3  .2499  3.76  ,05  3C2 9  .4581  3.29  ,05  Mult-use, ReC-1, Rec-2 on s X5 - X8  20  X9 - X12 Mult-use ons X20 - X24 Rec-1 on? X20 - X24  none none  17  none none  164  Table 28b.  Variables Tested Using All-Combinations Option - C a l i f o r n i a only  Variables Tested  n  Mult-use ons X5 - X8  21  21  Signif• Level  2  none  none none  X9 - X12 Rec-2 ons X5 - X8  R  none  2?9 - X12 Ree-1 on« X5 — X8  3ignif% X's'  21  ;X9.-;3C12"  -  none none  Mult-use ons X20 - X24  19  X23.  Rec-1 one X20 - X24  19  none  Rec-2 on: X20 - X24  19  X23, X24  .3420  8.21  .05  18.98  .05  large number of variables were tested, consequently the sample s i z e available was r e s t r i c t e d to f i f t e e n observations f o r each region.  The simple c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s  i n Table 29,  (r) are presented  As can be seen from the table, none of the  variables tested f o r Washington and Oregon showed a c o r r e l a t ion with multiple-use score that was s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 5%  Table 29.  Simple Correlation Coefficients - P a c i f i c Coast States  -—Dependent Independent "-— XI X2 X3 X4 X5 X7 X9 X10 Xll X13 X20 X2I X22 X23 K24 X25  Pres. Popul. Served Water Consumption % Domestic Use Degree o f Treatment Avg. % Munic. C.B.L. Avg. % Fed. C.B.I*. Avg. % Munic. C.W.I*. Avg. % P r i v . C.W.L. Avg. % Fed. C.W.1*. T o t a l Personnel Avg. % F s t . Gov. B.L. Avg. % Shr. Cov. B.&.* Avg. % F s t . Cov. W.L. Avg. % Shr. Cov. W.I*. Recr. Potential Recr. Opportunity  Notes  Washington and Oregon Rec-1 Mult-use Rec-2  California Mult-use Rec-1  0.4590 0.2999 -0.3657 0.1269 -0.2400 0.3153 -0.3543 -  0.4839 0.5172* -0.1620 -0.1357 -0.0451 0.2990 -0.1611 -0.3570 0.2462 0.4452 -0.1255 0.4677 -0.4099 0.6196* -0.2147 0.0698  mm  0.2100 -0.1166 -0.2120 -0.2080 -0.2421 0.4814  0.2764 0,5239* -0.5988* 0,2333 0.0609 -0.0085 0.2169 •-  0.1711 0.4907 -0.5776* 0.1833 0.1018 0,0153 0.2417  0.0683 0.3981 -0.3910 0.0967 -0.2401 -0.2051  0.0607 0.4569 -0.3674 0.1975 -0.2609 • -0.2682  -  —  * - s i g n i f i c a n t a t .05 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ** f- s i g n i f i c a n t a t .01 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l  0.2214 0.2562 -0.1155 -0.0626 0.0126 0.4664 -0.2350 -0.0501 0.2066 0.2218 -0.2061 0.6114* -0.6016* 0.6922** 0.1448 0.1866  Rec-2 0.2082 0.2363 -0.0985 -0.0265 0.0206 0.4976 -0.1595 -0.1172 0.2350 0.2074 -0.1439 0.5944* -0.5613* 0.6405* 0.2315 0.2918  166  probability level.  The C a l i f o r n i a data showed s i g n i f i c a n t  correlations of multiple-use with water consumption and with average percentage of shrub covered watershed lands.  With  regard to the recreational-use scores, water consumption and percentage domestic use were s i g n i f i c a n t i n Washington and Oregon, whereas i n C a l i f o r n i a the buffer land and watershed cover types showed s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Of t h i s f i n a l set of equations calculated, only the regression of Y l f o r the combined Washington and Oregon region produced a good R estimate of +1.74  2  value, 0.9185, with a standard error of (19.3%).  A second run involving the same  independent variables, but considering only Y l , which allowed an increased sample s i z e , resulted i n an equation with an of 0.8177 and SEy of +2.41  (26.3%).  2  This c l e a r l y demonstrates  the uncertainty of r e l a t i o n s h i p s developed An examination  R  from small samples.  of the detailed description of these  equations  (Table 30) shows a change i n the s i g n i f i c a n t independent variables.  The regressions f o r recreational-use i n Washington  and Oregon showed s i g n i f i c a n t but weak r e l a t i o n s h i p s with percentage domestic use (X3)•  The C a l i f o r n i a data produced  no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r multiple-use score (Yl) and weak r e l a t i o n s h i p s between recreational-use score and average percentage of forest covered watershed land (X22)  (Appendix V).  167  Table 30,  Y-Var.  D e t a i l s of S i g n i f i c a n t Equations f o r Y l - Washington and Oregon only x-Vax.  Simple Correl. Coeff,  Yl XI X2 X3 X9 X25  0.4598 0.2999 -0.3657 -0.3543 0.4814  Xntrcpt. or Eegr.  R  13.0683  .9185  1.74  .8177  2.41  7.2405 0.3278 -0.2634 -0.3832 0.1059 0.5322  SE„ y  1.7B-05 -7.7B-08 -0.1283 -0.0676 0.1896  Yl XI X3 X9 X13 X25  2  1.1E-05 -0.0885 -0.0661 -0.4691 0.3131  Explanation of the Indicated Relationships  The 'facts' of the analysis showed that the l e v e l of secondary resource use, as indicated by the multiple-use score ( Y l ) , and the l e v e l of r e c r e a t i o n a l use, as indicated by recreation score (Y2 and Y3), were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to several of the measured agency c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  The  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s considered t o t a l l e d twenty-five and could be divided into various subgroups.  These subgroups w i l l be used  163  In the subsequent discussion. The analysis with a l l regions combined showed that a l l three dependent variables had a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with the present population served ( X l ) . On a r e g i o n a l basis t h i s independent variable exhibited a very weak negative c o r r e l a t ion i n B r i t i s h Columbia (Table 25) and a r e l a t i v e l y stronger p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n the P a c i f i c Coast States (Table 29). The author suggests the negative c o r r e l a t i o n f o r B r i t i s h Columbia i s l a r g e l y due t o the f a c t that the two largest water d i s t r i c t s , which serve over f i f t y per cent of the popul a t i o n , are supporters of the ' i s o l a t i o n ' philosophy.  The  stronger p o s i t i v e correlations f o r the other regions would seem to support the previous suggestion that larger agencies l o g i c a l l y o f f e r more opportunity f o r secondary uses because of t h e i r larger and more numerous reservoirs and greater areas of buffer lands and catchments.  Zt must be noted that  none of the simple correlations f o r X l were s i g n i f i c a n t , but that t h i s v a r i a b l e d i d contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the r e gressions f o r multiple-use i n the Washington-Oregon region. Water consumption (X2) was almost p e r f e c t l y correlated with population served, i n the B r i t i s h Columbia analys i s , and therefore was also p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the  169  three dependent vaxiablea.  For Washington, Oregon, and  C a l i f o r n i a the c o r r e l a t i o n was p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t i n r e l a t i o n to Y2 i n the Washington-Oregon sample, and i n r e l a t i o n to Y l i n C a l i f o r n i a .  I t s s i g n i f i c a n c e s i n g l y and i n  the Y l regression equation f o r Washington and Oregon i s a r e s u l t of i t s strong i n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n with population served. Percentage domestic use (X3) showed consistent and l o g i c a l relationships with a l l three dependent v a r i a b l e s . The use scores, Y l , Y2 and Y3, varied inversely with percentage domestic use.  The simple c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were  strongest i n Washington and Oregon and were s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5% l e v e l f o r Y2 and Y3.  Percentage domestic use c o n t r i -  buted s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the multiple-use score regression equation i n the Washington-Oregon sample and produced  a  s i g n i f i c a n t simple regression equation with the recreationuse scores, Y2 and Y3.  This inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p appears  quite l o g i c a l i n that agencies which supply water f o r i r r i gation and i n d u s t r i a l purposes have less demanding water q u a l i t y standards to meet and therefore are l i k e l y to allow more secondary usage of t h e i r reservoirs, buffer lands and catchments.  Conversely, agencies which supply s o l e l y domestic  water have to meet r e l a t i v e l y s t r i c t q u a l i t y standards and  17©  consequently secondary uses are commonly more limited or else prohibited.  Recreational use i n p a r t i c u l a r i s either excluded  or quite c l o s e l y controlled. h p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between secondary use and l e v e l of water treatment (X4) would be expected;  as more uses  occur on a reservoir or catchment the p r o b a b i l i t y of contamination increases and a higher l e v e l of treatment i s required to maintain a given l e v e l of r i s k .  This r e l a t i o n s h i p i s an  observable f a c t , but not an inevitable one. The data f o r B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon d i d i n f a c t show a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between secondary uses and the l e v e l of water treatment. correlation.  C a l i f o r n i a showed a very weak negative  Xt i s suggested that the generally higher l e v e l  of water treatment present among the C a l i f o r n i a agencies and required by state law would reduce the importance of t h i s factor and that the low negative c o r r e l a t i o n could occur by chance, or could even indicate that C a l i f o r n i a management techniques are more advanced and i n closer harmony with the requirements for the production of high q u a l i t y raw water. The next sequence of independent variables t o be considered forms one of the aforementioned subgroups - land status.  Variables X5 t o X8 described the l e g a l status of  171  the reservoir buffer lands, and variables X9 to X12 the status of the watershed lands.  described  The relationships shown  by the simple c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were non-significant except f o r X5 i n the B r i t i s h Columbia sample.  The X5 v a r i -  able, average percentage of municipally and/or agency cont r o l l e d buffer lands, showed a highly s i g n i f i c a n t inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p with multiple-use score (Yl) and s i m i l a r , but non-significant, correlations with the recreation scores (Table 25).  The relationships between average percentage of  municipally and/or agency controlled watershed lands (X9) the use scores were negative also.  and  This indicated decrease  i n the l e v e l of secondary resource use as the percentage of agency control increases i s consistent with the high proportion of B r i t i s h Columbia agencies that have a  single-use  management p o l i c y (Table 14), and therefore tend to l i m i t other uses to the extent that they are able.  Federal control  of buffer lands and watersheds i n the P a c i f i c Coast States was p o s i t i v e l y correlated with multiple-use and r e c r e a t i o n a l use but not s u f f i c i e n t l y to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the probability level.  .05  The nature of the observed relationships  can be p a r t i a l l y attributed to the stronger emphasis that i s placed on integrated resource management by f e d e r a l agencies,  172  and also t o the f a c t that federal agencies operate within a separate frame of reference and s e t d i f f e r e n t p r i o r i t i e s on the various resource uses than does a l o c a l l y oriented water agency.  In a s i m i l a r way, private c o n t r o l and p r o v i n c i a l  (or state) control of catchment areas and buffer lands r e s u l t i n resource use p r i o r i t i e s that d i f f e r from those of a municipal water supply agency.  The correlations of private  and p r o v i n c i a l control with the use scores were weak and showed both p o s i t i v e and negative trends which suggest the existence of somewhat complex r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In the statement of the problem i t was hypothesized that the numbers, f i e l d s of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , of agency personnel would influence the l e v e l of secondary resource use - i n p a r t i c u l a r recreation - occurring on domestic water supply reservoirs and watersheds.  These factors  were incorporated into the c o r r e l a t i o n and regression analys i s as independent variables Xl3 t o X19.  With a l l regions  combined, t o t a l number of personnel, number of engineers and number of employees with bachelors degrees a l l showed s i g n i f i c a n t simple c o r r e l a t i o n with multiple-use score, but were non-significant i n r e l a t i o n t o recreation score.  In con-  junction with four other variables, number of bachelor degrees  173  d i d contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the regression equation f o r unweighted recreation score, i n the combined analysis.  On  a regional basis only the t o t a l number of agency personnel contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the regressions. (X13)  This variable  showed a completely consistent p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n  with a l l three dependent variables;  as the t o t a l number of  personnel on s t a f f increased so d i d the l e v e l of secondary resource use. These correlations were not s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l , but the trend cannot be discounted completely.  The most l o g i c a l explanation  of the indicated  trend i s that both number of personnel and l e v e l of secondary use are related t o the s i z e of the agency as discussed l a t i o n to population  served ( X l ) .  in re-  The hypothesis that the  professional background of agency personnel, as r e f l e c t e d i n f i e l d of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and l e v e l of q u a l i f i c a t i o n , would influence the i n c l u s i o n of recreation as a reservoir or watershed use must be rejected on the basis of the preceding analysis. With respect to the proposition that the i n t e n s i t y of r e c r e a t i o n a l use was affected by the vegetative  cover  types of the buffer lands and watershed lands, the following independent variables were included i n the analysiss  174  (1) average percentage of forest covered buffer lands (X20), (2) average percentage of shrub covered buffer lands (X21), (3) average percentage of f o r e s t covered watershed  lands  (X22), and (4) average percentage of shrub covered watershed lands.  The r e s u l t i n g correlations with a l l regions combined  were consistently negative f o r percentage of f o r e s t cover and p o s i t i v e f o r shrub cover.  Regional analysis confirmed these  relationships f o r B r i t i s h Columbia and C a l i f o r n i a , but f o r the combined region of Washington and Oregon the trends were opposite (Table 29).  The B r i t i s h Columbia data showed a s i g -  n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n between percentage of forest covered watershed lands (X22) and both recreation scores, and t h i s variable was also s i g n i f i c a n t i n the regression equations f o r the weighted recreation score (Y3). buffer lands and watershed  Shrub cover of  lands, and forest cover of water-  shed lands were a l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y to highly s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with recreation score i n the C a l i f o r n i a sample. In addition multiple-use was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with percentage of shrub covered watershed  lands.  None of the  simple correlations f o r the Washington-Oregon region were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l , and none of the cover type variables were included i n the s i g n i f i c a n t regression equations.  175  When one t r i e s t o set f o r t h l o g i c a l explanations f o r the apparent correlations of vegetative cover types with secondary resource uses, the dubious nature of the r e l a t i o n ships becomes evident.  Because only f o r e s t and shrub cover  types were included i n the analysis, the p o s s i b i l i t y of more informative correlations with other cover types was precluded. In addition to t h i s , the terms f o r e s t and shrub are much too general and subject to very d i f f e r e n t interpretations.  Forest  on the B r i t i s h Columbia coast i s v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t from forest i n eastern Oregon;  consequently, the relationships with r e -  source uses can be very d i f f e r e n t also.  Multiple-use score  was, i n a l l regions, negatively correlated with percentage of forested buffer and watershed  lands;  t h i s would seem l o g i c a l  i n that uses such as grazing and other agriculture are not possible on many types of f o r e s t land;  mining, hydro-electric  power development, and flood control are independent of veget a t i v e cover types, and recreation i s subject to r e l a t i v e l y complex v a r i a t i o n s . Explanation of the observed correlations between r e c r e a t i o n a l use score and the percentage of forest or shrub covered buffer and catchment lands, because of the aforementioned generality of the terms, becomes somewhat of an exercise of  176  the imagination.' I t i s suggested that forested buffer lands are not a s r e a d i l y a t t r a c t i v e f o r water-centered uses such as swimming,fishing, lands.  and boating as are shrub and grass covered  S i m i l a r l y , forest cover hampers p i c n i c k i n g around  water features, and can i n h i b i t camping i n some s i t u a t i o n s . From the management point of view, f o r e s t areas may require closer supervision of a c t i v i t i e s to ensure that users abide by agency regulations;  thus fewer forested areas would be  u t i l i z e d f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l developments within water supply areas.  Percentage of forested watershed  lands (X22) was  also  negatively correlated with recreation score and could be subject to the same influences.  Additionally, the highly f o r -  ested watersheds could conceivably be the more remote ones. This i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y could s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce the demand f o r use of such areas.  A l t e r n a t i v e l y remote watersheds are  subject to fewer p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r p o l l u t i o n and produce higher q u a l i t y raw water;  managers of such areas may  clude recreation to protect t h i s advantage.  ex-  The Greater  Vancouver Water D i s t r i c t i s a prime example of t h i s type of management philosophy.  The f a c t that these relationships  between recreation score and cover types were reversed f o r Washington and Oregon would seem to support the previous  177  suggestion that, the s p e c i f i c type of f o r e s t or shrub cover.-' present on an area i s intimately r e l a t e d t o the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of that area,  h much more precise determination of  cover types, and most probably of factors such as s o i l type, slope, and aspect, would be necessary t o c l e a r l y define these r e l a t i o n s h i p s with r e c r e a t i o n a l use. The f i n a l two independent variables included i n the analysis of Data Set One were s e l f - r a t e d recreation p o t e n t i a l of agency lands (X24). and estimated recreation opportunity l e v e l (X25).  With a l l regions combined recreation  p o t e n t i a l showed s i g n i f i c a n t and p o s i t i v e simple correlations with both recreation scores;  on a r e g i o n a l basis neither  variable was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with any of the dependent v a r i a b l e s .  Given that recreation occurs on an area, one  would expect the l e v e l of r e c r e a t i o n a l use and development t o be higher i f the recreation p o t e n t i a l of the area were higher. The trends shown by the simple c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s confirmed t h i s i n a i l regions studied.  Conversely, one would  expect the l e v e l of r e c r e a t i o n a l use on a municipal water supply area t o decrease as the a l t e r n a t i v e recreation opportunities i n the surrounding areas increased.  This ex-  pectation was f a i r l y w e l l confirmed f o r B r i t i s h Columbia,  178  Washington and Oregon, hut d i d not appear to hold f o r C a l i f ornia,  h possible explanation of t h i s seemingly i l l o g i c a l  r e l a t i o n s h i p i s that the very dense and a f f l u e n t population of C a l i f o r n i a has such a high demand f o r recreation f a c i l i t i e s that 'alternative opportunities' are f u l l y u t i l i z e d and municipal water supply r e s e r v o i r s and lands are subjected to the 'unsatisfied' demand.  I t i s also true that while the  general opportunity l e v e l may be high i n many areas of C a l i f ornia, the opportunities f o r f r e s h water recreation may  be  very limited, as i s the case i n San Diego. In summary, i t can be stated that f o r the study area as a whole several l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s showed s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e even at the .01 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l , but the actual c o r r e l a t i o n s were very weak with the highest simple c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t being only 0.63.  The best regression  equation produced with a l l regions combined accounted f o r only 63% of the v a r i a t i o n i n the dependent v a r i a b l e (Y2) and had a standard error of estimate of 71%.  Simple corre-  lations between a given p a i r of variables varied g r e a t l y among the regions, but were c o n s i s t e n t l y very low with a maximum of 0.72  i n one instance i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  The  B r i t i s h Columbia and the Washington-Oregon analyses produced  179  multiple regression equations which accounted f o r as much as 97% of the Y-varlation, hut s t i l l had standard errors of a t 1  l e a s t 20%.  These values are not'adjusted to allow for small  sample s i z e *  The best equation involved nine independent''  variables, and no equation with an R less than four.  2  of more than 0.8 had  The C a l i f o r n i a analysis produced no equations  with reasonably high R  2  values,  tn essence t h i s portion of  the analysis showed weak but somewhat l o g i c a l relationships between the general agency c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and secondary r e source uses as measured by the multiple-use and r e c r e a t i o n a l use  scores.  Analysis of Data Set Two  Data Set Two consisted of independent variables that defined the s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each storage or terminal r e s e r v o i r , i t s buffer lands and watershed, and dependent variables that defined the l e v e l s of r e c r e a t i o n a l use occurring on or around a given r e s e r v o i r .  Both general r e -  creation scores and water recreation scores were used* The analysis was conducted i n a s i m i l a r manner as f o r Data Set One.  Regressions were i n i t i a l l y calculated with  3180  a l l regions combined.  Variable X26, reservoir type,  was  removed from the analysis because i t included only two possible values, either storage or terminal r e s e r v o i r s .  In-  stead, the data was s t r a t i f i e d according to r e s e r v o i r type and then analyzed.  The t o t a l number of reservoirs included  i n the data set was eighty-seven;  however, non-response t o  various questions resulted i n only t h i r t y complete sets of observations*  Because of the low number of observations i t  was necessary to keep the B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon data together and t r e a t the three areas as one region. C a l i f o r n i a was analyzed separately. An examination of the simple c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s calculated with a l l regions combined (Table 31) shows that the vegetative cover types had the strongest relationships with the recreation scores.  Reservoir maximum capacity (X27)  and  r e s e r v o i r surface area (X28) exhibited some s i g n i f i c a n t correl a t i o n s , but the area of reservoir buffer lands (X29) and the area of the watershed (X30) were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with any of the dependent v a r i a b l e s .  The s i g n i f i c a n t regress-  ion equations produced i n t h i s phase of the analysis involved only one independent v a r i a b l e i n a l l cases.  For Type 1  reservoirs, the storage reservoirs, percentage of shrub covered  Table 31. Data Set Two - Simple Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s - by Reservoir Type - A l l Regions Combined Dependent Variable Res.  General Recreat*n Score 3 (Y6)  General Recreat'n Score 4 !Y7)  Water Recreation Score ]L CY4)  Water Recreation Score 2  Type 1  Type 2  Type 1  Type 2  Type 1  Type 2  Type 1  Type 2  Res. Max. Capacity  0.3444  0.5925*  0.2915  0.6024*  0.1480  0.5195*  0.1071  0.5041  Reservoir Surface Area  0.2416  0.5141*  0.1931  0.4741  0.0528  0.3726  0.0287  0.3253  Area of Res. B.L.  0.1557  0.4048  0.2023  0.4822  -0.0221  0.3697  -0,0049  0.4114  Area of Watershed  0.1747  0.1554  0.0857  0.1030  0.0580  0.0500  -0.0047  0.0104  -0.5112  -0.3065  -0.5035  -0.2416  -0.3113  -0.1934  -0.3366  -0.1317  Xndep. Variable  % Forest Cover B.L. % Shrub Cover B.L. % Forest Cover W.L. % Shrub Cover W.L. Botes  0.7232** 0.7728** -0.5228* -0.4145 0.7395** 0.6512**  0.6991** 0.6935** -0.5221* -0.3513 0.7481** 0.6532**  Sample s i z e = 15 * - s i g n i f i c a n t a t ,05 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ** - s i g n i f i c a n t a t ,01 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l  0.4857 -0.3269 0.6105*  0.5999* -0.2965 0.5970*  0.4908 -0.3330 0,6208*  0.5198* -0.2368 0.5806*  182  watershed lands (X34) was the only s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e .  Per-  centage of shrub covered buffer lands (X32) was; the only variable which showed a s i g n i f i c a n t regression r e l a t i o n s h i p with recreational use on and around terminal reservoirs (Type 2).  The equations accounted f o r very l i t t l e of the Y-variation  and had very large standard errors of estimate (Table 32). Only the non-weighted recreation scores are presented?  the  weighted scores (Y7 and Y5) accounted f o r less of the v a r i a t i o n and had even higher standard e r r o r s . The remainder of the analysis was done with the C a l i f o r n i a observations separated from the other three regions. I n s u f f i c i e n t data pertaining to storage reservoirs was  avail-  able from B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon to j u s t i f y any regression calculationsj  however, regressions were run  f o r the terminal reservoirs i n t h i s region and f o r both reservoir types i n the C a l i f o r n i a portion of the study. For the Type 1 or storage reservoirs, from the C a l i f o r n i a sample, there were very low but s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e correlations of recreation score with percentage of f o r e s t covered buffer lands (X31), and percentage of forest covered watershed lands (X33).  S i m i l a r l y , water recreation score  showed a s i g n i f l e a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with X33  (Table 33).  These variables also produced s i g n i f i c a n t simple regression  133  Table 32.  Description of significant Equations for Data Set Two - A l l Regions Combined  Reservoir Type  Depen. Ho .of Var* Obser,  Storage  Terminal  Signif« x'a  R  2  SE  y  Y6  15  X34  0.5468** 2.53 (54.2%)  Y4  15  X34  0.3728*  Y6  15  X32  0.5972** 2.60 (76.5%)  Y4  15  X32  0.3599*  1.99 (99.5%)  2.15 (114,9%)  equations, but accounted for very l i t t l e of the variation in the dependent variable and had very large standard errors. The Type 2 or terminal reservoirs i n a l l areas showed positive correlations between reservoir maximum capacity and both general recreation score (Y6) and water recreation score (Y4). The correlations were significant or highly significant except for the Y4 correlation i n California, Correlations with percentage shrub cover were consistently positive for a l l areas although generally non-significant. the same time the correlations with percentage forest cover were negative for the combined region and positive for California.  The regression equations, while s t a t i s t i c a l l y  At  Table 33. Data Set Two - Simple Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s - by Reservoir Type B r i t i s h Columbia. Washington and Oregon Dependent Variable Zndep. Variable Res. Max. capacity  General Recr eat'n Score 3 CY6)  Water Recreation Score 1 <Y4)  General Recr e a t n Score 3 (Y6)  Water Recreation Score 1 CY4)  Type 2  Type 2  Type 1  Type 2  Type 1  Type 2  ©.6094*  0.7669**  0,1343  0.6514**  0.0358  0.4982  0.4120*  0.1714  0.3647  0.4234  0.6263*  -0.0819  0.3471  8  % Forest Cover B.L.  -0.3640  -0.5417  % Shrub Cover B.L.  0.2097  0.4810  % Forest Cover W.L.  -0.4261  -0,6075*  % Shrub Cover W.L.  0-1657  0.3125  Botes  California  -0.1227  0.4419* -0.0093 -0.1847  * - s i g n i f i c a n t a t .05 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ** - s i g n i f i c a n t a t .01 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l Number of observationss B.C., wash., & Oreg. a « 12 C a l i f . Type 1 n = 28 C a l i f . Type 2 n » 15  0.4914  0.4347* -0.1210  0.2680 0.2662  185  s i g n i f i c a n t , were not i n d i c a t i v e of any strong or r e l i a b l e l i n e a r regression r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  Reservoir maximum capacity  and a l l four of the vegetative cover type variables appeared i n various combinations  or s i n g l y (Table 34)• The R  2  values  were r e l a t i v e l y low and standard errors of estimate were ! phenomenally high. i n summary, the investigation of r e c r e a t i o n a l use i n r e l a t i o n t o s p e c i f i c reservoir c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s showed that f o r the study area as a whole the l e v e l s of both general recreation and water recreation were most strongly related t o the percentages of f o r e s t and shrub covered buffer and watershed lands.  Reservoir maximum capacity and surface area  were the only other s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s .  The area of the  buffer lands and the area of the watershed were of very l i t t l e importance.  When the data were considered with C a l i f o r n i a  separated from B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon, the recreation l e v e l was moat highly r e l a t e d t o reservoir maximum capacity (X27)y reservoirs.  however, t h i s was only true f o r terminal  Reservoir surface area, area of buffer lands,  and area of watershed lands d i d not show very strong correl a t i o n s with the dependent variables and these values were so frequently missing that they were eliminated from the r e g i o n a l  186  Table 34.  Description of S i g n i f i c a n t Equations f o r Terminal Reservoirs - by Region  Region & Depen. Var.  Intrcpt. or Regr.  No. of Obser.  R2  SE.  B.C. - Wash. - Oregon Rec-3 (Y6)  12  Rec-3  12  WR-1  (Y4)  12 12  WR-1  X27 X33 X34 X27  3714*  3.83(135%)  .4865*  3.65(129%)  .5882**  1.38(138%)  0.178E-09 31.867 -0*301 -0*345 0.281 0.996E-10  X33 X34  15.943 -0.156 -0.166  .7280**  1.18(118%)  •0.434 0.982E-10 0.063 0.058  .7084*  2.24(55%)  X27 X31 X32  .6092**  1.75(82%)  California Rec-3 (Y6)  WR-1  (Y4)  15  15  -0.048  187  analysis*  Prom the preceding sttidy of Data Set One  i t was  expected that the cover types would be s i g n i f i c a n t , and l o g i c seems to support the idea that r e c r e a t i o n a l use would as reservoir s i z e increases.  increase  Size i s a composite term that,  i n r e l a t i o n to reservoirs, includes both surface area and volume.  From a purely r e c r e a t i o n a l viewpoint, surface area  should be most related to the l e v e l of use.  In terms of the  r e c r e a t i o n a l use of a domestic water supply reservoir, volume assumes a more important p o s i t i o n .  Large capacity  reservoirs  provide an increased natural p o l l u t i o n safety factor because of the greater d i l u t i o n factor and generally longer holding time;  thus, the r e l a t i v e l y strong p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n of  reservoir maximum capacity with recreation l e v e l , and i t s prominence i n the regression equations would seem to have a l o g i c a l basis.  138  V  SUMMARY AMD CONCLUSIONS  Present Management S i t u a t i o n  B r i t i s h Columbia  Water-supply management i n B r i t i s h Columbia was shown to be r e l a t i v e l y unsophisticated.  Groundwater supplies  and extraction from r i v e r s were the two main types of water supply used, with a r t i f i c i a l impoundments being next most common.  Water treatment was very limited and most often i n -  volved only marginal c h l o r i n a t i o n . The survey indicated that private, and p r o v i n c i a l government c o n t r o l dominated the water supply lands and that maintenance of sanitary conditions and the prevention of land abuse were s o l e l y dependent upon p r o v i n c i a l statutes. This lack of agency c o n t r o l was r e f l e c t e d i n the management p o l i c i e s and practices reported.  Of the f o r t y - s i x agencies  that responded, forty-one professed to be 'single-use* agencies, but, of these, fourteen indicated that other uses occurred on the lands from which they obtained t h e i r water. In t o t a l 'secondary' uses were reported by forty-one per cent  139  of the agencies;  thus, although secondary use p o l i c i e s were  declared by only eleven per cent of the respondents, i n p r a c t i c e secondary us00 were much more'common.  Adjustment  for those agencies not involved i n land management gave a 'true* percentage of single-use agencies of forty-three. Recreational use occurred on twenty-eight per cent of the areas and included ;® wide v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s (Tables 19a and 19b).  P a c i f i c Coast States  In comparison with B r i t i s h Columbia. Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a a l l exhibited a considerably higher l e v e l of water-supply management.  This was i n accord with  t h e i r more advanced stage of development and t h e i r greater population d e n s i t i e s .  The major difference i n the nature of  the water supplies used was the very minor r o l e of n a t u r a l lakes;  Washington,' with about f i v e per cent, had the highest  proportion of t h i s type.  In contrast, nineteen per cent of  the B r i t i s h Columbia agencies u t i l i z e d t h i s source,  water  treatment was much more common, the lowest proportion being i n Washington (71.4 per cent) and the highest i n C a l i f o r n i a  190  (90.0 per cent), and the technical complexity was greater (Table 10). The percentage of agency controlled lands i n the P a c i f i c Coast States was approximately the same as f o r B r i t i s h Columbia;  however, f e d e r a l l y owned and managed lands  assumed major importance.  In general, land control was more  fragmented than i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  Some management agree-  ments were reported, but state l e g i s l a t i o n was s t i l l the predominant form of c o n t r o l over sanitation and land abuse. Secondary uses were most prevalent i n C a l i f o r n i a and a l l of the respondents c l a s s i f y i n g themselves as 'secondary-use' agencies included recreation as one of the uses.  In contrast  to the s i t u a t i o n i n Washington and Oregon, and e s p e c i a l l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia, r e c r e a t i o n a l use was p r i m a r i l y a regulated use and very often planned and managed i n detailed fashion with s t r i c t controls.  The range of a c t i v i t i e s occurring on .  a given area varied considerably but d i d include water cont a c t sports i n about f o r t y per cent of the cases where recreation was allowed.  In conjunction with the occurrence of  secondary uses on these areas, the philosophy Of integrated resource use was quite widely supported.  191  The R e a l i t i e s of Recreational Use  Much has been said about recreation on domestic water-supply reservoirs and watersheds; some 'almost true', and some of i t f a l s e .  some of i t i s true, In t h i s study an  attempt was made t o e s t a b l i s h the r e a l i t i e s of r e c r e a t i o n a l and other uses of these areas. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the established 'facts' pert a i n i n g t o land-uses, water contamination, transmission of disease v i a water, and water treatment, revealed several important items.  Both research and p r a c t i c e have shown that  man's use of natural resources need not leave a path of destruction.  While i t i s true that man cannot l i v e without  a l t e r i n g h i s environment t o some extent and that v i r t u a l l y a l l of h i s a c t i v i t i e s are a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y destructive, the techniques t o eliminate or minimise t h i s damage t o nature are r e a d i l y available, only the desire t o implement them i s lacking.  In the past, use of the land has c o n s i s t e n t l y pro-  duced contaminated water.  In order t o ensure himself of a  supply of pure water man has, wherever possible, s e t aside areas f o r the production of t h i s v i t a l commodity.  In i s o l a t -  ing domestic water supplies man i n essence condoned the  192  p o l l u t i o n of the other water resources and i n h i b i t e d the development of e c o l o g i c a l l y sound resource management practices. I t was c l e a r l y established that innumerable contaminants are constantly being released into watercourses, and recreation contributes i t s share.  I t was also established  that w e l l planned and managed recreation f a c i l i t i e s can be operated i n conjunction with domestic water-supply f a c i l i t i e s and have minimal e f f e c t s on raw water q u a l i t y .  An added  factor predominantly associated with r e c r e a t i o n a l use i s the p o t e n t i a l hazard of disease transmission through the water system.  This p o s s i b i l i t y was f u l l y acknowledged and i t was  shown that water treatment techniques are presently available that w i l l reduce t h i s r i s k to a minimum. Xn the discussion of the controversy over recreationa l use, i t was recognized that many of the arguments present v a l i d reasons f o r and against t h i s use, but they are most often v a l i d i n r e l a t i o n t o s p e c i f i c situations and should not be unconditionally applied t o a l l areas.  A review of  these reasons shows that they consistently revolve around 'cost'.  What then are the r e a l i t i e s of these 'costs' of use,  or non-use?  The investigation showed that very l i t t l e  193  d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n raw water q u a l i t y could be attributed to recreation and that there was no simple cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e v e l of recreation and water costs*  In  r e l a t i o n to the problem of expense to the average consumer, user fees were widely u t i l i z e d by the agencies studied and programs were commonly completely self-supporting.  The costs  of non-use may be tangible such as revenue l o s t through the p r o h i b i t i n g of timber harvesting, grazing, and forage production, loss of p o t e n t i a l l y higher water y i e l d s , or  Increased  t r a v e l costs incurred by r e c r e a t l o n i s t s forced to go further a f i e l d f o r t h e i r enjoyment.  Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t  r e a l i t y of non-use of these areas f o r recreation, or other secondary uses, i s the increased, and s t i l l increasing, load that i s subsequently placed on a l l other lands*  As  was  emphasized e a r l i e r , thinking, planning, and managing i n a dream-world of single-use areas i s r a p i d l y becoming a luxury that cannot be afforded.  Recreational Use - Influencing Factors?  M  set f o r t h i n the statement of the problem, one  of the objectives of t h i s study was  to determine what factors  3.94  influence the i n t e n s i t y of recreation occurring on municipal water-supply reservoirs and watersheds.  In addition t o r e -  creation the presence of other secondary resource uses was investigated and a s i m i l a r attempt was made t o r e l a t e 'multiple-use* t o various agency c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  A multiple  regression and c o r r e l a t i o n analysis was c a r r i e d out u t i l i z i n g two separate data sets, and dependent and independent v a r i ables as s e t out i n Appendix I I I . The analysis showed s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  correlations between both multiple-use (Yl) and r e c r e a t i o n a l use (Y2 and Y3), and several independent v a r i a b l e s .  The  occurrence of secondary uses and i n p a r t i c u l a r recreation was related t o such agency c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ass  (1) present  population served, (2) percentage domestic use, (3) degree of water treatment, (4) average percentage of municipally or agency managed lands, (5) average percentage of f e d e r a l l y managed lands, (6) number of agency personnel, (7) average percentages of f o r e s t and shrub covered buffer and watershed lands, (8) agency rated recreation p o t e n t i a l of t h e i r lands, and (9) recreation opportunity i n surrounding areas. The l e v e l s of c o r r e l a t i o n varied from region to region, and the variables that appeared i n the s i g n i f i c a n t regression equat-  195  ions also varied.  The attempt to r e l a t e the l e v e l of recreat-  ion allowed to s p e c i f i c reservoir c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was  partially  successful i n that some s i g n i f i c a n t simple correlations and regression equations resulted;  however/ a l l were very weak.  Only reservoir maximum capacity (X27)  and the vegetation  cover  types were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the l e v e l of recreation occurring.  Unfortunately, several factors that were included  i n the i n i t i a l set of hypotheses were not measured adequately by the questionnaire  and so could not be included i n the  regression and c o r r e l a t i o n analysis.  A review of these  variables i n r e l a t i o n to the ones analyzed, suggested the presence of complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . reservoir or watershed to population  The proximity of the  centres would seem to  influence the amount of p u b l i c pressure f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use; i t would also a f f e c t the i n i t i a l q u a l i t y of the water i n that more remote areas would have fewer sources of p o l l u t i o n . The obsession of water purveyors with protection of t h e i r 'high quality* raw water i s r e f l e c t e d i n the A.W.W.A. p o l i c y statement on r e c r e a t i o n a l use  (Appendix XV);  therefore, i t  would seem l o g i c a l that r e c r e a t i o n a l use would tend to be i n versely proportional to the i n i t i a l q u a l i t y of the water. Considerations such as the f e a s i b i l i t y of  excluding  196  r e c r e a t i o n a l use and the l e g a l authority to provide r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s are influenced by the l e g a l status of the lands involved, and by the presence or absence of recreation p r i o r t o the area being used f o r the production of potable water.  Zt was shown i n the analysis that recreation tended  to decrease as the degree of agency control over the area i n creased. I t i s suggested that i n addition t o these factors and the analysed agency c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , there are complex and extremely v a r i a b l e p o l i t i c a l l y oriented factors which work both f o r and against the i n c l u s i o n of recreation and other uses on a domestic water-supply reservoir or i t s watershed. These elements are not r e a d i l y quantifiable;  thus t h e i r i n -  fluences could not be incorporated i n t o the type of analysis u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study.  Conclusions  At the beginning of t h i s enquiry i t was hypothesized that r e c r e a t i o n a l use of watersheds and t h e i r r e s e r v o i r s , and the production of high q u a l i t y water f o r domestic consumption are mutually compatible land uses.  On the basis of the research  197  c a r r i e d out, i t has been concluded that when conducted i n accord with an e c o l o g i c a l l y sound management plan, recreation and the production of high q u a l i t y potable water are indeed mutually compatible land uses.  I t was shown that d e t e r i o r a t i o n  of the land base and water q u a l i t y need not accompany resource development.  In p a r t i c u l a r , recreation can be incorporated  quite successfully with the production of water f o r domestic use as was evident i n the survey r e s u l t s . Other research  find-  ings have shown that with proper design of f a c i l i t i e s and regulation of use, r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y contribute t o b a c t e r i a l p o l l u t i o n (worms and B r i c k l e r , 1967). Furthermore, i t was shown that the spread of b a c t e r i a l diseases, such as typhoid fever, through water i s e a s i l y prevented by Conventional water treatment*  i t was established that while  v i r u s diseases are p o t e n t i a l l y transmissible by water, i n fectious h e p a t i t i s i s the only one f o r which there i s reasonably sound epidemiological evidence of t h i s method of spread. Research i n t o the removal and destruction of viruses i n water supplies has demonstrated that present techniques can produce water that i s safe according t o a i l reasonable standards, and s t i l l within the l i m i t s of p r a c t i c a b i l i t y * F i n a l l y , i f one accepts recreation as a legitimate  193  and f e a s i b l e use of these domestic water-supply areas, what should determine the management p o l i c y of an area and  who  should define t h i s p o l i c y ? Most b a s i c a l l y , resource management p o l i c i e s should be determined with the aim of providing the greatest p u b l i c benefit; p o l i c i e s formulated contrary to t h i s are no longer tenable.  D e f i n i t i o n of t h i s 'greatest  p u b l i c b e n e f i t ' i s indeed d i f f i c u l t , but d i f f i c u l t i e s do not j u s t i f y r e j e c t i o n of the concept. Xn the consideration of resources and t h e i r management, the ultimate unity of the natural system must be recognised.  Xt must a l s o be recognized that man  system and completely dependent upon i t .  i s a p a r t of the  With these points i n  mind i t can be seen that management p o l i c i e s f o r domestic water-supply areas are intimately r e l a t e d to the management p o l i c i e s f o r a l l other areas and resources. t h i s f a c t been so p l a i n l y evident;  Never before has  each action brings with  i t a r e a c t i o n . F e r t i l i z e r s , p e s t i c i d e s , and chemical wastes often produce damaging e f f e c t s many miles from t h e i r source; a s h i f t i n land use a l t e r s the d e s i r a b i l i t y and even the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r other uses i n adjacent areas,  unplanned urban  and i n d u s t r i a l expansion usurp valuable a g r i c u l t u r a l or r e c r e a t i o n a l land;  thus creating diseconomies  through the  199  importation of foodstuffs, and causing over-loading of alternate recreation areas.  Within t h i s framework of complex  and often c o n f l i c t i n g interactions, the r e c r e a t i o n a l r o l e of a given water-supply area must be based upon*  (1) a compre-  hensive assessment of the environmental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the area, taking i n t o consideration a l l resource uses, and (2) an assessment of the area's l o c a l , r e g i o n a l and i n t e r r e g i o n a l importance i n r e l a t i o n to the needs of each resource use. I f the preceding i s taken as what should determine the management p o l i c y , there remains the question of who define t h i s p o l i c y *  should  Unquestionably, p o l i c y formation i n a  democratic system i s the prerogative of l e g i s l a t i v e bodies composed of elected representatives. In keeping with the p r i n c i p l e expounded by Montesquieu i n h i s work The S p i r i t of Laws (1748) and accepted as a fundamental p r i n c i p l e i n the American Constitution, l e g i s l a t i v e , executive, and  judicial  powers should be exercised by separate and d i s t i n c t bodies. The formation of the management p o l i c y f o r domestic watersupply reservoirs and catchments i s , therefore, the responsi b i l i t y of the municipal council or the board of directors of the water d i s t r i c t , u t i l i t y d i s t r i c t or other relevant agency  200  or corporation.  In contrast, the task of the  personnel i s to implement t h i s p o l i c y .  executive  On the basis of  professional q u a l i f i c a t i o n s the executive s t a f f may make p o l i c y recommendations, but should not be allowed to assume the l e g i s l a t i v e function.  Too often, those most intimately  involved have a very one-sided view of what constitutes •good management* or the g r e a t e s t public benefit*. 9  addition to t h i s personal bias there i s often a bias  In accord-  ing to one's p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n ; water agency personnel are predominantly engineers and are c e r t a i n to have d i f f e r e n t views from foresters, ecologists, w i l d l i f e b i o l o g i s t s , or s o c i o l o g i s t s . Just as the views of professionals d i f f e r so the views of the ordinary c i t i z e n s and users d i f f e r and must be heard and respected.  resource  Consequently,  the author believes that management p o l i c i e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r recreation p o l i c i e s , should be formulated  by the elected  l e g i s l a t i v e body, i n accord with the wishes of the majority of e l e c t o r s , and i n consultation with a wide v a r i e t y of resource planning and management s p e c i a l i s t s .  In t h i s  way  the p r o b a b i l i t y of achieving a successful integration of uses would be greatly increased. In cases where the water agency does not d i r e c t l y  201  c o n t r o l the catchment lands, or where the supply i s extracted from an i n t e r - r e g i o n a l r i v e r or a major lake, p o l i c y formation must be influenced through l e g i s l a t i v e controls and i d e o l o g i c a l salesmanship.  I d e a l l y a l l resource managers,  whether p r i v a t e corporations or p u b l i c agencies, should be concerned with the maintenance of a high q u a l i t y water resource, i n the past t h i s was not true; to be hope;  i n the present there appears  i n the future man's s u r v i v a l w i l l depend on i t .  202  References  American Water.Works Association, 1958. Recreational Use of Domestic Water Supply Reservoirs - A.W.W.A. Statement of P o l i c y . Jour. A.W.W.A., V o l . 50(5) May, 1958. pg. 579. Banks, W.  1940. Heed f o r Increased Space for. Recreation* Symposium on the Recreational Use o f Watersheds, Jour. A.W.W.A., V o l , 32s 1009.  Blake, Kelson Manfred, 1956. Water f o r the C i t i e s . Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y Press. 341 pages. Bonyun, R.E., e t a l . 1948. Public Use of Reservoir Lands and waters. Jour. A.W.W.A*, V o l . 40(9)% 945-960. Brink, V.C. 19537 Climates of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r Agrologists - Part I* Technical Communication, Agronomy Department, University of B.C. Bullard, W*E. 1966. E f f e c t s of Land Use on Water Resources. Jour. Water P o l l u t i o n Control Fed., V o l , 38(4)s 645-659. Campbell, Ernest H. 1959. Legal Aspects of Municipal Water Supply i n the P a c i f i c Northwest. Jour. A.W.W.A., Vol, 51(5)s 581-597. Chang, Shih L. 1968. Waterborne V i r a l Infections and Their Prevention. B u l l . Wld* H l t h . Org. 38s 401-414 Dodson, Roy E. 1963. Recreational Use of Reservoirs i n San Diego. Jour* A.W.W.A., V o l . 55(9)* 1115-1119* Dube, Won* 1966. The Challenge of Industry i n Planning Public Forest Recreation. Pulp & Paper Mag. o f Canada, V o l . 67 - II WR-560* Dulles, Foster Rhea. 1965. A History of Recreation America Learns t o Play. 2nd E d i t i o n . AppletonCentury-Crofts, New York. 446 pages.  203  E z e k i e l , Mordecai and K a r l A . Fox. 1963* Methods o f C o r r e l a t i o n and R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s * 3rd E d i t i o n * John W i l e y & Sons I n c . , Hew York. 548 pages. Fischer, R„A, 1928. The G e n e r a l Sampling D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e M u l t i p l e C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t . Proceedings o f the R o y a l S o c i e t y , A , v o l . 121* 655-673. G o l d f l e l d , M* 1965* D i s c u s s i o n o f " T r a n s m i s s i o n o f V i r a l D i s e a s e s by D r i n k i n g Water" i n s T r a n s m i s s i o n o f V i r u s e s by the- Water' Route* Berg, G., E d i t o r * John W i l e y & Sons Inc., Hew York. Gove, P h i l i p Babcock* Ed, 1967* Webster's T h i r d Hew International Dictionary* G & C M i r r i a m Company, Hew York. Government o f B r i t i s h Columbia. 1963* B r i t i s h Columbia Manual o f Resources and Development. Bureau o f Economics and S t a t i s t i c s , Dept. o f i n d u s t r i a l Development, Trade & commerce* V i c t o r i a , B.C. 33 pages. Government o f B r i t i s h Columbia. 1969. B*c. F a c t s and Statistics. Economics' and S t a t i s t i c s Branch,; Dept. o f I n d . D e v e l . Trade & Comm. 76 pages. Government o f Canada. 1969. Canada Year Book. Dominion Bureau o f S t a t i s t i c s , Dept. o f i n d u s t r y . Trade and Commerce* Ottawa, O n t a r i o . 1329 pages, Harding, S.T. , 1960. Water i n C a l i f o r n i a . H-P Palo Alto, C a l i f o r n i a . 231 pages.  Publications,  Hlghsmith, R i c h a r d M., J r . E d i t o r , 1968. A t l a s o f t h e • P a c i f i c Horthwest. ,4th E d i t i o n . Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. 167 pages* Hyde, R.R.  1935* Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n i n G r e a t B r i t a i n . Zn R e c r e a t i o n and E d u c a t i o n , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Labour O f f i c e s t u d i e s and Reports, S e r i e s G, Ho, 4. P.S„ K i n g & Son L t d * , London.  J e f f r e y , W.W. and 3*G. G o o d e l l , 1969. Land Management i n M u n i c i p a l watersheds* A paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Annual Meeting, Can* See* A . w . w . A . , Vane, B.C. May 12, 1969.  204  Kahler, P.W., et a l . 1961. V i r i c i d a l E f f i c i e n c y of , Disinfectants i n Water. Amer. Assoc. Public Health Reports, Vol.:76(7)g 565. Kozak, A. and J.H.G. Smith. 1965. A Comprehensive and F l e x i b l e Multiple Regression Program f o r Electronic Computing. For. Chron. 41(4) i: 438-443. McEwen, Thomas O. 1965. Recreational Use of Watersheds State Health View. Jour. A.W.W.A. V o l . 58(10)r 1270. October, 1966. Maloney, Frank E. I960. Water Standards - Legal Viewpoint. Jour. A.W.W.A. V o l . 52(9)t 1180-1188. Montesquieu, Baron de, Charles de Secondat. 1748. The S p i r i t of Laws. Book XX, Chap. 6. Translated by Thomas Nugent, LL.D. Oelghton & Sons, Cambridge, 1823. Mosely, J.W. 1965. Transmission of V i r a l Diseases by Drinking Water. In Transmission of Viruses by the Water Route. Berg, G.. E d i t o r . John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. 484 pages. Oppenheimer, F., Bensei, E., and A.R. Taylor. 1959. The U l t r a v i o l e t I r r a d i a t i o n of B i o l o g i c a l F l u i d s i n Thin-flowing Films. Amer. J . Public Health V o l . 49s 903-923. Riehl, M e r r i l l L. 1956. Considerations i n Recreational Use of Impounding Reservoirs. Jour. A.W.W.A. V o l . 48(5)* 1406-1408. Robeck, 6.6., Clarke, N.A., and K.A. Dostal. 1962. Effectiveness of Water Treatment Processes i n V i r a l Removal. Jour. A.W.W.A. V o l , 54s X275. Rowe, J.S. 1959, Forest Regions of Canada. Forestry Br. B u l l e t i n No. 123. Dept. of Northern A f f a i r s and National Resources. Ottawa. Rumney, George R. 1968. Climatology and the World's Climates. The Macmillan Company, New York, 656 pages.  205  S t e e l , &.G.0. and -J.H. Torrie.'' I960. P r i n c i p l e s and Procedures) of S t a t i s t i c s . McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York. 481 pages. Tnarn©aur@>.-FiE.'-and H.L. R u s s e l l . Supplies. 4th E d i t i o n . Hew York. ' 704 page©.  1940* Public Water • John Wiley & Sons Inc..  U.S.'Dept. @£ Coaamerc®, Bureau o f the Census. 19®®* S t a t i s t i c a l Abstract ©f the United States. U.S. Sept. of th© I n t e r i o r , Federal Water P o l l u t i o n Control Administration. 1968. Water Quality C r i t e r i a . Report o f the national Technical Advisory Committee. Washington, B.C. 234 page®. van Ni©rop, E.M. 1963. A Framework £©r the Multiple-use ©f Municipal Water Supply Areas. Phd. D i s s e r t . Cornell<University. ;  Vancouver Sua.  October 11, 1968.  Page 1 .  Weibel, S . R . , Anderson, R.J. and R.L. Woodward. 1964. Urban Land Runoff as a Factor i n Stream P o l l u t i o n . Jour. Water P o l l u t i o n Control Fed., Vol, 36(7)t 914. Worms, A l l a n J . asad S.K. B r i c k l e r . . 1967. E f f e c t s ©f Recreation Use and Development on Water Quality. Resource Development Series 12, University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. 7 pages.  APPENDIX | Mailing Addresses f o r Survey Regions  207  Mailing Addresses f o r Agencies Surveyed - B r i t i s h Columbia*  Armstrong  J o D . Hayden, C i t y Clerk Box 40, Armstrong.  Chilliwack  Elk Creek Waterworks Chilliwack, B.C.  Courtenay  W.C. Moore, C i t y Clerk Box 939, Courtenay.  Cranbrook  G.M. Robertson, C i t y Clerk 40 Tenth Avenue South, Cranbrook,  Dawson Greek  A.L. Anderson, C i t y Clerk Box ISO, Dawson Creek  Duncan  G. M. Berry, C i t y Clerk 281 Canada Avenue, Duncan.  Enderby  H. J . Watt, C i t y Clerk Box 68, Enderby.  Fernie  F . J . Butala, C i t y Clerk Box 190, Fernie.  Grand Forks  E.T. Clegg, C i t y Clerk Box 220, Grand Forks.  Kamloops  D.H. Brown, C i t y Clerk 7 V i c t o r i a St. West, Kamloops*  Kelowna  J . Hudson, C i t y Clerk 1435 Water Street, Kelowna.  Kimberley  D. Torgeson, C i t y Clerk 340 Spokane Street, Kimberley.  Langley C i t y  C T . Partington, C i t y Clerk Box 489, Langley C i t y .  208  Nanaimo  H. Nicholson, C i t y Clerk 455 Wallace Street, Nanaimo.  Nelson  C. W.R. Harper, C i t y Clerk 502 Vernon Street, Nelson  North Vancouver  R.C. Gibbs, C i t y Clerk 209 West Fourth St., North Vancouver.  Penticton  H.G. Andrew, C i t y Clerk 171 Main Street, Penticton.  Port A l b e r n i  H.D. Thain, C i t y Clerk 400 Argyle Street, Port A l b e r n i .  Prince George  A. Thomson, C i t y Clerk 1100 P a t r i c a Blvd., Prince George.  Prince Rupert  D. R a t c l i f f e . C i t y Clerk 424 West Third Ave., Prince Rupert.  Revelstoke  P. Hayward, C i t y Clerk Box 170, Revelstoke.  Rossland  W.H. Vickers, C i t y Clerk Box 1179, Rossland.  Trail  J.P. Logelin, C i t y Clerk 1394 Pine Avenue, T r a i l .  Vancouver  F.R. Bunnell, Commissioner Greater Vancouver Water D i s t r i c t 2294 West 10th Ave., Vancouver 9.  Vernon  J.V. Witham, C i t y Clerk (acting) 3400 30th Street, Vernon.  Victoria  Greater V i c t o r i a water D i s t r i c t 479 Island Highway, Saanich.  White Rock  White Rock Waterworks Co. White Rock.  209  Campbell River  A.S. Khowles, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 730, Campbell River  Chilliwack Diet.  J.A. Mulford, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 27.0, Chilliwack.  Coldstream  J.F.. Trehearne, D i s t r i c t Clerk R.R. 2, Vernon.  Kent D i s t r i c t  P..J.. G&irns, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 70, Agassis.  Kitimat  N. Underhi11, D i s t r i c t Clerk 1101 Kingfisher Ave., Kitimat.  Langley  District  D.J. Doubleday, D i s t r i c t Clerk Murrayville, B.C.  Matsqui D i s t r i c t  A.H.W. Moxon, D i s t r i c t Clerk 32383 South Fraser Way, Abbotsford.  Mission  G A. Reid, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 1090, Mission C i t y .  North Cowichan  A. VandeCasteyen, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 273, Duncan.  Powell River  T. McVea, D i s t r i c t Clerk 6910 Duncan Street, Powell River.  Salmon Arm  D..R. Smith, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 40, V i l l a g e of Salmon Arm.  Spallumcheen  W.E. Saby, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 100, Armstrong.  Squamish  W.D. Kennedy, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 310, Squamish.  Sumas  H. Harnett, D i s t r i c t Clerk 34609 South Fraser Way, Ahhotsford.  Slimmer land  G.D. Smith, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 159, Summerland.  0  210  Terrace  J . Pousette, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box §10, Terrace.  Castlegar  A. Percheson, Town Clerk Box 519, Castlegar.  Comox  Miss E . M . Turnbull, Town Clerk Box 220, Comox.  Creston  J.K. Hocking, Town Clerk Box 1339, Creston.  Fort St. John  E o R . Crabbe, Town Clerk Box 969, Fort St. John.  Hope  S.D. Stearn, Town Clerk Box 609, Hope.  Klnnalrd  A. Selbie, Town Clerk Box 250, Klnnalrd.  Ladysndth  J.W. Runciman, Town Clerk Box 220, Ladysmith.  Merritt  J.Co Mehain, Town Clerk Box 189, M e r r i t t .  Mission C i t y  R.A. S t i l l , Town Clerk Box 1150, Mission C i t y .  Quesnel  E . A . Green, Town Clerk Box 1060, Quesnel.  Sidney  A.M. Ferner, Town Clerk Box 190, Sidney  Smithers  A. Brown, Town Clerk Box 379, Smithers.  Williams lake  R.H. Blackwood, Town Clerk Box 1928, Williams Lake.  Burns Lake  T. Forsyth, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 570, Burns Lake.  Cache Creek  D.6. McCormack, v i l l a g e Clerk Box 471, Ashcroft.  Clinton  G. Sawada, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 309, C l i n t o n .  Cumberland  S.E.. Mounce, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 340, Cumberland.  Fort St. James  K. Sutherland, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 127, Fort St. James.  Frultvale  R.W. Maddison, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 370, F r u l t v a l e .  Gibsons Landing  D. Johnston, V i l l a g e Clerk, Box 66, Gibsons.  Golden  D. Ornond, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 350, Golden,  Lake Cowichan  W.A. Chappell, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 860, Lake Cowichan.  Lillooet  G.A. Wiley, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 610, L i l l o o e t .  Kakusp  Mrs. F. Sadd, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 280, Nakusp.  Oliver  A. Winn, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 638, O l i v e r .  Osoyoos  R.G. Smith, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 301, Osoyoos.  Parksville  W.J. Cuthbert, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 306, P a r k s v i l l e .  Princeton  A.J. Herman, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 278, Princeton.  Salmon Arm  F.S. Middle ton, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 99, Salmon Arm.  Vanderhoof  R.J. Cavanagh, V i l l a g e Clerk Box 97, Vanderhoof.  Warfield  R. Carter, V i l l a g e Clerk 555 Schofield Highway, T r a i l .  213  Mailing Addresses f o r Agencies Surveyed - Washington*  Aberdeen  Issaquah  Bellingham  Kalama  Bremerton  Kelso  Buckley  Leavenworth  Camas  Longview  Castle Rock  Lynden  Centralia  McCleary  Chehalis  Montesano  Chelan  Morton  Chewelah  Pasco  Cle Elum  Port Angeles  Coulee Dam East  Port Townsend  Coulee Dam West  Raymond  Dayton  Redmond  Edmonds  Richland  Everett  Roslyn  Grand Coulee  Seattle  Hoquiam  Snohomish  Snoqualmie  Walla walla  South Bend  Wenatchee  Tacoma  Woodland  Enquiries t o a l l above places were addressed t o Water Superintendent, City Hall,  Exceptions s  Water D i s t r i c t #68, P.O. Box 487, Bellevue, Wash. Mr L.C. Freeae, Darrington, Wash. Yakima Water System, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, wash.  215  Mailing Addresses f o r Agencies Surveyed - Oregon.  Albany  P a c i f i c Power & Light Company Box 472, Albany  Ashland  Edward F a l l e n , Superintendent C i t y B a i l , Ashland  Astoria  A s t o r i a Water Supply City Hall 97103  Baker  Vern Jacobson, C i t y Manager City Hall 97814  Bandon  Joe W. Burgher, Superintendent City Hall 97411  Bend  W.P. Drost, C i t y Superintendent City Hall  Brookings  Brookings Water System 703 Chetco Avenue Brookings 97415  Canyonville  Wm. L. Preston, Superintendent City Hall 97417  Condon  B i l l Humphrey, Water Superintendent City Hall 97823  Coos Bay  Coos Bay - North Bend water Board 264 South Broadway, Coos Bay  Goquille  Ron Dungey, water Superintendent City Hall 97420  Corvailis  John F. Porter, c i t y Manager City Hall 97330  Cottage Grove  L.W. Coiner, C i t y Engineer c i t y Hall  216  Dallas  P.F. Friesen, Water Superintendent City Hall 97338  Drain  A.B. Giovanini, Superintendent City Hall 97435  Eugene  Eugene Water & E l e c t r i c Board 500 East Fourth Avenue, Eugene  Florence  Don L. Hagle, Superintendent City Hall  Forest Grove  Troy Hines, Superintendent City Hall  Garibaldi  G a r i b a l d i water Supply W.D. Fouste, Superintendent City Hall 97118  Gold Beach  DeWain Wolfe, Superintendent City Hall 97444  Grants Pass  Archie J . Twitchell, C i t y Manager City Hall 97526  Hillsboro  J.W, Barney, C i t y Manager City Hall  Hood River  Hood River Water System Superintendent City Hall  lid Grande  P h i l Staker. Water Superintendent City B a l l 97850  McMinnville  water & Light Commission 250 Third Street McMinnville  Madras  C.E. Ward, Jr<>, Water Superintendent City Hall  M i l l City  P a c i f i c Power & Light Company Stayton  217  Milton-Freewater  Henry Schneider, C i t y Manager City Hall 97862  Monmouth  W.G. Wilmot, C i t y Superintendent City Hall  Myrtle Greek  D a r r e l l H. Bowman, Superintendent City Hall 97457  Myrtle Point  John D. Harriman, Superintendent 424 F i f t h Street Myrtle Point 97458  Newport  Donald A. Davis, C i t y Manager c i t y Hall  Oakridge  A. G. Johnson, C i t y Superintendent City Hall  Oceanlake  Jack ft. IrsBlanc, Superintendent City Hall  Oregon C i t y  B i l l Jackson, Superintendent City Hall  Portland  Ken Anderson, Chief Engineer City Hall 97201  Port Orford  C i t y of Port Orford Water System Port Orford 97465  Powers  Harry Rolfe, Superintendent City Hall 97466  Rainier  Pete lie Sollen, Superintendent City Hall 97048  Redmond  John B. Berning, C i t y Superintendent City Ball  Reedsport  B. A. Bartow, Superintendent Clear Lake Water System Reedsport 97467  a is  Roseburg  Oregon Water Corporation FoO. .Box 1305 Roseburg 97470  Sandy  R. Shanes, Water Superintendent City Hall  Seaside  Seaside Water System City Hall 97138  Silverton  Lewis' -W. Yates, Superintendent C i t y H a l l , Salem  Springfield  C. D a r r e i i SwatseX, Superintendent S p r i n g f i e l d U t i l i t y Board Box 300, S p r i n g f i e l d  Sutherlin  T e r r e l . Superintendent City Hall 97479  Sweet Home  James Maloney, Water Superintendent City Hall 97386  The Dalles  Jim Manes, Supt. of Public Works City Hall  Tillamook  Ted Fisher, Superintendent City Hall 97141  Toledo,.  William Stone, C i t y Manager City Hall  Union  Fred Peterson, water Superintendent City Hall 97883  Vernonia  Lee Jessee, Superintendent City Hall 97064  Warrenton  A l v i n Joe Birkholz, Superintendent City Hall 97146  219  West Linn  Q.M. Corey, Super intendent City Hall  Winston  Winston-Dillard water System Roy M. Fisher, President P.O. Box 53 Winston 97496  Young's River  Young's River-Lewis & Clark w. Dist. Don Tucker, Superintendent P.O. Box 801 Astoria 97103  220'  Mailing Addresses for Agencies Surveyed -> C a l i f o r n i a  Angels  P a c i f i c Gas & E l e c t r i c Co. 245 Market Street San Francisco 94106  Antioch  Antioch C i t y P.O. Box 369 Antioch 94509  Areata  Areata C i t y 736 P s t r e e t Areata '95521  Auburn  Meadow V i s t a County Water D i s t r i c t P.O* Box 278 Meadow V i s t a 95722  Benicia  Benicia C i t y P.O. Box 456 Benicia 94510  Bishop  Bishop C i t y 207 West Line Street Bishop 93514  Chula v i s t a  California-American Water Co, 386 Third Avenue chula Vista 92010  San Jose, & Vic,  C a l i f o r n i a water Service Co, P.O. Box 1150 San Jose 95108  Calistoga  Calistoga C i t y 1232 Washington s t r e e t Calistoga 94515  Cedar F l a t  Fulton water Company P.O. Box 427 West Sacramanto 95691  221  Concord  Contra Costa County water D i s t r i c t 1840 Salvio Street Concord 94520  Corona  Corona C i t y 815 West Sixth Street Corona 91720  Crescent C i t y  Crescent C i t y water System 450 H Street Crescent c i t y 95531  Dos Palos  Dos Palos Water System 1546 Golden Gate Avenue Dos Palos 93620  Duarte  California-American Water Co. P.O. Box 8438 San Marino 91108  E l Modeno  Santiago Water Company P.O. Box 188 San Dimes 91773  Elsinore  Elsinore V a l l e y Mutual water Dist* 16755 Grand Avenue Elsinore 92330  Elsinore  Elsinore C i t y water System 130 south Main Street Elsinore 92330  Elsinore  E l s i n o r e water D i s t r i c t 16788 Rice Road Elsinore 92330  Eureka  Eureka C i t y Water System P.O. Box 1018 Eureka 95501  Fairfield  F a i r f i e l d C i t y Water System City Hall Fairfield 94533  Ferndale  Citizens U t i l i t i e s Company 550 Shaw Avenue Ferndale 95536  Folsora  Folsom C i t y Water System 50 Natoma Street Folsom 95630  Fort Bragg  Fort Bragg C i t y Water System 416 North Franklin Fort Bragg 95437  La Mesa  Helix I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t P*0. Box 513 La Mesa 92041  Jackson  Jackson Water works Inc. P.O. Box 876 Jackson  Lincoln  Lincoln C i t y water System 517 G street Lincoln 95648  Lompoc  Lompoc C i t y water System 119 West Walnut Avenue Lompoc 93436  Los Angeles  Department of water and Power P.O. Box 111 Los Angeles 90054  Monrovia  Monrovia C i t y water System 415 South Ivy Avenue Monrovia 91016  srapa  Napa C i t y Water System 955 School Street Napa 94558  Oroville  Orovllle-Wyandotte i r r i g a t i o n D i s t . P.O. Box 229 Oroville 95965  Palm Springs  Desert water Agency 1345 North Palm Canyon Dr. Palm Springs 92262  Pasadena  Pasadena c i t y water system X00 Herth G a r f i e l d Avenue Pasadena 9X109  PetaXuma  PetaXuma c i t y water system P.O. BOX, 949 • PetaXuma 94952  PXaeerviXXe  PXaeerviXXe C i t y water System P.O. Box 372 Placerville 95667  PortoXa  PortoXa C i t y water System P.O. Box 1154 PortoXa 96122  Redding  Redding C i t y water System P.O. Box 2003 Redding 9600X  Red BXuff  Red B l u f f C i t y water System P.O. Box 8X0 Red B l u f f 96080  RedXands  RedXands C i t y water System P.O. Box 280 RedXands 92373  Rialto  RlaXte C i t y Municipal water Dint* 150 South Palm Street RlaXto 92376  RoseviXXe  RoseviXXe C i t y water System 3X6 Vernon Street RoseviXXe 95678  Sacramento  Sacramento C i t y Water System C i t y H a l l , Room XX2 Sacramento 958X4  Saint Helena  Saint Heiena C i t y Water System 1480 Main Street Saint Helena 94574  224  San Bernardino  San Bernardino C i t y Municipal water Diet. P.O. -'Box 710 San Bernardino 92403  San Diego  San Diego Water System 5851 Ryan Road San Diego 92105  San Francisco  San Francisco C i t y & County water System 1000 E l Camino Real Millbrae 94030  San Jose  San Jose'water works 374 West Santa C l a r a San Jose 95113  San Jose  San Jose City' Water System-' C i t y H a i l , 801 North F i r s t Street San Jose 95110  San Luis Obispo  San Luis Obispo county water works • < -'-.District' #1 P 0. Box 1328 San Luis Obispo 93401 o  Santa Barbara  Santa Barbara C i t y water system P.O. Drawer P Santa Barbara 93102  Santa Cruz  Santa Cruz C i t y Water System P.O. ;Box -'919' Santa Cruz 95060  Santa Paula  Santa-Paula water works Ltd. P.O. Box 230 Santa Paula 93060  Sonoma (County)  Sonoma County Flood Control & Water Conservation D i s t r i c t 2555 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa 95401  Encinitas V i c i n i t y San Dieguito  San Dieguito I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t 59 East D s t r e e t Encinitas 92024  225  Vallejo  V a l l e j o C i t y Water System P.O. Box 831 Vallejo 94590  Ventura  Ventura C i t y Water System P.O. Box 99 Ventura 93001  watsonville  watsonville C i t y Water System P.O. Box 149 Watsonville 95076  Yucaipa  San Bernardino v a l l e y Munic. water D i s t . P.O. Box 458 Yucaipa 92399  Yucaipa  Western Heights water Company 32344 Avenue O Yucaipa 92399  Bast Bay  East Bay Municipal U t i l i t i e s D i e t . 2130 Adeline s t r e e t Oakland 94623  Grass V a l l e y  Nevada I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t P.O. Box 1019 Grass V a l l e y  Bemet-Valle V i s t a  Lake Hemet Municipal Water D i s t r i c t P.O. Box 97 Hemet 92343  San Rafael  Marin Municipal Water D i s t r i c t 220 H e l l e n Avenue Corte Madxe 94925  Placerville  E l Dorado I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t P.O. Box 152 Placerville 95667  Rancho Santa Fe  Santa Fe I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t P.O. Box 409 Rancho Santa Fe 92067  APPENDIX XX P i n a l Draft of Questionnaire  THE  UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A VANCOUVER  8,  CANADA  FACULTY OF FORESTRY  1  Dear I am a graduate student i n the Faculty of Forestry at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, and an commencing a Master's t h e s i s focusing upon the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of municipal water-supply areas, with, p a r t i c u l a r emphasis upon are^s supplying water f o r domestic consumption. The basis f o r my t h e s i s i s t o be the data obtained'from the enclosed questionnaire, which has been sent t o watersupply agencies throughout B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and C a l i f o r n i a . To enable me t o conduct t h i s survey, I ask your cooperation i n answering t h i s questionnaire. Please f e e l free to comment i n the spaces provided, or enclose supplementary information when returning the questionnaire, " i t would g r e a t l y speed my conclusion of t h i s study i f you would complete the questionnaire at your e a r l i e s t convenience and" return i t t o me i n the self-addressed envelope. I wish to thank you very much f o r c o n t r i b u t i n g your time and e f f o r t to a i d me i n my studies, and would be happy to provide you with an abstract of my t h e s i s f o l l o w i n g * i t s completion. Yours s i n c e r e l y ,  Melvin G. Moffat MGM/ap  Faculty o f Forestry UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver 8, B.C.  SURVEY OF MUNICIPAL WATER-SUPPLY AREAS  Regions Surveyed  J  British  Columbia  Washington Oregon California  Section  I  General Information To be completed by a l l agencies  Section  II  General Management P o l i c y To be completed by a l l agencies  Section  III  P o l i c y on Recreational Use To be completed ONLY by agencies ALLOWING r e c r e a t i o n a l use  PAGE 1 S e c t i o n 1.  SECTION 1  General Information.  **a. Present  To "be completed by a l l a g e n c i e s . 4.  p o p u l a t i o n served?  Water Supply F a c i l i t i e s  a. Treatment p l a n t ?  b. P r o j e c t e d s e r v i c e p o p u l a t i o n f o r y e a r 1980?  Yes  (  )  No  (  )  I f y e s , t h e n s p e c i f y t y p e , as t o the f o l l o w i n g : Aeration Disinfection  p a. Water  Consumption  Filtration  Avg. t o t a l / d a y ? (1000's o f s a l . )  Sedimentation Softening  b. Domestic Use/dav? Non-domestic Use/dav?  % of total  Taste and odor c o n t r o l  7<> o f total  b. I f water i s t r e a t e d ? Capac. o f p l a n t  3.  Nature o f Water Supply?  / nr.  a. r i v e r o r c r e e k  (  )  b. n a t u r a l lake - c o n t r o l l e d flow  (  )  c. n a t u r a l l a k e - u n c o n t r ' l e d  (  )  (  )  (  )  flow d. a r t i f i c i a l  impoundment  e. ground water COMMENTS:  (1000's o f g a l . )  / dav. c. What i s t h e p r e s e n t c a p i t a l investment i n t h e water s u p p l y system?  d. What i s the c o s t p e r m i l l i o n gallons of water?"(include o p e r a t i o n , maintenance, and a m o r t i z a t i o n o f investment costs) Untreated  water $  T r e a t e d water  $  Heservoir lio. (most to l e a s t important)  Mature o f Impoundment  *(2)  Reservoir Type  *(3)  haximum Capacity (1000's of gal.)  Surface Area of Reservoir (acres)  Source  1-ieservoir Buffer Lands (acres)  *(5)  Size of Watershed (acres)  1.  2. 3. 4. 5-  K>  6.  fcrj  (1) most to l e a s t important  o  with regard to meeting day to day demand  (2) n a t u r a l water body ( l a k e ) , o r , a r t i f i c i a l  I—V  impoundment  ( 3 ) H e s e r v o i r Type i s one o f the f o l i o w i n s * storage terminal distribution  - r e s e r v o i r p r o v i d i n g storage of untreated water at upstream p o i n t s i n the watershed - areas p r o v i d i n g end storage o f water p r i o r to treatment - r e s e r v o i r s w i t h i n the area served and d e l i v e r i n g water ready f o r consumption N0T3 - l i s t Only i f space l e f t over.  ( 4 ) name o f p r i n c i p a l creek, r i v e r , or lake ( i d e n t i f y which) ( 5 ) lands surrounding  the r e s e r v o i r ( s )  finished  PAGE 3 6  *  SECTION 1  a. What i s the status of the lands surrounding the r e s e r v o i r ( s ) ? % of Total Area (1) agency owned - agency managed  (  )  (2) municipally owned - agency managed  (  )  (3) municipally owned - municipally managed  (  )  leased from gov't, (prov., state, f e d . )  (  )  (5) leased from private  (  )  (6) prov. (state) owned & managed  (  )  (7) f e d e r a l l y owned & managed  (  )  (8) p r i v a t e l y owned & managed  (  )  (  )  W  (9) other (please s o e c i f y )  b. What i s the status of the lands the contributory watershed(s)?  comprising % of Total Area  (1) agency owned - agency managed  (  )  (2) municipally owned - agency managed  (  )  O)  municipally owned - municipally managed  (  )  (4) leased from gov't, (prov,, state, fed.)  (  )  (5) leased from private  (  )  (6) prov. (state) owned & managed  (  )  (?) f e d e r a l l y owned & managed  (  )  (8) p r i v a t e l y owned & managed  (  )  (  )  (9) other (please  sDecify)  PAGE 4  SECTIOU 1  7. Are you considering the a c q u i s i t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l r e s e r v o i r b u f f e r lands, or watershed lands? Yes  (  )  No  (  )  Reasons:  8. What agreements, i f any, have you with p r i v a t e or p u b l i c owners of watershed lands above the r e s e r v o i r s (or water-intake) with respect t o : (1) Sanitary f a c i l i t i e s ?  (2) Land treatment measures?  9. Please indicate the number of agency personnel who i n the f o l l o w i n g f i e l d s : Field C i v i l engineering  Number ( )  Biology  (  )  A n a l y t i c a l chemistry  (  )  Ecology  (  )  Forestry  (  )  Forest hydrology  (  )  (  )  are q u a l i f i e d  Degree or Diploma  Other ( s p e c i f y ) .  PAGE 5  ^*  a  e  SECTION 1  What a r e t h e v e g e t a t i v e c o v e r t y p e s o f t h e r e s e r v o i r b u f f e r lands?  R e s e r v o i r No. (most t o l e a s t i m p o r t a n t , as i n ques. #5)  Cover Type Forest  %  Shrub  %  Grass  %  Other ( s p e c i f y t y p e )  %  1. 2.  3. 4.  5. 6.  b. What a r e t h e v e g e t a t i v e c o v e r t y p e s o f t h e watershed Watershed A r e a (most t o l e a s t i m p o r t a n t , as i n ques. #5) 1. 2.  3. 4.  5. 6.  COMMENTS  lands?  Cover Type Forest  Shrub  Grass  %  %  %  Other ( s p e c i f y t y p e )  %  PAGE 6 Section 2.  SECTION 2  General Management P o l i c y .  To be completed by ALL agencies  "*"* a. Is your agency*s management p o l i c y one of single-use or are secondary resource uses included? L #  (1) Single-use (Potable water supply OiilLY)  (  )  (2) Secondary uses included (IP so, skip to question ffL2i)  (  )  b. Reasons f o r Singlenise P o l i c y (rank i n order the 3 most important) (1) R e s t r i c t e d authority  (  )  (2) Limited budget  (  )  (3) Lack of p u b l i c demand f o r other uses  (  )  (4) Creates more problems than b e n e f i t s  (  )  (5) Legal o b l i g a t i o n t o supply pure water  (  )  (6) P o t e n t i a l threat of being held l i a b l e for injury  (  )  (7) Secondary uses are incompatible with production of potable water  (  )  (8) Other (olease s o e c l f y ) ( NOTE  COMMENTS:  IF other uses occur CONTRARY t o agency p o l i c y , please give d e t a i l s i n Question #$2. OTHERWISE skip t o Question #3*3.  PAGE 7  SECTION 2  12 a. Indicate which of these other resource uses ares 1. Mot allowed 2. Allowed - unregulated, 3. Allowed - regulated 4. A c t i v e l y planned and managed INDICATE BY NUMBER f o r each of the f o l l o w i n g : Logging  (commercial)  Grazing Other a g r i c u l t u r e Mining Hydro-electric power Flood control Recreation (any type) Other (please s p e c i f y )  b. Do uses occur because your agency has no l e g a l r i g h t t o c o n t r o l them? Yes  (  )  No  (  )  c. Does your agency operate under a philosophy of integrated resource use? Yes  (  )  No  (  Please state b r i e f l y the reasons:  )  PAGE 8 ^*  SECTION 2  a. What i s the recreation p o t e n t i a l of the lands administered by your agency? Excellent  (  High  ( ( ( (  Average Low Very Low  b. What are the r e c r e a t i o n a l opportunities within a 100 mile radius of your agency's most important raw-water r e s e r v o i r and/or watershed? (most important with regard to meeting day t o day demand) ACTIVITY  OPPORTUNITY LEVEL (indicate with an X) Excellent  High  Average  Low  Very Low  F i s h i n g ( f r e s h water) Boating Swimming Picnicking Camping Hiking Snow s k i i n g Skidooing Other ( s p e c i f y )  c. Who could supply a d d i t i o n a l information opportunities i n t h i s area? Municipal State National  about r e c r e a t i o n <  PAGE 9 Section  SECTION 3  3« P o l i c y on R e c r e a t i o n a l Use. (To be completed ONLY by a g e n c i e s ALLOWING r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e )  * a. Which WATER o r i e n t e d r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s a r e p e r m i t t e d and what ( i f known) was t h e i n t e n s i t y o f u s e (1968)? YES  F i s h i n g - from shore o n l y  A c t i v i t y Area ( R e s e r v o i r No. as i n Ques. #5)  Visitors 1968  (  )  (  )  (  (  )  (  „)  (  )  (  )  (  (  )  (  )  (  M o t o r b o a t i n g - e l e c t r i c powered (  )  (  )  (  (  )  (  )  (  (  )  (  )  (  (  )  (  )  (  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  (  )  (  - from boat o n l y - both -  -  -  -  -  -  (  Canoeing and rowing - gas powered Waterskiing Sailing -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  Swimming Scuba d i v i n g  -  -  -  -  -  -  (  Other ( s p e c i f y )  , ,  b. Which LAND o r i e n t e d r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s a r e p e r m i t t e d and what ( i f known) was t h e i n t e n s i t y o f u s e (1968;? YES  A c t i v i t y Area (Watershed A r e a as i n Ques. 10)  Visitors 1968  Picnicking  (  )  (  )  (  Camping  (  )  (  )  (  ( )  (  )  (  (  )  (  )  (  (  )  (  )  (  (  )  (  __)  (  (  )  (  )  (  (  )  (  )  (  (___  )  (  Hiking -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  Horse r i d i n g Nature o b s e r v a t i o n  -  -  -  -  Hunting Snow s k i i n g = Skidooing Other ( s p e c i f y )  - -  - -  - -  _  _____  PAGE 1 0 1 5 . User Access Control  SECTION 3  (Indicate the methods used, by most to least important.)  None  ranking  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  - (  )  Clubs & Associations only  (  )  Other ( s p e c i f y )  (  )  (  )  Area design -  -  -  -  -  -  -  Area zoning Permits - free -  -  -  -  -  -  Permits - fees Fee charge (without permits) -  16. Do you control tne i n t e n s i t y of r e c r e a t i o n a l use? Yes I f YES,  (  explain  )  No  (  )  how:  1 7 . Indicate the PKlNCIPAL method of conduct c o n t r o l employed. Education and persuasion  (  )  Rules and regulations - honour system  (  )  Rules and regulations - enforcement and  /  s  (  )  (  ;  penalty system Other (please s p e c i f y )  ^AGiS 11  SECTION 3  18. What regulations on r e c r e a t i o n a l use have been established with respect to protection of: ( 1 ) the watershed and/or the r e s e r v o i r b u f f e r lands (2) the water q u a l i t y ( I f a v a i l a b l e , please send copy of regulations. I f published regulations not a v a i l a b l e , please indicate regulations below.)  19. Have you detected any changes i n water q u a l i t y as a r e s u l t of r e c r e a t i o n a l use? Yes  (  )  No  (  )  I f YES, please give d e t a i l s below:  20. What l e v e l of treatment would be necessary i f r e c r e a t i o n were NOT permitted?  COMMENTS:  PAGE 1 2  SECTION 3  2 1 . How are the costs added by r e c r e a t i o n a l use met? ( I f more than one. method, i n d i c a t e order o f importance.) ( 1 ) Completely self-supporting r e c r e a t i o n programs (2) P a r t i a l l y self-supporting r e c r e a t i o n programs ( 3 ) Increased water rates (4) General tax levy (5) Other (please s p e c i f y )  2 2 . I f there have been any studies done i n your area o f the impact of r e c r e a t i o n programs on water q u a l i t y and y i e l d , could you please enclose a copy, or provide a reference so that I might obtain a copy?  COMMENTS:  THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION Please return at once i n self-addressed envelope.  APPENDIX I I I Regression Analysis Data card Format  229  Data Card Arrangement - P l o t t i n g and Regression Analysis  Data Set One - General Agency C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Card 1 Card col.  Variable No. Format  Variable Description I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number and card number  1-5  Blank  6 7-9  Yl  F3.0  Multiple-use score  10-12  Y2  F3.0  Recreation-use Score 1 Rl =» Sum ( a c t i v i t i e s allowed)  13-15  Y3  F3.0  Recreation-use Score 2 R2 » Sum(activity x ragm't. wt.)  16-22  XI  E7.2  Present population served  23-29  X2  B7.2  Water consumption  30-33  X3  F4.0  Percentage domestic use  34-37  X4  F4.0  Degree of treatment  38-41  X5  F4.0  Average percentage municipally and/or agency controlled buffer lands  42-45  X6  F4.0  Average percentage p r i v a t e l y cont r o l l e d buffer lands  46—49  X7  F4.0  Average percentage f e d e r a l l y eont r o l l e d buffer lands  230  50-53  X3  F4.0  Average percentage state (provinci a l l y ) controlled buffer lands  54-57  X9  F4.0  Average percentage municipally and/or agency controlled watershed lands  58-61  X10  F4.0  Average percentage p r i v a t e l y cont r o l l e d watershed lands  62-65  Xll  F4.0  Average percentage f e d e r a l l y cont r o l l e d watershed lands  66-69  X12  F4.0  Average percentage state (provinci a l l y ) controlled watershed lands  80  Indicates agency without reservoirs code 1  Card 2 Card Col*  Variable Mo* Format  Variable Description I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number and card number  1-5  Blank  6 7-9  X13  F3.0  T o t a l number of personnel  10-12  X14  F3.0  Number of engineers  13—15  X15  F3.0  Number of b i o l o g i s t s  16-18  X16  F3*0  Number of a n a l y t i c a l chemists  19-21  X17  F3.0  Number of foresters  22-24  X18  F3.0  Number of bachelor degrees  25-27  X19  F3.0  Number of post-graduate degrees  231  23-31  X20  F4oO  Average percentage f o r e s t cover buffer lands  32-35  X21  F4.0  Average percentage shrub cover buffer lands  36-39  X22  F4.0  Average percentage f o r e s t cover watershed lands  40-43  X23  F4.0  Average percentage shrub cover watershed  lands  44-45  X24  F2.Q  Rated p o t e n t i a l of lands  46-48  X25  F3.0  Opportunity Score  80  Indicates agency without reservoirs code 1  Data Set Two - S p e c i f i c Reservoir C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Card Col.  Variable No.  Format  1-5  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number and card number  6 7-9  Variable Description  Blank Y6  F3.0  Recreation-use Score 3 R3 Sum(activities allowed) Recreation-use Score 4 m  10-12  Y7  F3.0  R4 * Sum(activity x mgm*t. wt.) 13-15  X26  F3.0  Reservoir type  16-22  X27  B7.2  Reservoir maximum capacity  23-28  X28  F6.0  Reservoir surface area  23a  29-34  X29  F6.0  Area of reservoir buffer- lands  35-41  X30  F7.0  Area of watershed  42-45  X31  F4.0  Percentage f o r e s t cover of buffer lands  46-49  X32  F4.0  Percentage shrub cover of buffer lands  50-53  X33  F4.0  Percentage f o r e s t cover of watershed lands  54-57  X34  F4.0  Percentage shrub cover of watershed lands  58-60  Y4  F3.0  Water Recreation Score WRI «•• Sum(water a c t i v i t i e s )  61-63  Y5  F3.0  water Recreation Score 2 WR2 = Sum(water a c t i v i t y x mgm*t. wt.)  APPENDIX IV Summaries of Management P o l i c i e s and Uses  AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION VOL. 50 • MAY 1958 • NO. 5  Recreational Use of Domestic Water Supply Reservoirs AWWA Statement of Policy A statement of policy prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on h'se uj Water Storage Resources for Public Recreation, under the chairman ship of Wendell R. LaDue, Chief Evgr. &• Supt., Bureau of Water Supply, Akron, Ohio. Other members of the committee were: Ii. Sherman Chase, Lczuis S. Finch, C. P. Harnish. Karl /•'. Iloefle, and Lazvson D. Matter. The policy statement was adopted unanimously by the AWWA Board of Directors on Jan. 2d, 1^5$, at its annual meeting, New York, N.Y.  I  N the Constitution of the American Water W o r k s Association, the first four objectives of the organization are: [1] to advance the knowledge of the design, construction, operation, and management of water works; [2] to consider and deal with the problems involved in the production and distribution of safe and adequate water supplies; [3] to promote satisfactory relationships with the consuming public; and [41 to give proper consideration to and express opinions upon practices which will enable the industry to render the best possible service to the public. It will be noted that the second clause relating to the object of the Association obligates members to foster measures designed to provide the public with safe and adequate water. Purveyors of public water supplies  have always had the primary responsibility for providing the consumers with safe and palatable water. This traditional objective has a major bearing upon the attitude which the water works executive takes when considering public entry to reservoirs and reservoir lands, which are dedicated to the highest benefit o f the people served by the installations. The factors involved in the protection of water supplies are so varied as to locality, size, and facility that a definite policy attendant t o the ownership and control of reservoirs and their marginal areas has not been established by practice. The establishment of a specific overall policy is impracticable. Further, the water works executive must necessarily consider the implications of the varying attitude* of the public toward the utility's prop579  235  580  A W W A  S T A T K M K N T  O F  1'OLICY  four.  AWWA  crtii's. Tin's variation is wide when the w-ater and watershed lands in and applied to privately owned and pub- about such storage reservoirs. licly owned properties. He must, Class B: Water impounded from an however, alwavs hear in mind his pri- area not heavily inhabited and allowed mary responsibility to supply a safe to flow from storage in a natural and palatable water. Moreover, the stream to the point of withdrawal and location, purpose, and utility of reserrequiring treatment in varying degree voirs must be considered in reaching in addition to disinfection. decisions concerning recreational uses. Policy: Limited recreational activiReservoirs may be classified as: ties on such reservoirs and adjacent 1. Iiqua/i::iiif/ reservoirs—reservoirs lands are considered permissible under within the area served and delivering appropriate sanitary regulations. finished water ready for consumption Class C: Water which has flowed in to the distribution system. 2. Terminal reservoirs—-limns pro- a natural stream before storage for a viding end storage o f water prior t o considerable distance, having received polluting materials from municipalities, treatment. 3. Upstream reservoirs—reservoirs industries, or agricultural areas; conproviding storage of untreated water fined in a reservoir primarily for purat various points in the watershed to poses of storage until such time as low provide or supplement the supply at stream flow makes the stored water necessary for the use of the downthe terminal. stream city; and later allowed to flow Equalizing and Terminal Reservoirs from the reservoir to the tributarywater works in an open stream accesPolicy: It is considered generally sible to the public; and requiring comthat recreational use of equalizing and plete treatment. terminal reservoirs and the adjacent Policy: Recreation is considered permarginal lands is inimical to the basic missible under appropriate sanitary function of furnishing a safe and potaregulations. The determination of the ble water supply to the system's cuskind and extent of recreational use tomers, and should be prohibited. shall be the sole responsibility of the water works executive of the system Upstream Reservoirs involved, whose primary obligation it Impounded or stored water in up- is to provide a safe and potable water, stream reservoirs can he.. classed in and subject only to existing police three categories: powers. Class ./. Water derived from an uninhabited or sparsely inhabited area, Summary at or near the point of rainfall or snow The American Water Works Assomelt collected in a storage reservoir, ciation registers its opposition t o legisclean and clear enough to be distrib- lation permitting or requiring the uted to the consumers with disinfection o p e n i n g of domestic water supply resonly. ervoirs and adjacent lands to recrePolicy: Safe practice in the water ational use. Control of water supply works held recognizes the necessity ol reservoirs must remain the prerogative permitting no recreational activity on ol t h e water purveyor.  236  Agency Personnel Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s - by Region British Columbia  Washington  14  14  9  19  Post Grad. Degree  0  3  0  4  Technician Diploma  1  0  1  0  High school  0  2  0  0  Type Not Specified  2  3  3  31  No Formal Qualif i c a t i o n s  2  1  5  4  No Response  2  1  1  2  Bachelor Degree  Oregon  California  Agencies U t i l i z i n g Consultants - by Region British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  California  Government Consultants  1  0  0  0  Private Consultants  3  1  0  0  Both Government and Private  2  a  0  0  23?  Summary of Other Uses Reported by 'single-use' Agencies - f o r B r i t i s h Columbia only  Hot Allowed  Allowed Unregul.  Allowed Regul.  Actively Planned & Mgn'd.  Ho Response  Commercial Logging  2  1  3  7  21  Grazing Other Agriculture  6  2  3  23  5  2  3  25  Mining  6  1  2  -  Hydro-elec• Development  25 26  Flood Control  4  -  4  -  26  Recreation  3  5  5  -  21  T o t a l Ho. of Agenciess  34 (Adjusted f o r those agencies not involved i n land management)  233  Summary of Other Pees Reported by 'Single-use Agencies - f o r Washington only  Hot Allowed Commercial Logging  Allowed Unregul.  Allowed Regul.  Actively Planned & Mgn'd.  1  1  1  1  Ho Response  8  ©razing  1  1  1  Other Agriculture  2  1  —  Mining  2  -  -  Hydro-elec. Development  2  Flood Control  1  -  1  -  9  Recreation  1  -  1  -  9  T o t a l Ho* of Agenciess  8 8  —  -  11 (Adjusted f o r those agencies not involved i n land management)  9  239  Summary of Other Uses Reported by 'Single-use' Agencies - f o r Oregon only Actively Planned Ho & Mgn'd. JResponse  Allowed Unregul.  Allowed Regul.  «•  1  3  1  10  Grazing  3  1  -  -  11  Other Agriculture  3  1  -  Mining  2  mm  1  -  '12  Hydro-elec. Development  3  -  -  -  12  Flood Control  3  Recreation  2  MOt Allowed Commercial Logging  T o t a l Ho. of Agencies*  mm  2  1  11  -  15 (Adjusted f o r those agencies not involved i n land management)  12 10  240  Summary of Other Uses Reported by 'Single-use' Agencies - f o r C a l i f o r n i a only  No Response  1  17  1  16  1  17  1  18  Not Allowed Commercial Logging  2  -  Grazing  m m  1  Other Agriculture  I  1  Mining  1  -  Hydro-elec. Development  1  1  -  18  1  1  18  1  16  Flood Control Recreation  T o t a l No. of Agencies s  1  «*•  Allowed Regul.  Actively Planned & Mgn'd.  Allowed Unregul.  2  •  2  20 (Adjusted f o r those agencies not involved i n land management)  Recreation Opportunities within 100 Mile Radius ( A l l Responding Agencies Tabulated) B r i t i s h Columbia Systems Excellent  High  Low  Average  Very Low  £  %  f  %  f  %  Fresh Water Fishing  24  46.2  6  11.5  7  13.5  Boating  22  42.3  6  11.5  4  7.7  4  7.7  2  Swimming & scuba  17  32.7  5  9.6  7  13.5  5  9.6  2  Picnicking  22  42.3  8  15.4  4  7.7  4  7.7  Camping  22  42.3  6  11.5  5  9.6  4  7.7  Hiking  24  46.2  4  7.7  5  9.6  4  7.7  Snow Skiing  18  34.6  7  13.5  5  9.6  2  3.8  Skidooing  19  36.5  7  13*5  7  13.5  2  3.8  Notes  f  %  f  %  15  28.8  3.8  14  26.9  3.8  16  30.8  14  26.9  14  26.9  15  28.8  19  36.5  17  32.7  f  1  1  Percentages based on t o t a l number o f responses, n=52  HO Response  1.9  1.9  Recreation Opportunities Within 100 Mile Radius ( A l l Responding Agencies Tabulated) Washington Systems High  Excellent  Very Low  £  %  £  %  £  %  2  9.5  i  4.8  8  38.1  4.8  2  9.5  1  4.8  8  38.1  2  9.5  1  4.8  2  9.5  8  38.1  1  4.8  1  4.8  8  38.1  4  19.0  1  4.8  8  38.1  9.5  2  9.5  8  38.1  1  4.8  1  4.8  1  4.8  £  £  %  f  %  Fresh Water Fishing  6  28.6  4  19.0  Boating  8  38.1  1  4.8  1  Swimming & Scuba  6  28.6  2  9.5  Picnicking  9  42.8  2  9.5  Camping  8  38.1  Biking  9  42.8  2  Snow Skiing  6  28.6  Skidooing  6  28.6  Notes  Low  Average  Ho Response  %  2  9.5  1  4.8  10  47.6  3  14.3  11  52.4  Percentages based on t o t a l number of responses, n=21  Recreation Opportunities Within 100 Mile Radius ( A l l Responding Agencies Tabulated} Oregon Systems Excellent  High  Low  Average  Very Low  f  %  f  %  Fresh Water Fishing  15  50.0  8  26.7  Boating  14  46.7  5  16.7  3  10.0  3  10.0  Swimming & Scuba  12  40.0  5  16.7  7  23.3  2  •6*7  Picnicking  15  50.0  9  30.0  3  10.0  Camping  17  56.7  4  13.3  3  10.0  Hiking  16  53.3  4  13.3  6  20.0  Snow Skiing  12  40.0  3  10.0  1  3.3  5  Skidooing  12  40.0  2  6.7  1  3.3  5  Botes  f  %  %  f  f  %  4  13.3  4  13.3  4  13.3  3  10.0  5  16.7  4  13.3  16.7  9  30.0  16.7  10  33.3  %  10.0  1  1  3.3  3.3  Percentages based on t o t a l number of responses, n~30  So Res pease  Recreation Opportunities Within 100 Mile Radius ( A l l Responding Agencies Tabulated) C a l i f o r n i a Systems High  Excellent f  *  f  Fresh Water Fishing  15  34.1  7  Boating  19  43.2  Swimming & Scuba  19  Picnicking  f  96  15.9  4  9.1  7  15.9  4  43.2  7  15.9  17  38.6  8  Camping  15  34.1  Biking  18  Snow Skiing Skidooing Notes  %  Low  Average  £  %  Very Low f  f  %  6 . 13 . 6 .  12  27.3  9.1  2  4.5  12  27.3  3  6.8  1  2.3  13  29.5  18.2  6  13.6  2  4.5  11  25.0  5  11.4  7  15.9  5  11.4  1  2.3  11  25.0  40.9  5  11.4  4  9.1  4  9.1  2  4.5  11  25.0  8  18.2  5  11.4  3  6.8  1  2.3  15  34.1  12  27.3  4  9.1  4  9.1  2  4.5  1  2.3  11  25.0  22  50.0  1  Percentages based on t o t a l number of responses* n«44  %  SO Response  2.3  Summary of Land and Water A c t i v i t i e s - Management P o l i c y Type 2  B r i t i s h Columbia  Regions Activities Picnicking Camping Hiking Horse R i d i n g Nature Observ. Hunting Snow s k i i n g Skidooing Golf F i s h i n g - Shore Only F i s h i n g - Boat Only F i s h i n g - Both Canoeing & Rowing Motorboat - E l e c . Motorboat - Gas Waterskiing Sailing Swimming Scuba  ?  Total (f)  2  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3  2  1  3  1  3  . 1  1  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3  1  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  Yes No N.A. Blank 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2  2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2  i  Oregon  Washington Yes Ho N.A. Blank  $  ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.  \ 1 1 1 1  Total (f)  Yes No N.A. Blank  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1  1  2  1 1 1 1 1  2  2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2  Total ? (f) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  3  1  3  1  3  1 1 1 1 1 1  Yes No N.A. Blank  Total $ (f)  3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3  1 1  2 1  California  3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3  Not A p p l i c a b l e  Not A p p l i c a b l e  Summary of Land and Water A c t i v i t i e s - Management P o l i c y Type 3  Activities Picnicking Camping Hiking Horse R i d i n g . Nature Observ. Hunting Snow S k i i n g Skidooing Golf F i s h i n g - Shore Only F i s h i n g - Boat Only F i s h i n g - Both Canoeing & Rowing Motorboat - E l e c . Motorboat - Gas Waterskiing Sailing Swimming Scuba  Washington  B r i t i s h Columbia  Regions  Yes No N.A. Blank 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 2  1  3 2 3 1 2 1 1  2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3  Total $ (f)  5  5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5  1  3  5  2  3  5  2 3 2 2 ' 4 3 4 . i 4  1  3  5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5  Yes No N.A. Blank 1  1 1  1  1  1  1 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 1 1 1  Total $ (f) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1  1 1  Oregon  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  Yes NO N.A. Blank 1 1 1 1 1 1  Yes No N.A. Blank 4 3 4 1 3 2 1  1 1  1  1  1  1 1 1 1 1 1  Total ¥ (f) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1 1  1 1  California  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  3 1 2 3 1  1 4  4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4  3  4  4  4  1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1  4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4  1 3 1 2 2 2  2  2 3 3 3  1 1  Total 5 (f)  Summary of Land and Water A c t i v i t i e s - Management P o l i c y Type 4  Regions Activities Picnicking Camping Hiking Horse R i d i n g Nature Observ. Hunting Snow S k i i n g Skidooing Golf F i s h i n g - Shore Only F i s h i n g - Boat Only F i s h i n g - Both Canoeing & Rowing Motorboat - E l e c . Motorboat - Gas Waterskiing Sailing Swimming Scuba  B r i t i s h Columbia Yes No N.A. Blank  Total $ (f)  Not A p p l i c a b l e  Oregon  Washington Yes No N.A. Blank  Total ? (f)  Yes No N.A. Blank 1 1 1 1 1  Not A p p l i c a b l e  1  1  1  1  1  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1  i  Yes No N.A. Blank 11 8 11 8 9 6 3 3 1  1 1  Not A p p l i c a b l e  Total $ (f) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1  Not A p p l i c a b l e  California  11 10 10 10 7 8 7 7  1 4 1 4 3 6 6 6  1 1 2 5 4 5 5  1 1  1 1 11  ?  1 1  Total (f) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12  11  12  12  12  1 1 1  12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12  248  Summary of User Access Control - by Region and Management P o l i c y ^\Region Methods  British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  California  ^ \  None  1  3  2  1  Area Design  1  1  6  Area Zoning  1  1  4  Permits free  1  1  1  Permits • fees  3  5  Fee Charge no permits  1  3  Clubs only  1  1  1  Volun. Reg. No Response Blank  1  Total No. of Agencies  5  Note*  2  1  1  1  4  12  Black represents Management P o l i c y 3 - Allowed Regulated Red r e p r e s e n t s Management P o l i c y 4 - A c t i v e l y Planned & Managed  249  Summary of Use Intensity Control - by Region and Management P o l i c y \vRegion Method  X.  British Columbia Yes  No  Washington $  Yes  No  Limited Mo. of Permits  $  Oregon Yes  No  1  California $  Yes  No  $  1 1  Letter of Permit Design Capacity Limit  5  Not Yet Necessary No Method Indicated T o t a l No. of Agencies Notes  3  1  3  1  5,0  1,0  1  1.1  1  2 2  4, 12  Black represents Management Policy 3 - Allowed Regulated Red r e p r e s e n t s Management P o l i c y 4 - A c t i v e l y Planned & Managed  $ - Indicates No Response  1  Summary of Conduct Control - by Region and Management P o l i c y British Columbia  Region Rank Metho<J\^^ None  1  9  1  Washington 1  9  1  9  1  1 3  2  Rules & Reg. Enforcement  1  No Response  9  5,0  1  1  1  1  1.0  1.1  2  4, 12  Black represents Management Policy 3 - Allowed Regulated Red  r e p r e s e n t s Management P o l i c y 4 - A c t i v e l y P l a n n e d & Managed  9 m no rank  indicated  1  1  3 6  1  1  T o t a l No. of Agencies  3  2  1  Rules & Reg. Honour Syst.  2  1  Education & Persuasion  Notet  California  Oregon  251  Summary of Regulations on Recreational Use - by Region and Management P o l i c y ^ \  Region  Regulations  British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  California  2  None Signs Asking for Co-oper. Signs P r o h i b i t ing Dumping Municipal Ordinances  1  6  1  1  Prov.(State) & County Health Regulations  1  2  Agency Zoning Regulations  1  2  1  1  Forest Service Regulations  1  No Trespass Law (State* Prov.) F i s h & Game Dept. Regul.  No Response  2  Total No. of Agencies  5  Notes  1  1 0  1  1  1  4  Black represents Management Policy 3 - Allowed Regulated  12  Red r e p r e s e n t s Management P o l i c y 4 - A c t i v e l y Planned & Managed  HELIX IRRIGATION DISTRICT'S  LAKE  JENNINGS  OPEN Fishing opens at Lake Jennings each year in November. The lake will be open to fishermen from November through June on Wednesdays, Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. FEES The Helix Irrigation District operates the lake on a nonprofit basis. The fishing fees pay for the fish which are planted and for the maintenance of the lake during the fishing season. TROUT Catchable size rainbow trout are normally stocked each week in Lake Jennings during the fishing season to provide consistently good fishing. CAMPGROUND The 100-space Lake Jennings County Park is now open year around for campers. The camp, located on the north side of Lake Jennings, has spaces for trailers, campers and tents. It is operated by the San Diego County Park and Recreation Department. RULES A N D REGULATIONS 1. Lake Jennings is a domestic water supply reservoir. Sanitary facilities and trash containers have been provided throughout the area. The use of these facilities is required to avoid contamination of the water supply and keep the boats, grounds and shore line in good sanitary condition. 2. The area of the lake and shoreline around the outlet tower, as posted by signs on buoys and on the shore, IS C L O S E D T O T H E PUBLIC, in accordance with the regulations of the San Diego County Health Department. 3. Fishing permits must be secured prior to fishing. Permits will be sold only on days the lake is open and up to one hour before closing time. Fishermen are required to be off the lake by one-half hour after sundown. 4. Private boats may be launched at established launching fees. Boats, private or rented, may not be operated at speeds in excess of 10 miles per hour. 5. Fishing limits: a) Five trout per person per day. b) Number of fish, other than trout, to be taken under one permit, shall be as stated in the State of California fishing regulations. 6. Children under 14 must be accompanied by an adult. Children 7 years of age or less will be admitted free when accompanied by a paying adult, but any trout caught by them must be counted against the limit of the accompanying adult. 7. Persons who use the lake facilities and engage in recreation activities, do so at their own risk. 8. The Irrigation District will not be responsible for any loss or accident. (OVER)  253  9. Subject to County animal health and quarantine regulations dogs will be permitted on the premises on a 6-foot leash, provided they are not within 50 feet of the water line at any time. No other animals are permitted. 10. No wading or swimming is permitted. 11. No firearms of any kind will be permitted on the premises. Violation of any of these rules and regulations will result in the exclusion of the violator from the premises. The District's patrolman has full authority to enforce all of the provisions in these rules and regulations. Boats are rented from the Concessionaire and his rules and regulations must be complied with. .. A l l rules and regulations of the State and County pertaining to sanitation and to recreation activities must be complied with, as well as those of the Coast Guard with regard to use of boats. RULES AND REGULATIONS E F F E C T I V E AS O F N O V E M B E R 1,1967 LAKE JENNINGS LOCATION M A P  EXTRACTS  FROM  CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL  CODE  PERTAINING TO THE WATER CHAPTER Sections  DEPARTMENT  VI, ARTICLE 7 67.00  to 67.70  ( e x c l u d i n g S e c t i o n s 6 7 . 5 5 to 6 7 . 5 9 , p u b l i s h e d s e p a r a t e l y )  -1  3 - 6 9  S E C . 67.40  W A T E R IMPOUNDING S Y S T E M — POSTING OK N O T I C E S AUTHORITY TO ENFORt E |{EGUI.ATIONS (a) T h a t the properties of the water impounding system owned by and under the control of T h e City of San Diego sliall I K - p o s t e d with notices against trespassing, bathing, or unauthorized shooting, hunting, f i s h i n g or c a m p i n g , and warning all persons against violation of any nf the ordinances of T h e C i t y of San Diego, of the laws of the State of C a l i f o r n i a , or any rules or regulations adopted pursuant thereto, which provide for the protection of any reservoir, or properties of the water impounding system. (b) T h a t all officials and employees of the Division of Recreation and the Impounding and T r a n s m i s s i o n section of the Maintenance and Operation Division of the W a t e r Department of T h e City of S a n Diego are hereby vested with authority to enforce all laws, orders, rulings and regulations enacted for the protection of these waters and the properties pertaining thereto. S E C . 67.41  W A T E R IMPOUNDING SYSTEM—DESIGNATION O F PERMISSIBLE USES: (a) T h a t the C i t y shall designate, through the C i t y M a n a g e r , which reservoirs o r property of the water impounding system of T h e C i t y of San Diego, or any o f them, shall be open to the public f o r the purpose of c a m p i n g , boating, shooti n g , h u n t i n g a n d / o r f i s h i n g , and unless otherwise permitted thereby, no reservoir o r property of the water impounding system of T h e C i t y of S a n Diego shall be open to the public f o r any purpose. (b) T h a t the C i t y M a n a g e r be, and he is hereby authorized and empowered to adopt such rules and regulations or modification thereof, r e g u l a t i n g and cont r o l l i n g entry, c a m p i n g , boating, shooting, h u n t i n g a n d / o r f i s h i n g privileges and sanitation, upon the reservoirs and properties of the water impounding system owned by or under the control of T h e C i t y of S a n D i e g o . S E C . 67.42  W A T E R IMPOUNDING SYSTEM—DECLARATION OF REGULATIONS OF U S E : T h a t all rules and regulations or modifications thereof concerning entry, campi n g , boating, shooting, h u n t i n g and, or fishing privileges, and sanitation, upon the reservoirs or property of the water impounding system o'Nvned by or under the control of T h e C i t y of S a n Diego, which are approved by the C i t y M a n a g e r of said C i t y , are hereby declared to be the rules and regulations governing such privileges and sanitation. SEC.  WATER IMPOUNDING SYSTEM—PERMITS FOR HUNTING, FISHING, CAMPING: (a) A l l persons d e s i r i n g to shoot, hunt, fish, go boating or camp upon the properties of the water impounding system of T h e C i t y of S a n Diego, where open to the public, shall first obtain a permit f r o m T h e C i t y of S a n Diego, and such permit or permits shall be issued in accordance with instructions of the C i t y M a n a g e r . A l l holders of sucb permits shall present same to the respective keepers or their representatives f o r . c h e c k i n g . P e r m i t s shall not be transferable f r o m one reservoir to another. (b) A l l permits shall be paid for in advance, and shall be based upon the schedule approved by the City M a n a g e r . (c) N o hunting, f i s h i n g or trespassing shall be allowed along Dulzui-a ("reek, and no camp shall be allowed to be established within the limits of the rigiit of way of D u l z u r a Creek. 67.43  S E C . 67.44 W A T E R I M P O U N D I N G S Y S T E M — C O N T E N T S O F P E R M I T S : A l l permits or tickets shall be issued in the f o r m prescribed by the C i t y , which will show the amount paid f o r the permit, and the purpose date and period of time f o r which the permit was granted. S E C . 67.45  WATER IMPOUNDING SYSTEM—REGULATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY:—RESTRICTED AREAS: (a) A n y person a v a i l i n g himself of the recreational privileges and while uponthe properties of the water impounding system of T h e C i t y of S a n Diego shall be subject to such local rules and regulations as are in effect, or as m a y be hereafter enacted f o r the various reservoirs and reservoir sites, and for the violation of the same a permit may be revoked and the p a r t y v i o l a t i n g m a y be ejected f r o m the properties. (b) A n y person while upon the properties of the water impounding system of The C i t y "of San Diego, or on property controlled by T h e C i t y in the operation and management of its water system, shall be subject to such local rules and regulations, including sanitary regulations, f o r the protection of the water supply, as are in effect or may be hereafter enacted for the water impounding system, or portions thereof, and f o r the violation of the same the party m a y be ejected f r o m the properties and be subject to the fines f o r a misdemeanor as provided in the following sections. (c) A n y person apprehended upon the properties owned or controlled by the W a t e r Department in the operation and management of its water impounding system, in areas not open to the public use shall he guilty of trespass.  si:c. «7.4(i \vvri-:n  M\I.\ E X T E N S I O N , C O N N E C T I O N en\it<;i:s  KESIDENTIU,  PKOPERTY-  Every applicant for water service to residential property from mains Installed prior to the date of application, who had not theretofore either in person or through his predecessor in interest, paid his proportionate share of the cost of the water main, with respect to the property to ne served, s h a l l beiore such application w i l l  Regulations Relating to  RECREATION O N DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS Excerpt from the  California Administrative Code TITLE 17, PUBLIC HEALTH  STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2151 Berkeley Way BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704  T I T L E 17 DRINKING WATER (Register 56, No. 22—12-22-56)  SUPPLIES  156.1  Article 5. Domestic "Water Supply Reservoirs 7623. Intent of Regulations. These regulations are intended to provide safeguards on domestic water supply reservoirs as part of the program to insure that water being furnished for domestic purposes is such that under all the circumstances and conditions it is pure, wholesome and potable, and does not endanger the lives or health of human beingf. r O T E : Authority cited for 203, 203, and 4010 through 4035, History:  1.  Article 5 ( § § 7623 through 7630) : Sections 102, Health and Safety Code. New Article 5 ( § § 7623 through 7630) filed 12-14-56; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 56, No. 2 2 ) .  7624. Application of Regulations. These regulations are intended to be strictly applied to domestic water supply reservoirs operated by a domestic water purveyor and used solely or primarily for domestic water supply. 7625. Definitions. The term " domestic water supply reservoir" as used herein means a reservoir used to impound or store water intended solely or primarily for domestic purposes. The term "domestic water purveyor" means any person, corporation, public utility, municipality, district or other agency or institution furnishing or supplying water for domestic purposes to two or more places of human habitation by means of an integrated pipe system. The term "distribution reservoir" as used herein means a reservoir, directly connected with the distribution system of the domestic water supply project, used primarily to care for fluctuations in demand which occur over short periods of from several hours to several days, or as local storage in case of emergency such as a break in a main supply line or failure of pumping plant. The term "approved dual chlorination" as used herein means the application of chlorine to water by two independently operated chlorine feed installations, such installations having independent sources of power and chlorine, and independent regulation of chlorine feed. The points of chlorine feed from the two chlorinators should be separated so that the second application of chlorine will be after the full effect of the first chlorination has taken place. Rates of chlorine feed of each machine must be sufficient to provide disinfection of the flow to be treated. 7626. Application for Permit. Any domestic water purveyor planning to allow recreational use on and around a domestic water supply reservoir, or proposing to continue the use of a domestic water supply reservoir on or around which recreation is now practiced without specific authorization in an existing water supply permit, shall submit an application for permit or for permit amendment to the State Department of Public Health.  156.2  PUBLIC HEALTH  TITLE  17  (Register 56, No. 22—12-22-56)  7627. Data to Accompany Application. Such application shall be accompanied by a detailed plan, including maps, showing the reservoir area and location of appurtenant facilities, a statement describing the details of the intended recreational use, a description of - the program for regulating use of the area, plans and description of the recreational and sanitary facilities to be provided, detailed description of maintenance and operation of these facilities and supervision of the people permitted in the area, the numbers of people to be allowed to use the recreational area and facilities, and procedures to control number of users. Such detailed plan shall have been approved by the governing board of the water purveyor. 7628. Guides to Evaluating Application. In evaluating such application, the department shall be guided by the following considerations : (1) The size of reservoir, length of time of storage in the reservoir, topography of the reservoir site, prevalence of windinduced currents, and other factors which may induce shortcircuiting of flows in the reservoir; (2) Size of protective zone between area of recreational use of water surface, and point of withdrawal of water from the reservoir for domestic use; (3) Type of facilities to provide treatment of water from the reservoir (no permit shall be granted unless the facilities can provide continuous and dependable disinfection); (4) Maximum number of people to be allowed in the area at any time; (5) Adequacy of toilet and other sanitation facilities for recreational users; (6) Program, personnel, and financing to control the public recreational use. For this item, before permit will be granted an agreement in writing must be provided by the water purveyor and the local health department or departments having jurisdiction over the area assuring that adequate public health supervision of the recreational area and facilities will be provided. 7629. Reservoirs for Which Permits May Be Granted. When the department finds that the intended recreational use will not render the water supply as delivered to the consumers impure, unwholesome or unpotable, permit for such use will be issued. Subject to the department findings the following types of domestic water supply reservoirs may be used for recreational purposes: (1) Reservoirs from which water is continuously and reliably treated by filtration and chlorination; provided that for smaller water systems, under special circumstances satisfactory to the State Department of Public Health, approved dual chlorination may be acceptable;  T I T L E 17 DRINKING WATER (Register 56, No. 22—12-22-56)  SUPPLIES  156.3  (2) Reservoirs from which water is withdrawn by" open channels or other conduits and subsequently stored again in reservoirs falling in the category of Section 7629 (1) before reaching a distribution reservoir, or before entering the distribution system or a consumer's premises. 7630.  Kinds of Recreational Use Allowed or Prohibited.  Rec-  reational use of domestic water supply reservoirs and shoreline areas shall be limited tofishing,boating, picnicking, hiking and such other recreational uses, exclusive of activities involving bodily contact with the water by persons or animals, as shall be acceptable to the State Department of Public Health. Recreational use of distribution reservoirs is prohibited.  4 3 5 6 4 - 4 5 0 4 - 6 5 2A  prinlrJ i n  C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E P R I N T I N C O F F I C E  260  Summary of Chancres i n Water Quality Resulting from Recreational Use - by Region Region  Change  British Columbia  \.  Yes  Ho  Washington S  Yes  Ho  Coliform Count Increased  $  California  Oregon Yes  Ho  $  Yes  Ho  1  Coliform Count Decreased Turbidity Increased  $  1 1  A l g a l Growth Increased 1  Ho Data Blank  7  T o t a l Ho* of Agencies  Hotet  8  $  88  no response  1 1  2  3  5  13  1  16  1  Summary of Level of Treatment Required i f Recreation Prohibited - by Region ^ \  Region  Level o x \ ^ Treatment  British Columbia  Washington  Oregon  5  1  3  California  Total for A l l Regions  12  21  Surface Supply Treatment Mandatory  1  1  Hot Applicable  1  1  Same Treatment Ho Treatment Disinfection Only  Ho Response  3  I  2  2  8  T o t a l Ho. of Agencies  8  2  5  16  31  Summary of Methods of Meeting Recreation Costs - by Region British Columbia  Region Rank  1  Washington 1  2  California  Oregon  1 2  1  9  Methods Completely Self-supporting Partially Self-supporting  1  Increased water Rates Gen. Tax Levy  8  1  4  1  1  2  1  1  Not Applicable  1  1  D e f i c i t Made Up From Gen. Funds  1  Gov't. Grants  1  T o t a l No. of Agencies  5  1  1  3  No Response  1  2  16  Comparison of Treated water Costs with Recreation Level * A l l Regions N. Water \COSt Ree* \ ^ Score  10$  10- 20*  20- 30*  30- 40*  40- 50$  50- 60*  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  4 1  4  1  2  1  2  Total  8  1  60- 70*  Total  14 1 1  •  1 1 1 2 1  1 1 1  1 1  1  1  1  1  1 1  7  2 2 1 4 3  5  5  1 2  4  31  APPENDIX V Regression Analysis Basic s t a t i s t i c s and Equations  zm  Details of S i g n i f l e a n t Equations f o r Y2 and ¥3 - w&ahiragton and Oregon combined  Y-var*  x-*var*  ;  Simple Corral, coeff.  ¥2 X3  ^0.5988  fatrcpt* or Regr* Coeff.  R2  8*4719  .3585  *0*0935 22.8086  Y3 S3  -0,5776  3*63  • 3336 ; -l©*4. :  -0,2536  Details of S i g n i f i c a n t Equations f o r Y2 and ¥3 - C a l i f o r n i a only  Y*Var*  X~Var,  Simple Correl* coeff.  Y2 X22  -0.6016  Y3  Xntrcpt« or Regr. Coeff.  R2  11.2576  .3620  3*86  .3151  16*32  -0.1003 42*3600  X22  -0.5613  -0.3824  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101993/manifest

Comment

Related Items