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.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

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., University of 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 the Faculty of FORESTRY We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1970 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th i s thes i s fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permission. Depa rtment The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada i i h questionnaire surwy ©f municipal 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 of compos ins present jaanagement p o l i c i e s within and among th© regions. Regression techniques were employed in an attempt to determine what factors influence the intensity of recreation occurring on a reservoir or watershed. A search of available literature was made to establish the 'facts' regarding water contamination through recreational use, the transmission of disease through water supplies, and the treatment of water to eliminate bacteria and viruses. The costs involved in the use or non-use of domestic water-supply areas for recreation were examined as were the major arguments for and against recreational use of these areas. The analysis of the questionnaire returns showed that in comparison with Bri t i s h Columbia, the States of Washington* Oregon and California a l l exhibited a higher level of water-supply management. Secondary uses were most prevalent in California and a l l of the respondents cla s s i f y -ing themselves as 'secondary-use' agencies included recreation U i as one of the uses. In contrast to the situation in Washing-ton and Oregon, and especially in Bri t i s h Columbia, recreation-a l use in California was primarily a regulated use and very often planned and managed in detailed fashion with s t r i c t controls. The regression and correlation analysis showed some s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant but very weak relationships. The equations produced accounted for very l i t t l e of the variation in the dependent variable (recreational-use score) and had very large standard errors of estimate. For the systems analyzed, the intensity of recreation occurring on a reservoir or watershed was related to such agency characteristics 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 in surrounding areas. From the search of pertinent literature and the questionnaire results, i t was established that well planned and managed recreation f a c i l i t i e s can be operated in conjunct-ion with domestic water-supply f a c i l i t i e s and have minimal effects on raw water quality. The potential hazard of disease i v 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 risk to a miniimaia• are presently, available; On the basis'of the research carried out i n this study i t was concluded that when conducted in accord with an ecologically sound manage-ment plan, recreation 1 and the production of high q u a l i t y : ' potable water are 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 x i i I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 Introduction X Objectives of the Study 3 Need for the Study 4 Hypotheses 6 Limitations of the Study 7 Definitions 10 II. HISTORICAL STATUS OF THE PROBLEM 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 v i Page B r i t i s h Columbia 38 The P a c i f i c Coast States 47 The Survey Design 58 The Analysis 63 XV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 68 The Established Data Base 68 Land Use E f f e c t s 68 Transmission of Disease v i a Water 76 Treatment of Water 79 The Recreational Use Controversy 83 Questionnaire Survey Results - MVTAB Analysis 86 General C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Agencies 89 B r i t i s h Columbia 89 Population Served 89 Water Consumption and Percentage Domestic Use 90 Nature of Water Supply and Treatment 90 Land Status 94 Management Agreements 95 Agency Personnel 97 The P a c i f i c Coast States 97 v i i Page Present Management P o l i c i e s 105 General P o l i c i e s 105 Single Use Agencies 107 Secondary Use Agencies 114 B r i t i s h Columbia 116 The P a c i f i c Coast States 120 Recreational Use P o l i c i e s 124 Recreation P o t e n t i a l and Opportunity 124 Recreation A c t i v i t i e s 127 Recreation Controls 132 Recreation Implications 136 Regression and Cor r e l a t i o n Analysis 142 Preliminary Examination of the Data 143 Analysis of Data Set One 145 A l l Regions Combined 145 Analysis of Data Set One by Region 153 B r i t i s h Columbia 154 P a c i f i c Coast States 160 Explanation of the Indicated Relationships 167 Analysis of Data Set Two 179 v i i i Page V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 188 Present Management Situation 188 Briti s h Columbia 188 Pacific Coast States 189 The Realities of Recreational Use 191 Recreational Use - Influencing Factors 193 Conclusions 196 REFERENCES 202 APPENDIX I - Mailing Addresses for Survey Regions 206 APPENDIX II - Final Draft of Questionnaire 226 APPENDIX III - Regression Analysis Data Card Format 228 APPENDIX IV - Summaries of Management Policies and Uses 233 APPENDIX V - Regression Analysis - Basic Statistics and Equations 264 ix LIST OP TABLES Page. 1. Ten Leading Manufacturing Industries in 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* 64 6. Comparison of Recommended Raw Water Quality Criteria* 74 7. Details of Questionnaire Response 88 8* Basic Agency Characteristics - by Region. 91 9* Nature of water Supply by Region. 93 10* Summary of Water Treatment by Region - A l l Agencies Included, 100 11. Summary of Land status - by Region. 102 12a. Agreements Regarding Sanitary Facilities. 103 12b. Agreements Regarding Land Treatment Measures* 104 13. Regional summary of Agency Personnel -Numbers and Disciplines. 106 14. Summary of Indicated Management Policy. 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 X Page 13. Summary of Respondent-rated Potential of Their Own Lands. 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 Initial Multiple-use Regression Equations - A l l Regions Combined. 152 22. Description of Initial Recreational Use Regression Equations - A l l Regions Combined. 152 23. Description of Initial 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 Initial 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 Yl - Washington and Oregon only. 167 x i Page 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, 181 32, Description of S i g n i f i c a n t Equations f o r Data Set Two - A l l Regions Combined. 183 33, Data Set Two - Simple Cor r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s - by Reservoir Type. 184 34. Description of s i g n i f i c a n t Equations f o r Terminal Reservoirs - by Region. 186 x i i LIST OF FIGURES 1. Areas of B r i t i s h Columbia Over 3000 Fset in Elevation. 39 2. Physiographic Regions of Brit i s h Columbia. 41 3. Locations! and Vegetational Climatic' Regions, and Vegetative. Cover 'Types of Brit i s h Columbia* 45 4. Physiographic Regions of Pacific Coast States. 50 5. Average Annual Precipitation for Washington and Oregon. 51 6. Simple Correlation Coefficient Adjustment Chart. 148 1 I 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 articles concerning the recreational use of the Greater Vancouver water Di s t r i c t watersheds appeared in the Vancouver Sun newspaper* A reporter-photographer team travelled through the Capilano River watershed under the escort of a Water Di s t r i c t security officer to observe the forbidden beauties along this mountain road. This area, the adjacent Seymour River catchment, and the more easterly Coquitlam catchment, a total of two hundred and twenty-six square miles, provide the Vancouver Lower Mainland with i t s domestic water 2 supply. These watersheds are closed to r e c r e a t i o n a l use at a l l times and entry on approved business i s allowed only a f t e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n by the Public Health Department that the person i s free from any communicable disease. In the second a r t i c l e , which appeared the following day. D i s t r i c t Commissioner F.R. Bunnell j u s t i f i e d the i s o l a t -ion p o l i c y on the basis of lower water production costs, between twenty-two and twenty-five cents per thousand gallons for consumers i n the Vancouver Water D i s t r i c t . He indicated that a closed watershed i s f a r cheaper to operate than an open watershed. In the same a r t i c l e , Robert Boswell, operations engineer of the Calgary Water Works, stated that Calgary water would cost about twenty-five cents per thousand gallons i f the t o t a l volume were equal to the Vancouver Water D i s t r i c t ' s production of 400 m i l l i o n gallons per day. The Calgary water-shed i s open to the p u b l i c ; the storage r e s e r v o i r i s used fo r canoeing, rowing and s a i l i n g , and i s surrounded by golf clubs and public gardens. There appears, therefore, to be a discrepancy between these two statements by two t h e o r e t i c a l l y q u a l i f i e d men. Are closed watersheds cheaper to operate, or are operating costs more c l o s e l y dependent on other management considerations? Are water purveyors j u s t i f i e d i n maintaining 3 t h e i r "no recreation" p o l i c i e s ? Indeed, do most water supply systems operate under t h i s p o l i c y ? These questions and others which arose during discussion of t h i s subject with the author's thesis advisor, Mr P.J. Oooling, prompted the author to embark on an invest i g a t i o n of the subject, the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of municipal water supply areas.. Objectives of the Study In undertaking t h i s study i t was the author's prime objective to analyse the question of r e c r e a t i o n a l use of municipal water supply reservoirs and watersheds and not to b u i l d a case eit h e r unconditionally f o r or against recreation. Having set t h i s general objective, the author defined s p e c i f i c objectives as follows < 1. to ascertain the present management p o l i c i e s of B.C. water-supply agencies 2. to compare present B.C. p o l i c i e s to 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 - on the basis of i n d i v i d u a l 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 for and against the use of these lands for recreation 5. to examine the s c i e n t i f i c data regarding water contamination through recreational use, the transmission of disease through water supplies, and the treatment of water to eliminate bacteria and viruses 6* to examine the "costs" involved in the use or non-use of these areas for recreation 7. to draw some conclusions as to what should determine future management policies, and who should define these policies If these specific objectives have been met, then the second general objective, to make a worthwhile contribution to the solution of this question, w i l l also have been met. Heed for the Study In examining the need for a study, one can focus 5 on both academic and practical values. I t i s the author's opinion that those of us involved in environmental manage-ment must concentrate on the practical suspects of our f i e l d s . Theory has advanced far ahead of practice in the environmental sciences. Therefore, research must be practically oriented and aim to f a c i l i t a t e the application of established principles. I t i s in this frame of reference that the author puts forth the following needs for this study: 1. policy changes cannot be formulated u n t i l present policy is known 2. knowledge of the policies in ecologically similar regions provides some basis for comparison 3. land-use policies cannot be debated without accurate knowledge of the biological facts rele-vant to a l l the possible uses 4. policy decisions must be based on informed state-ments of a l l land-use philosophies As in most fields of investigation, detailed examination reveals weaknesses in the theoretical foundation; i t i s , however, this close scrutiny with a practical eye which serves to focus further theoretical research on the most v i t a l problems• 6 Hypotheses Webster's Third New international Dictionary (190) defines hypothesis as "a proposition tentatively assumed in order to draw out Its logical or empirical consequences and so test i t s accord with facts that are known or may be deter-mined". Hypotheses, therefore, provide for the researcher points on which to focus both his data collection and his analysis. The f i r s t "proposition tentatively assumed" i n this study i s that the recreational use of watersheds and their reservoirs, and the production of high quality water for domestic consumption, are mutually compatible land uses* Secondly, i t i s hypothesised that the intensity of recreation occurring on a reservoir or watershed i s functionally 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 quality of the water supply - degree of treatment employed - legal status of the buffer lands and watershed lands 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 - desirability of the area for recreation - supply of alternative recreation f a c i l i t i e s - proximity of the area to population centers - amount of public pressure for recreational use - f e a s i b i l i t y of excluding recreational use - legal authority to provide recreational f a c i l i t i e s - professional background of personnel In conducting this project, the author attempted to ascertain the 'facts* and subsequently test each of these hypotheses. Limitations of the Study In conducting any type of research project one must of necessity clearly define the limitations of the study, what w i l l be investigated and what w i l l not? In designing this survey of municipal water supply areas the author f i r s t of 8 a l l set a time scale limitation; only present water system characteristics and management policies were enquired about. It was 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 in addition to current data would exceed the practical limits of a questionnaire survey. Furthermore current data is essential to any discussion of future development po s s i b i l i t i e s * Within this time limitation come others such as the physical limitation of the survey. The prime area to be investigated was the Province of Br i t i s h Columbia. Not only is this area a p o l i t i c a l unit, but also i t is a physiographic region quite distinct from the rest of Canada. To provide a base for the comparison of watershed characteristics and management policies the Pacific coast states of Washington, Oregon and California were included in the survey. These three States provide a progressive change from a region that is ecologically, demographically, and economically very similar to British Columbia, to a region that is significantly different in a l l of these aspects. Subordinate to this spatial parameter is a third limitation, that of supply system type. The British Columbia portion of the survey included a l l systems serving incorporated places with a population of one thousand or greater as reported 9 in the Canada Census for 1961. The mailing l i s t for a l l municipal corporations and additional general information regarding domestic water supply systems in British Columbia were obtained from the Water Rights Branch of the Department of Lands, Forests and water Resources (see Appendix Z ) . The survey of the Pacific coast states included those systems serving incorporated places of one thousand population or greater, with the two further restrictions that the water must come from a surface source and that a portion of the water produced must be for domestic consumption. The selection of water supply agencies in Washington, Oregon and California was based on information obtained from a U.S. Public Health Service report (U.S. Dept. H.E.W. 1965). Precise mailing addresses for the agencies selected were obtained from the Washington State Department of Health, the Oregon State Board of Health, and the California State Department of Public Health respectively (see Appendix Z ) . 10 Definitions In studying anything whether art or science one invariably uses terms that deserve or demand to be defined* Rather than clutter the main text with inconveniently placed explanations of these words or phrases, i t was decided to consolidate them i n a special subsection. They have been arranged alphabetically within several related groups which are as followst 1. diseases and related terms: bacteria - microscopic plants with round, rodlike, spir a l , or filamentous single-celled or non-cellular bodies cholera - an acute, specific, infectious and contagious disease affecting especially the terminal ileum of the small intestine; caused by the comma bacillus, Vibrio cholerae coliform bacillus - any of a number of bacteria especially of the genera Escherichia and Aerobacter normally commensal in vertebrate intestines or l i v i n g in 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 called Entamoeba histolytica, or by a number of strains of Bacillus dysenteriae, and characterized by involvement of the large intestine and dis-charges of blood and mucus enteric - of or relating to the intestine infectious hepatitus - an infection of the li v e r , believed to be caused by one or more viruses, exhibiting several forms of differing severity poliomyelitis - an acute, infectious, and communicable, virus caused disease affecting the central nervous system and frequently resulting in paralysis serological - of or relating to serums, their reactions and properties typhoid fever - an acute, infectious, communicable disease, characterized by blood stream invasion, involvement of the lymphatic tissue of the small intestine, high and continued fever and constipation or diarrhea. The disease i s caused by a motile, non-spore-forming bacterium. Salmonella typhi virus - any of a large group of submieroscopic i n -12 factive agents that are held! by some to be li v i n g organiejse and by others to be complex protein . ntolec\2le3 containing nucleic acids and comparable to genes, that are capable, of growth and multipli-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 of man, caused by a virus and transmitted 'to man by the bite of an infected' mosquito; characterised by headache, dizziness, rapid r i s e of fever, nausea and vomiting; death may occur 'on the sixth or seventh day of ' i l l * noas 2* water supply management terms» buffer land© - lands surrounding a reservoir which are maintained for the purpose of protecting the reservoir from unwanted usee chlorine 'demand - the difference between the amount of chlorine added to water, and the amount of chlorine, free available and combined available, remaining in the water at the end of a specified contact period at a given termperaturo 13 c o l i f o r m count - the number of coliform bacteria organisms per 100 ml of 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 ready f o r consumption f l o c c u i a t i o n - the formation or union of dis c r e t e p a r t i c l e s i n t o small lumps or loose c l u s t e r s i n f i l t r a t i o n capacity - the maximum rate, expressed i n inches per hour, at which water can pass from the surface of the ground into the s o i l mass marginal c h l o r i n a t i o n - the addition of chlorine t o water at a concentration 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 c h l o r i n e moderately polluted water - water having an entero-v i r u s concentration of 30 PPU/litre {a PPtJ -plague forming unit - i s a s i n g l e infectious v i r u s p a r t i c l e ) r e s i d u a l chlorine - that amount of eithe r free or combined chlorine that e x i s t s i n a sample at the time of analysis storage r e s e r v o i r - one which provides storage of un-treated water at upstream points i n the watershed 14 terminal reservoir - areas providing end storage of water prior to treatment turbidity - a measure of the resistance of water to the passage of light through i t watershed - a region or area bounded peripherally by a water parting and draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water 3. miscellaneous termst biotic - of or relating to l i f e edaphic - of or relating to the s o i l fault block mountains - mountains developed through faulting of the earth's crust and subsequent erosion letters patent - legal papers which define the specific mandatory and elective functions of a particular corporate entity May games - games and dances related to the celebration of May Day, a recognition of the ar r i v a l of the season of new vegetation morris dance - a vigorous dance performed by men wear-ing costumes and bells, and carrying sticks or 15 handkerchiefs and performed as a t r a d i t i o n a l part of English pageants, processions, and May Day games quoits - the o r i g i n a l form of horseshoes, played with iron rings, English o r i g i n s k i t t l e s - an English form of ninepins, a north European bowling game. Introduced from France i n the 1300*s 16 l i e HISTORICAL STATUS Of THE PROBLEM Domestic Water Supply Systems In an age of increasing s o c i a l conscience and en-vironmental awareness, water, the second most important element of l i f e , i s taken t o t a l l y f o r granted by most people i n both Canada and the United states. Fresh water at the turn of a tap i s considered to be an 'inalienable r i g h t * when i n f a c t i t i s an invaluable p r i v i l e g e . Consider the state of a modern c i t y that i s suddenly deprived of i t s water supply -no morning showers, no coffee, no water f o r dishwashing or laundry, and worse than these, no water f o r the preparation of foods or the disposal of 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. This dependence of man and his a c t i v i t i e s , although accentuated by today's urbanization, i s not a phenomenon pec u l i a r to t h i s century. H i s t o r i c a l l y , water supply has been one of man's most v i t a l concerns and he has sought to assure i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y i n several ways. Natural supplies such as r i v e r s and lakes were favoured sources and often the main factor i n the l o c a t i o n of settlements. The e a r l i e s t a l t e r n a t i v e to an 1? adjacent surface supply was a w e l l (Tmrneaure'and Russell, 1940}. Ancient h i s t o r y records the importance of wells i n earl y Greece, and the remains of ea r l y community wells are numerous i n the countries of the middle and f a r East. If the loca t i o n of a settlement was unfavourable f o r the development of wells and nearby surface sources were unsuitable, a r e l i a b l e supply was obtained through the construction of aqueducts and reservoirs to transport and store water from some di s t a n t source. This technique was most highly developed by the Romans and used extensively throughout the Empire. Rome i t s e l f was served by up to nine aqueducts which supplied approximately f i f t y m i l l i o n gallons d a i l y , or about f i f t y gallons per ca p i t a . Of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i s the f a c t that p r i o r to about 312 B.C., Rome's water was obtained from the Tiber and from springs and wells i n the immediate v i c i n i t y , but t h i s water f i n a l l y became so badly polluted that i t was necessary to bring a purer supply from di s t a n t sources (Turneaure and Russell, 1940). The f a l l of the Roman Empire brought with i t the destruction of the aqueducts and i n general the e n t i r e subject of water supply was sadly neglected during the Middle Ages. Undoubtedly the t e r r i b l e ravages of pestilence through-18 out t h i s period were to a great extent the r e s u l t of the use of grossly polluted water. Hot u n t i l about the beginning of the seventeenth century was there any general improvement i n water supply and sanitary systems. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries progress was slow and developments were confined mainly to the c i t i e s of Paris and London. Water-powered pumps were used i n both c i t i e s between 1608 and 1760 and i n 1619 the Mew River Company of London i n i t i a t e d the p r i n c i p l e of supplying each house with water (Turneaure and Russell, 1940). Between 1760 and 1790 steam-powered pumps were brought into use and gave a great impetus to the develop-ment of water works. During the nineteenth century history, began to repeat i t s e l f and these r a p i d l y growing c i t i e s found, l i k e ancient Rome, that t h e i r water supplies were d e t e r i o r a t -ing. Large scale sand f i l t r a t i o n was introduced i n 1829 by the Chelsea Company of London to improve the q u a l i t y of the r i v e r water. By 1892 Paris had constructed three aqueducts to provide a supply of water f o r domestic purposes and London was obtaining supplementary water from springs and wells i n the surrounding chalk d i s t r i c t s . The question of q u a l i t y was beginning to receive as much attention as quantity. The development of water systems i n North America 19 very closely parallelled that of Europe. The f i r s t domestic water works were bu i l t in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1652 and operated under the force of gravity (Blake, 1956). Th® system consisted of a log conduit line running from nearby wells and springs to a small reservoir which provided storage of water for domestic use and f i r e suppression. This earliest attempt never equalled the expectations of i t s promoters and was eventually abandoned. During the next one hundred years Philadelphia, Pennsylvania led the way in the development of domestic water-supply systems. Stimulated by the repeated occurrence of yellow fever epidemics throughout nearly a l l of the newly flourishing ports along the eastern coast, the City Council of Philadelphia embarked on a long, costly and extremely controversial program to provide a healthful and dependable supply of water for i t s citizens. The question of private control or public control formed the base for much of the argument with support for private control coming from businessmen and landowners who had distinctly vested interests in the matter. Similar debates were waged in 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 far from being solved. Production capacities 20 were never able to keep pace with the growth In water eon-sumption, and the rapidly increasing population densities throughout the surrounding areas presented an increasingly significant threat to the purity of the supply rivers. A l -though there was considerable pressure from various groups and individuals to i n s t a l l sand f i l t e r s of the type in common use throughout Europe, the water purveyors of the day were very reluctant to do so and some even stubbornly opposed to 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 to be one typhoid case located miles upstream, that municipal authorities were convinced of the necessity to f i l t e r and otherwise treat water supplies originating from less than f u l l y protected watersheds. Even with this con-clusive example of disease transmission by water, i t was not un t i l after 1910 that f i l t r a t i o n of water was widespread and other techniques such as chlorination, aeration, and taste and odour control came into some use. As medical knowledge increased i t ifas established that in addition to typhoid fever, dysentery and cholera were water-borne diseases. Continued research pointed to the possible existence of many other 21 b a c t e r i a l diseases capable of being spread through water supplies and introduced the subject of viruses, agents of disease which could not be removed by normal f i l t r a t i o n . This burgeoning threat from disease promoted d r a s t i c changes i n the watershed management p o l i c i e s of the eastern United States. Authorities began to agree that th© greatest pro-t e c t i o n that a c i t y could have was to keep i t s water supply free from p o l l u t i o n i n the f i r s t place. Only by preventing a l l contact with sewage could 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 to emerge. Throughout the next t h i r t y years the problem of r a p i d l y increasing consumption continued to plague water authorities i n a l l regions of the country. Estimates of future demand were never large enough and new sources were loaded to maximum capacity as quickly as they were brought into operation. The west coast c i t i e s of San Francisco and Los Angeles, leaders i n water supply development i n the State of C a l i f o r n i a , were forced into bold action to ease the demands of t h e i r expanding populations (Blake, 1956). Zn the a r i d southwest su i t a b l e sources of water f o r domestic use were not overly abundant, and, once the adjacent supplies were f u l l y 22 u t i l i s e d , expansion meant the transportation of water over considerable distances. Zn 1913 the c i t y of Los Angeles received i t s f i r s t water from the Owens River aqueduct, a phenomenal project 233 miles i n length and o r i g i n a t i n g on the eastern slopes of the S i e r r a Nevada mountains (Harding, 1960). By the middle of the 1930's the newly formed Metropolitan Water D i s t r i c t of Southern C a l i f o r n i a was deeply involved i n the construction of the Colorado River Aqueduct which would bring water over 240 miles and i n places r a i s e i t as much as 1,300 feet higher than the intake. Developments by San Francisco and the East Bay Municipal U t i l i t y D i s t r i c t were of a s i m i l a r nature but s u b s t a n t i a l l y smaller and involved the consolidation of several companies to form municipal u t i l i t y d i s t r i c t s . These aqueduct developments did not, however, solve the problem of water shortage, instead, as had occurred i n the East, the water demands increased and the shortage remained. With the continued development i n a l l sectors of the economy and the ever increasing population, the manage-ment of domestic water supply systems became increasingly complex. Water treatment f a c i l i t i e s improved greatly 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 practices evolved i n response tog (1) the land ownership pattern of the area, (2) the established water r i g h t s system, and (3) the enacted water laws. Recreation * A Complicating Factor The Development of Recreation The advancement of domestic water supply tech-nology to present l e v e l s spanned over three hundred years. During t h i s time v i r t u a l l y every aspect of European and North American s o c i e t i e s underwent dramatic changes. Zn seventeenth century England l e i s u r e was almost e x c l u s i v e l y the prerogative of the landed n o b i l i t y , and the wealthier classes i n the towns. The l i v e s of the lower classes were occupied l a r g e l y i n eating, drinking, working, and sleeping. However, Sundays, a f t e r the generally compulsory church attendance, were often given over to recreation - rough-and-tumble sports, morris dances and Hay games enjoyed by the young - s k i t t l e s and quoits played by t h e i r seniors (Hyde, 1935), Even t h i s small amount of *joy* was condemned by the Puritans; " a l l i d l e 24 pursuits were a Satanic trap to l u r e the godly from the path of duty" (Dulles, 1965)* Consequently, when these r e l i g i o u s minority groups sought out the New World to escape persecution, they brought with them t h e i r austere code and the determinat-ion that there should be no trace of worldlinesa i n t h i s Utopia across the seas. I n i t i a l l y these ideas served the c o l o n i s t s w e l l . The Very s u r v i v a l of the e a r l y settlements depended on day-long labour* As the colonies gained economic se c u r i t y and more and more non-Puritans arrived, p r o h i b i t i o n of 'recreation« became less and less f e a s i b l e . By the e a r l y eighteenth century farmers and merchants a l i k e had sought out and developed opportunities f o r a wide v a r i e t y of r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s * Leisure time was, however, s t i l l a very minute portion of the average c i t i z e n ' s l i f e . Acceptance or con-demnation of pleasurable a c t i v i t i e s depended very greatly on the r e l a t i v e strengths of the r e l i g i o u s factions, and the p o s s i b i l i t y of recreation having some connection with the development of safe water supplies was not even conceived of at that time. The beginning of the nineteenth century found post-' revolution America enjoying such amusements ass dancing, music, walking, r i d i n g , s a i l i n g , shooting, chess, cards and 25 dramatic exhibitions. Changes were soon to come. The f i r s t half of the century brought a transformation from a relatively simple agricultural community into a complex urbanised and industrialized society. Coincident with this spatial and economic transition came a stiffening of religious attitudes toward recreation and an emphasis on the nobility of 'honest t o i l ' . The Victorian Age of repression was at hand. Leisure acti v i t i e s were once again the f i r s t step to h e l l . Long hours of work were encouraged by the Church to prevent idleness and welcomed by the dollar hungry merchant-manufacturer class. The attempted prohibition of pleasurable activities did not succeed. The forces generated by urbanization and the r i s e of a new working class overpowered Victorian prudery. During the same period in England, France and other western European countries similar technological advances created similar social pressures with the result that the working classes began to 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 Victorian repression and industrialization actually promoted the gradual expansion of leisure ac t i v i t i e s which have ever since played an i n -creasingly important part in our societies. Zn the latter half of the nineteenth century enter-26 tainment f a c i l i t i e s increased g r e a t l y within the U.S. The theatre flourished; amusement parks and carnivals enjoyed wide popularity. Roller-skating and c y c l i n g fads came and went. Baseball and f o o t b a l l developed and became national i n s t i t u t i o n s , but as spectator entertainment rather than p a r t i c i p a t i o n sports, with the advent of the automobile people began to venture *out in t o the country 1 or conversely, 'into the b i g c i t y * . M o b i l i t y f o r the masses was soon to come. Early automobiles were extremely unreliable, expensive to buy and expensive to maintain. They were a new amusement f o r the r i c h . By 1911, however, Henry Ford had entered the automobile business, and by 1914 h i s Model T was the most f a m i l i a r of a l l makes and could be purchased f o r as low as four hundred d o l l a r s . The unveiling of the 'revolutionary* Model A i n 1927 very nearly caused r i o t s i n Detroit, Cleveland, Kansas c i t y and.New York. Succeeding years saw the popularity of the automobile r i s e s t i l l higher; more and more people were enjoying a Sunday outing or a holiday t r i p into the country, and by the 1930*s more than twenty-five m i l l i o n passenger cars were on the road* America had become a nation on wheels (Dulles, 1965). Automobility combined with the increasing amounts 27 of leisure time available to the masses greatly stimulated what can be termed the 'outdoor movement*. The car made week-end excursions to hunt or f i s h vastly easier? i t made camping possible for many people for whom woods, mountains and streams had formerly been inaccessible. The people were beginning to move 'back to the good earth*. The isolation of c i t y l i f e and the repetitive nature of factory work had eliminated pride of craftsmanship and the satisfaction that comes from transforming raw materials into a finished product. To f i l l this unconscious need many people were seeking the 'challenge* of l i v i n g in the out-of-doors; for some the challenge was merely journeying into the country and enjoying a picnic by a stream; for others the challenge was to compress oneself, one's family, and the necessities of l i f e into the 'tin Lizzie* and bump off across country for a week or more in what might approximate a second pioneer movement. From a l l urban centres people were venturing out in search of recreation space. i n Europe the development of recreation followed a somewhat similar pattern, but without the great 'back to the good earth* movement. A c t i v i t i e s such as cycling, hiking, and mountain climbing had remained, in many locales, much 28 closer to the everyday way of l i f e , and the generally lower standards of living precluded the development of the •car for every family' philosophy that engulfed the American way of l i f e . Recreation and Domestic Water Supply An examination of man's past reveals that tradition-a l l y man i s a polluter, with almost unfailing regularity man has destroyed his surroundings to better his material position* The growth of the North American culture has demonstrated this most clearly. As the c i t i e s , both eastern and western, i n -creased in physical size and population, the quality of the environment in and around them steadily decreased. Concentrat-ion of industrial and domestic ac t i v i t i e s into relatively small areas resulted in rapid deterioration in the quality of water obtained from both rivers and wells. Advances in medical research made clear the dangers of polluted water supplies, and, combined with public pressure, initiated the quest for new sources of water. Increased supplies were secured; the urban expansion continued; pollution of water courses increased, and the new supplies became insufficient 29 i n quantity and often lacking i n q u a l i t y once again, water agencies pushed further into the hinterland to f i n d more pure water, Always the answer was new sources with no thought given to curbing the p o l l u t i o n of l o c a l waterways. The economic development and population growth that necessitated the creation of sophisticated water systems brought with i t ever increasing demands f o r recreation space and f a c i l i t i e s . Just as water purveyors were looking to undeveloped areas, so were the increasingly a f f l u e n t and mobile c i t i z e n s of these c i t i e s . Areas that were supplying 'pure* water were i n demand for picnicking, camping, hiking, f i s h i n g , and hunting. By t h i s time medical science had proved that diseases such as typhoid fever, dysentery and cholera were water-borne, and numerous other b a c t e r i a l diseases along with the viruses, almost unknown quantities, were suspected of being spread through water supplies. Consequently, t h i s 'invasion' of the countryside by r e c r e a t i o n i s t s was not welcomed by those responsible f o r supplying water to the p u b l i c . As a r e s u l t of the early settlement patterns i n the eastern States and the e a r l y Federal land disposal p o l i c i e s throughout the States, much of the r u r a l and un-30 developed land was in 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 either purchase the lands i n -volved, press for legislative controls, or convince the land owners of the desirability of sanitary controls and educate them in the necessary techniques. Where possible land acquisition was the most favoured. Experience soon showed , however, that the general public considered lands owned by public agencies to be public property and therefore open for any desired use (Banks, 1940). 'No trespassing* signs did l i t t l e good and minor policing regulations were disregarded. Conversely, private water companies generally received the respect due private ownership. Limited public access when allowed was viewed as a privilege and necessary restrictive measures were respected. This misconception that access and use of publicly owned lands is a 'right' and not a 'privilege' s t i l l prevails in North American society. As demands for recreation areas continued to out-grow the supply, many water supply agencies were forced to ease the unwanted pressure on their lands by providing desig-nated areas for limited a c t i v i t i e s (Banks, 1940). While 31 the general policy continued to be the exclusion of public access to watersheds and reservoirs, by 1940 some o f f i c i a l s were publicly supporting properly planned and Integrated use of these lands. At the Annual Conference of the American Water Works Association, May 6th, 1948, six of the seven participants in a panel discussion of the 'Public Use of Reservoir lands and Waters1 supported at least p a r t i a l use of these areas for recreation (Bonyun, 1948). During the next decade the question of public access to domestic water supply areas was the basis for much controversy, with so-called experts advocating both open and closed policies, i n May of 1957 the A.W.W.A. Board of Directors accepted and passed the following resolutions Resolved; that any decision on recreat-ion, or other secondary uses of reservoirs, be l e f t entirely to local discretion, and that the American Water Works Association register i t s opposition to state legis-lation relating to opening domestic water supply reservoirs to fishing or other secondary uses. This statement was considered by many Association members to be insufficiently e x p l i c i t to set forth 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 to study the subject in detail and submit a more comprehensive 32 policy proposal* At the 1958 Annual Meeting the Board of Directors unanimously passed a policy statement, presented in f u l l in Appendix IV, which basically excludes recreation from a l l supply areas except upstream reservoirs that are already polluted to a degree requiring treatment techniques in addition to disinfection. If and when recreation i s per-mitted on such an area, "determination of the kind and extent of recreational use shall be the sole responsibility of the water works executive of the system involved" (A.W.W.A*, 1958). At the time that this policy 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 variation in management practice between regions and within regions exists at present. Xn the continuing debate between proponents and opponents of recreational use of domestic water supply areas, the arguments put forth by each side have tended to become somewhat standardised (Teller, 1963). The principal reasons given for advocating recreation on watersheds and reservoirs seem to be: (1) The supply of available recreation land that i s close to metropolitan areas is becoming severely 33 limited,, therefore single-use lands such as domestic water supply areas should be opened for recreational use, (2) The rapidly increasing density of population w i l l make f i l t r a t i o n of supplies inevitable; therefore early installation of required treatment f a c i l i t i e s w i l l save money in the long run. (3) Municipally-owned watershed and reservoir buffer lands should not be regarded as "private" but as "public" property. Similarly, federal and state lands are "public" lands and a l l should be ut i l i s e d to their 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 their water, but do allow recreational use of their reservoirs and catchment areas. (5) Recreational user fees would offset additional ex-pense to water agency. (6) Payment of any d e f i c i t due to recreation ac t i v i t i e s from general taxation i s comparable to the provision of other public 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 for recreation would con-stitute a violation of property rights without compensation. (2) The opening of reservoirs and lands would reduce the level of control over watershed sanitation, but would not free the c i t y or municipality from the responsibility of supplying their consumers with pure water. (3) Increased public access to watershed areas increases the ri s k of pollution and would necessitate more intensive treatment of water supply - often at considerable expense to the consumers. (4) Potential 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 recreationists. (6) Increased use of roads would mean higher maintenance costs. 35 (7) Level of user fees which the public is willing to pay is insufficient to meet the costs of providing and maintaining adequate and safe f a c i l i t i e s . This on-going battle by water purveyors to hold their domains 'inviolate*, and by vested interest recreation groups to secure the 'forbidden pleasures' of 'Lake Pure water1 has clouded many of the real issues concerning the wise develop-ment of these water and land resources. 36 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES General Procedure As outlined in Chapter I the study was Initiated primarily as a result of two newspaper articles concerning the closed watershed policy of the Greater Vancouver Water Dis t r i c t . During the month of October 1968 the author made a search of the literature concerning recreational and multiple use of domestic supply watersheds and found that no studies of this nature had been conducted in B r i t i s h Columbia and that nearly a l l the published discussions of this sub-ject were non-Canadian in origin. The decision was made to study British Columbia in conjunction with the American States of Washington, Oregon and California for the reasons suggested previously and c l a r i f i e d in the subsequent section. The time and funds available dictated that the survey method should be a mailed questionnaire to ascertain present manage-ment policy and practices in the regions studied. Available literature would be used to establish both the 'facts' and the opinions concerning the hydrological and biological impact of various uses on watersheds and water production. The 37 analysis was to be computerized to the extent possible and followed by inte r p r e t a t i o n by the author. The Study Area This i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the re c r e a t i o n a l use of municipal water supply reservoirs and watersheds included only the four previously s p e c i f i e d areas of: B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada, and Washington State, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a . These regions have i n common extensive ocean shorelines, north-south oriented coastal and i n t e r i o r mountain ranges, and the 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 plateaux. On a broad c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n l e v e l the climates grade from mid-latitude coastal evergreen f o r e s t and mountain types to mid-latitude steppe, Mediterranean scrub woodland, and desert. This gradation, by no means a regular or uniform phenomenon, i s e s s e n t i a l l y a r e s u l t of the l a t i t u d i n a l differences of the regions. The differences i n l a t i t u d e i n turn give r i s e to va r i a t i o n s i n the d i r e c t i o n and temperature of the p r e v a i l i n g a i r and ocean currents. The interactions of these variables with the physio-graphic features of an area r e s u l t i n what has been termed the 'climate* of the area. Considered at a regional l e v e l 38 these Interactions produce the broad climatic types mentioned previously. At a sub-regional level the physiographic com-plexities of a l l four areas result in extreme climatic variations from one local i t y to another. In addition to these physiographic and climatic characteristics, certain demographic and economic characteristics of the regions exhibit significant similarities and differences. What these are and how they relate to the integrity of these regions as a study area w i l l be discussed in the succeeding pages. Brit i s h Columbia British Columbia, Canada's most westerly Province, l i e s between the forty-ninth and sixtieth parallels of North latitude. Nearly a l l of the Province i s situated within the cordilleron region and consequently at least 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 - in the north, (6) Columbia Mountain System - in 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 positions of these areas are shown i n Figure 2. The climate of B r i t i s h Columbia consists of three broad types; (1) mid-latitude c o a s t a l evergreen forest, (2) mountain, (3) boreal f o r e s t (Rumney, 1963). Within a B r i t i s h Columbia context these c l i m a t i c types can also be c l a s s i f i e d and sub-divided on a l o c a t i o n a l b asis. The mid-la t i t u d e c o a s t a l evergreen f o r e s t type can be r e - c l a s s i f i e d as: (!) west coast type, and (2) southwest coast type (Government of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963). The west coast type receives a mean annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n ranging from f i f t y to more than one hundred inches and has mean monthly temperatures varying from t h i r t y - f i v e t o s i x t y degrees Fahrenheit. The windward, or generally western, sides of the islands, ridges and mountains receive the most p r e c i p i t a t i o n and experience the smallest range i n temperature* The southwest coast type occurs over a r e l a t i v e l y small area including the lower Fraser v a l l e y , the Sechelt penninsula, the southeastern portion of Vancouver Island and most of the Gulf Islands. This area occupies a lee p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to the normal path of the P a c i f i c storms* consequently the average annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n i s less than f i f t y inches and the south-eastern coast of 42 Vancouver Island receives less than thirty inches annually. The mean monthly temperatures range from thirty-five to sixty-five 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 'mountain1 climatic type can be subdivided into at least four sections, southwestern interior, southeastern interior, central interior, and northern interior. Although these sections are sufficiently uniform to warrant classification as types, throughout each the climatic factors vary considerably depending on aspect and elevation. The southwestern and southeastern sections have quite similar temperature regimes, mean monthly temperatures varying from zero to seventy degrees Fahrenheit? however, the southeastern section is more mountainous and consequently receives more precipitation. The southeastern valley bottoms receive as low as fifteen inches annually while the higher elevations receive up to sixty-five inches. In contrast to this the southwestern section averages less than twenty inches of precipitation annually with some well-protected valleys receiving less than ten inches. The central interior section has relatively humid conditions resulting from increased pre-cipitation and lower average temperatures compared to the 43 southwest section. Annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n averages twenty inches and the mean monthly temperatures vary from a January low of ten degrees to a July high of s i x t y degrees Fahrenheit, within t h i s region the f r o s t - f r e e period i s short and un-r e l i a b l e , as evidenced by the Vanderhoof area which has ex-perienced f r o s t during every month of the year. The fourth section, the northern 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 records are a v i i a b l e . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y the winters are long and cold, the summers short and co o l . Average monthly temperatures range from zero to s l i g h t l y less than s i x t y degrees Fahrenheit and annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n varies from eighteen to t h i r t y inches. Within B r i t i s h Columbia the •boreal f o r e s t ' c l i m a t i c type occupies the northeastern corner where i t intermixes with the 'mountain* type. This area because of i t s continental location experiences considerably more extreme conditions than the region to the west. B r i t i s h Columbia's coldest winters occur here with mean monthly temperatures as low as minus eight degrees Fahrenheit. Conversely, i t also experiences hot summers and the f r o s t - f r e e period i s s u f f i c i e n t to allow arable a g r i c u l t u r e i n the Peace River basin. The re l a t i o n s h i p s of these l o c a t i o n a l l y based 44 climatic regions to the broad vegetational climatic types, and to the relatively complex vegetative cover types of the Province, are presented in Figure 3. Within this vast expanse of mountains and valleys, over 350,000 square miles, are scattered approximately 1.8 million people. Of this total, over f i f t y percent is con-centrated within one hundred miles of the largest city, Vancouver. Zn common with a l l areas of North America, urban dwellers far outnumber non-urban dwellers. According to the last Dominion Bureau of st a t i s t i c s Census in 1966, just over seventy-five percent of Brit i s h Columbians l i v e in urban areas (Government of Canada, 1969). Clearly the spatial dis-tribution of Brit i s h Columbia's population is very uneven, a characteristic common to most of Canada. Youthfulness is another population characteristic of great importance to Bri t i s h Columbia's future development. Nearly half of her citizens are under twenty-five years of age and over seventy percent are under forty-five years of age (Government of British Columbia, 1969). During the period from 1961 to 1966 the population increased an average of three percent, the highest in Canada. Of this increase, fifty-seven percent was due to migration; in no other Province did the rate of in -45 V e g e t a t l v e l y - b a s e d C l i m a t i c  Regions. 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 A Mountain B Bor e a l F o r e s t C L o c a t l o n a l l y - b a s e d C l i m a t i c Regions. West Coast Southwest Coast Southwest I n t e r i o r Southeast I n t e r i o r C e n t r a l I n t e r i o r Northern I n t e r i o r Northeast 1 2 I 7 CLIMATIC REGIONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA V e g e t a t i v e Cover Types, A l p i n e B o r e a l Coast Columbia G r a s s l a n d Montane Subalpine Sources F o r e s t Regions o f Canada J.S. Rowe, 1959-j F i g u r e 3 . 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 Cover Types o f B r i t i s h Columbia. 46 crease from migration exceed the natural rate of increase. An examination of certain economic sta 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 in North America and yield an annual lumber production worth nearly five times as much as any other Province of Canada (Government of Canada, 1969). Her mountain rivers and ri c h ocean waters support a fishing industry which, on a value produced basis, consistently ranks f i r s t in Canada. British Columbia also ranks second in the production of furs, third in manufacturing, f i f t h in mineral production and sixth in agricultural production. Within the Province, forestry, mining and agriculture rank f i r s t , second and third respectively among the primary industries. Secondary processing of raw materials is becoming increasingly important to the economy, and the relative importance of manufacturing industries can be seen from Table 1. The prosperity of Br i t i s h Columbians i s evidenced by the followings 1. Wages and salaries/employed person - $4,724.00 - highest in Canada (1967) 2. Per capita personal income - $2,579.00 - second highest in Canada 47 3. Average number of hours worked/week - 37?9 - lowest in Canada 4. Ratio of passenger cars to people - Is3 ^highest in Canada This 'good l i f e ' that i s enjoyed by the 'average' citizen of Brit i s h Columbia has brought with i t certain 'complications' for resource managers; increased demand for recreation space and f a c i l i t i e s i s the one most pertinent to this study and i t s significance w i l l be discussed in subsequent sections. The Pacific Coast States natural phenomena occur in time and space completely independent of man and his contrived boundaries and subdivisions. So i t is that the physiographic types found in Bri t i s h Columbia extend into Washington State, often known by different names, but nevertheless the same formations. Similarly, some of these formations extend into Oregon and California 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 south-ern Oregon and northern California, and f i n a l l y the Los Angeles and San Diego Ranges of southern California (Eighsmith, 1968; United States Bureau of the Census, 1969). A l l are 48 Table 1. Ten Leading Manufacturing Industries i n B r i t i s h Columbia Net Value of Industries Production 1966 ($1,000,000) Sawmills and planing m i l l s 608.8 Pulp and paper m i l l s 474.3 Veneer and plywood m i l l s 151.3 Petroleum and coal-products industries 145.6 F i s h products 113.9 Slaughtering and meat processors 87.3 Dairy f a c t o r i e s 72*5 Manufacturing of i n d u s t r i a l chemicals 63.7 Misc. food manufacturing 58.7 Shipbuilding and repa i r 52.6 Sources B.C. Facts and S t a t i s t i c s 1969, Dept. of Zndust. Devel., Trade & Commerce, Economics and S t a t i s t i c s Br., Gov't, of B.C. 76 pp. 49 portions of the most westerly ramparts of the North American Cordilleron Region. The Coastal Trench extends southward in the form of the Puget Sound Lowland, the Cowlitz Lowland and the Willamette River Lowland. Bri t i s h Columbia's Coast Mountains are known as the cascades in the states. Xn west-central Oregon these mountains merge with the Klamath Ranges to the west and in doing so terminate the coastal trench. Further south these ranges divide once again to form the Coast Ranges on the west, and the famous Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east with the Central Valley of California lying between them (see Fig. 4). To the east of the Cascades l i e s what is known as the Columbia Xntermontane. This physiographic province is dominated in the north by the Columbia River Basin. Xn central Oregon i t takes the form of mountains and uplands bounded on the south by the Harney High Lava Plain which in turn grades into what i s known as the Basin and Range Province, This area consists of numerous fault block mountains and troughs, and extends in a southeasterly direction into northeastern C a l i -fornia, Nevada and southeastern California. 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. , ,.J.t.»4Cey to Phy s^teferaph i c : Ty,; es Columbia Mountain;'*System: Columbia Intermontane Columbia Basin Central Mountains Harney High Lava P l a i n Basin and Range Province Cascade Mountains "Sierra Nevada Mountains Willamette-Cowlitz-Puget r '; Lowland ' Central Valley Coastal Mountains Olympics Coast Range KLamath-Siskiyou Mtns. Coastal Uplands Los Angeles Ranges San Diego Ranges -y: ' 2 6 7 8 10 ; 11' 12,. i y : Ik: 15 Figure !+. Physiographic Regions of P a c i f i c Coast States. (Source: Highsmith, R.M. 1968.) t w (Sistiss©^ molmtws® x&g'te&BQa tela© salS^a? arafi wQ&t®w I f&ia d l s l s o & M y © s t t ® ® & 3 8&o£$&©ffn © o l i g e m i a * tat ie'ga&elcly © o ^ l i e s t e a fiqp iateras'&oii 62 ^ fe© C e a t e a l wallQy &<2^?©©s& s@utfewaj?(i l o g i c a l l y teitag© i t g?a£ua& tecraae®© in tto for W a s h i n g t o n and @reg®a<> (&mm®m SiSBtsnitb* m.ea. 1968•) 52 s i a i l a r locations. These l a t i t u d i n a l differences are con-siderably suppressed along the coast by the strongly moderating e f f e c t of the P a c i f i c Ocean. At inland locations, however, and during the winter months, the differences are more e v i -dent. Throughout t h i s area from the B r i t i s h Columbia border to the northern end of the Central V a l l e y the c l i m a t i c types can be summarized under broad headings as: Mid-latitude co a s t a l evergreen f o r e s t - west of the Cascades: Mountain type - east of the Cascades except f o r southeastern Oregon and northeastern C a l i f o r n i a which i s Mid-latitude Steppe to Desert. The Mountain type p e r s i s t s to 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 area varies from twenty inches or less at lower, elevations up to s i x t y inches at high elevations. The coast evergreen f o r e s t of B r i t i s h Columbia and the north Cascades undergoes a gradual 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 just north of San Francisco i t i s f i n a l l y replaced by a Mediterranean type of scrub woodland. This type dominates the Central V a l l e y and the r e s t of southwestern C a l i f o r n i a . On the eastern side of the S i e r r a and throughout the south-eastern quarter of the state, desert conditions 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 ten inches. 53 Within this diversity of environments have develop-ed three p o l i t i c a l regions which exhibit demographic and economic characteristics of marked similarity to each other and to British Columbia. At the same time definite differences exist and must be recognized. A comparison of total land areas shows that British Columbia i s twelve percent larger than Washington, Oregon and California combined. Conversely, the population of California i s over nine times that of British Columbia. Details on these facts are shown in Table 2. The resulting differences in population densities are con-siderable. British Columbia's average density of population i s 5.2 people per square mile; California's i s 119.2 people per square mile. Washington and Oregon occupy intermediate positions with 44.8 and 19.8 people per square mile respective-l y . 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 in these States, as in Bri t i s h Columbia, heavily outnumber rural residents. The latest data available for the areas (1960) indicates that in California 86.4 percent of the people l i v e in 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. Brit i s h Columbia Washington Oregon California Land Area (sq. mi.) 359,279 66,663 96,209 156,537 Total Population 1,873,674 (1966) 2,990,000 (1965) 1,900,000 (1965) 18,600,000 (1965) Density of Population 5*2/mi2 44.8/mi2 19.8/mi2 119.2/mi2 Density of Main Cities Vancouver 9,471/mi2 Seattle 6,810/mi2 Tacoma 3,135/mi2 Portland 5,630/mi2 San Francisco 16,307/mi2 Los Angeles 5,447/mi2 Percentage Urban Popul. 75.3 (1966) 68.1 (1960) 62.2 (1960) 86.4 (1960) Age Distrib. of Popul. (1966) (1960) (1960) (1960) < 25 yrs. 25- < 45 yrs. 46.0% 25.1 44.7% 25.7 43.6% 24.8 43.5% 28.0 <45 yrs. 71.1% 70.4% 68.4% 71.5% Personal Income/Capita (1967) $2,373 (U.S.) $3,389 (U.S.) $3,090 (U.S.) $3,697 (U.S.) Motor Vehicle Registration (1965) 0.786 MM 1.659 MM 1.119 MM 9.989 MM (pass, only) 0.623 MM 1,310 MM 0.907 MM 8.371 MM Cars/Person 1/3.00 1/2*28 1/2.08 1/2.22 Sources B.C. Facts & Statistics, 1969. Gov't, of B.C. Canada Year Book, 1969. Dominion Bureau of Statistics S t a t i s t i c a l Abstract of the United states, 1969. 55 folk* with only sixty-eight and sixty-two percent of their respective populations residing in urban areas. From an economic viewpoint these three southern neighbours of British Columbia provide both competition and marketing opportunities. The coast evergreen forest that i s common to a l l four regions forms the basis for thriving forest industries in each area. During 1968 Oregon led in total softwood lumber production and out-produced Br i t i s h Columbia by approximately four percent (Table 3)* Farm income, as a measure of agricultural importance, showed that California out-produced Washington, the next highest State, by over four hundred percent; cattle and dairy products were the main commodities in a l l areas. Similarly, California led in mineral production and manufacturing with Washington next in both cases. In the fishing industry California, with a catch value of 51.4 million dollars, ranked f i r s t . B ritish Columbia ranked a close second with a catch value of 50.2 million dollars. These comparisons of production levels show that a l l four regions have extensive primary industries; however, the major commodities within each industry vary from area to area (Table 3). Comparison of secondary industrial activity, as measured by the value of manufacturing shipments, indicates 56 Table 3. Comparison of Major Industries by Region. Region Indus t r y " British Columbia Washington Oregon California Forestrvs Total Softwood Lumber Production 1963 7,846 MM Bd. f t . 3,356 MM Bd. f t . 3,135 MM Bd. f t . 4,858 MM Bd. f t . Mining: Value of Production 1967 355.852 MM US$ 82.0 MM US$ 67.0 MM US$ 1,696.0 MM USS Principal Minerals (order of importance) sand and gravel, cement, stone sand and gravel, stone, cement petroleum, nat. gas, cement Agriculture: Cash Income from Farms 1968 180.0 MM US$ 794.9 MM US$ 506.6 MM US$ 4,263.2 MM USS Principal Commodities (order of importance) dairying, livestock wheat, cattle, dairying, apples cattle, dairying, wheat, potatoes cattle, dairying, cotton l i n t , eggs Fisheries: Total Catch Value 1967 50.2 MM USS 24.9 MM USS 16.3 MM US$ 51.4 MM US$ Manufacturing 8 Value of Ship-ments 1967 2,946 MM US$ 7,849 MM USS 4,451 MM US$ 47,053 MM US$ Value/Capita 1,571.00 2,625,00 2,343.00 2,530.00 Source: B.C. Facts & Statistics, 1969. Gov't, of B.C. Canada Year Book, 1969. Dominion Bureau of Sta 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 that C a l i f o r n i a v a s t l y out-produces the other regions when considered on a t o t a l production basis* On a value per capit a basis, however, Washington exceeds C a l i f o r n i a by four percent* B r i t i s h Columbia ranks fourth with a value of 1,571 d o l l a r s (U,S« funds) per capita* Relative to the whole of the United States, C a l i f o r n i a ranks no lower than t h i r d i n any of the basic industries considered. A further i n d i c a t i o n of the advanced economic development of C a l i f o r n i a i s the l e v e l of personal income per capita, fourth highest i n the United States (see Table 2). Washington and Oregon place eleventh 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 equivalent basis would be forty-seventh. This r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n i n g of B r i t i s h Columbia shows that although the Pro-vince has the second highest income per ca p i t a i n Canada, i t ranks very low i n r e l a t i o n to the States to the south. Passenger cars per capita, an indicator of 'standard of l i v i n g 1 1 and mobility, confirm t h i s 'lesser stage of development*. With one car f o r every three people, B r i t i s h Columbia s t i l l does not equal the Washington, Oregon, and C a l i f o r n i a average of one car for every 2.2 people* I t would appear from the preceding s t a t i s t i c s that B r i t i s h Columbia exhibits many fundamental s i m i l a r i t i e s t o 58 these three States, but differs in 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, California. Secondary industry, while of major significance to B r i t i s h Columbia's economy, is relatively small and lacking in diversity when compared to development in the three Pacific states. Demographic characteristics are comparable in relation to national averages; however, in this 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 climatic and physiographic attributes of the four regions, provide a sound basis for comparing and contrasting resource management policies, in particular the management of watersheds and their reservoirs with regard to recreational use. The Survey Design Preliminary investigations into the nature of the water-supply systems for the study areas were directed to Provincial and State government departments. In Bri t i s h Columbia letters 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, Division of Public Health Engineering, i n -formed the author that in general each community i n British Columbia operates i t s own water system. The exceptions i n -clude the Greater Vancouver Water Distr i c t , the Greater Victoria water Di s t r i c t , and a few privately operated systems such as the Elk 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 their mailing addresses, which, in conjunction with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics 1961 Census figures for B r i t i s h Columbia, formed the base from which the agencies were selected. The survey of Washington, Oregon, and California util i z e d population figures obtained from the United States Census for i960 and information from the various State agencies concerned with water resources and public health. Mr J.C. Plantze of the Sanitary Engineering Section, Washington State Department of Health, suggested that enquiries addressed to the "Water Superintendent, City Hall" 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 for which he provided the correct addresses. Information about the Oregon water systems was provided by Mr L.G. Parr* Jr., of th© Oregon State Board of Health, in the form of a complete l i s t of a l l water systems in the State. The addresses for the systems surveyed are liste d in Appendix 12, After some delay through misdirected letters, details on the domestic water supply systems of California were received from Mr C L . Young, Senior Sanitary Engineer, of the Department of Public Health. As stated previously in the section concerned with the limitations of the study, only agencies serving incorporated places with a population of one thousand or larger were to be surveyed. With the further restrictions that the American agencies must also u t i l i z e a surface source and provide water for domestic consumption, the total number of agencies within the defined populations was two hundred and forty-three. Because of the small size of the t o t a l populations and the high probability of non-response to the questionnaire, i t was decided to survey one hundred per cent of the agencies. Table 4 indicates the distribution of the total population among regions or sub-populations. 61 Table 4. Regional Distribution of Agencies Surveyed, Ho. of Region Sub-population Restrictions Ageneiei Br i t lab i ) Serve incorporated places Columbia 1,000 pop. and larger 74 Washington^ i) Serve incorporated places '45 1,000 pop. and larger Oregon - i i ) U t i l i z e surface source 57 i i i ) Produce water for domestic California. consumption .67 Total 243 The questionnaire consisted of three sectionst (1) general information, (2) general management policy, (3) policy on recreational use. Sections One and Two were to be completed by a l l agencies, whereas Section Three was to be completed only by agencies allowing recreational use. In t o t a l the questionnaire occupied thirteen pages and had twenty-two questions. The i n i t i a l questionnaire design and content was patterned after that used in a similar 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 draft in relation to the objectives and hypotheses of the study resulted in many changes in both questionnaire format and content in order to ascertain more exactly the characteristics and management policy of each agency. The f i n a l draft is presented in Appendix IX. The questionnaire, a cover letter 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 financial support for the study was limited, a l l questionnaires were sent as printed matter and return postage was not pro-vided. The f i r s t questionnaires, those for British Columbia, Washington and Oregon, were mailed June 4th, 1969. The California mailing was delayed approximately three weeks by the d i f f i c u l t y encountered in obtaining a complete l i s t of agency addresses. Xt was planned to allow about six weeks between communications for the agencies to react and return the questionnaire. The actual mailing schedule is presented in Table 5. By necessity this schedule was open-ended and could be terminated at any stage. The desired minimum per-centage response was set at 70 to 75. After six months, the maximum that the author could allow, the total response received just equalled 70 per cent. At this stage the survey was terminated. 63 The Analysis During the design of the survey and questionnaire the author conceived the analysis to consist of computerized tabulation and possibly regression and correlation analyses, to be supplemented by subjective analysis where required and/or suitable. Subsequent to the mailing of the questionnaire the author learned of the availability of the U.B.C. Multi-variate Contingency Tabulations Program (MVTAB). This pro-gram produces frequency and percentage tables for the responses to a single question (univariate) or two questions (bivariate). When performing bivariate tabulation the program w i l l also produce a chi square value to t e l l whether or not the two questions being considered are independent. Examination of the questionnaire with respect to the requirements of MVTAB showed that this canned program could be ut i l i z e d for the tabulation portion of the analysis. A code scheme to trans-late the responses into a form suitable for MVTAB was developed subject to the following restrictions! (1) the number of responses to each question must not be greater than sixty-one - the total number of alphanumeric and special characters available on the keypunch machine, (2) the res-64 Table 5. Questionnaire Mailing Schedule. June 4, 1969 1st questionnaire and cover letter mailed to Brit i s h Columbia, Wash-ington and Oregon June 23, 1969 1st questionnaire and cover letter mailed to California July 18, 1969 1st reminder letter mailed to British Columbia, Washington and Oregon July 30, 1969 1st reminder letter mailed to California Sept. 8, 1969 2nd questionnaire and cover letter mailed to British Columbia, Wash-ington and Oregon Sept. 25, 1969 2nd questionnaire and cover letter mailed to California Oct. 30, 1969 3rd and last reminder letter mailed to a l l regions, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California ponse code for each question must occupy only one computer card column, (3) a maximum of ten data cards can be utiliz e d per respondent. Tabulation was carried out and summary tables prepared for each question and each pair of questions analyzed. In preparation for regression and correlation 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 relating to the water supply agency in general; the second set consisted of variables which des-cribed the individual reservoirs and their watershed (Appendix III). 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 Yl - 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 activities allowed as indicated in Question 14 (Appendix II) Y3 - Recreation Score 2 « sum(activlty x mgm't. level wt.) For Data Set Two, which incorporated only recreational uses, the dependent variables were derived in the same manner as for Set One. Because the ac t i v i t i e s were related to individ-ual reservoirs and their respective catchments, the recreat-ion scores were coded independent of the Set One scores and as followss Y4 - Water Recreation Score 1 • summation of water-oriented activ i t i e s as indicated in Question 14a 66 Y5 - Water Recreation score 2 = sum (water activity x mgm'-t. level wt.) Y6 - Recreation Score 3 » summation of a l l activities as indicated in Question 14 Y7 - Recreation Score 4 = sura(activity x mgm't. level wt.) Once the data had been punched on to cards each of the *Y* variables, the multiple-use and recreational-use scores, was plotted against each 'X' variable, within the respective data set. Each pair was plotted with the observations for a l l four regions combined and for each region separately. The plotting was done predominantly with a scattergram routine written by Dr A. Kozak, Associate Professor of Forest Statis-t i c s . Some use was made of the printer plot routines a v a i l -able from the University of Brit i s h Columbia Computing Centre. The purpose of the plotting was to indicate whether or not regression analysis would be useful. After examining the plotting 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 Re-gression Package (TRIP) from the Computing Centre. Data Set One, the general characteristics of the agencies, was analyzed for each of the four regions and with 6? a l l regions combined. Data Set Two was f i r s t separated i n t o two groups, storage reservoirs and terminal r e s e r v o i r s , and then analyzed i n a s i m i l a r fashion to Set One. Hissing data, a r e s u l t of non-response to p a r t i c u l a r questions, hindered the e f f i c i e n c y of the procedures by causing v a r i a t i o n i n sample s i z e depending on the variables included. Missing data cannot be compensated fo r i n regression analysis and therefore incomplete sets of observations had to be removed p r i o r to running a regression. I n i t i a l l y , multiple regressions with step-wise elimination were run incorporating a l l the v a r i a b l e s . Subsets of the independent variables (maximum of 5) were then run using the all-combinations routine available i n the multiple regression program. F i n a l l y , step-wise elimination regress-ions were run again with the variables selected by the two preceding stages. In conjunction with the analysis of the questionnaire data, an investigation of the established 'facts' regarding water contamination, transmission of disease v i a water, water treatment methods, and the e f f e c t s of land 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 basis. This survey was, of course, limited to those publications a v a i l a b l e through the University Library and the Vancouver Public Library. 68 IV. RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION The Established Data Base Land Use Effects The f i r s t aspect of this investigation, land use effects on water quality, revealed the close relationships between a l l land uses and environmental quality. Historically man's activ i t i e s have had predominantly adverse effects upon the natural system within which he exists. His constant search for better ways of producing food, and providing shelter and security has resulted in an ever increasing flow of contam-inants into the environment. The magnitude and diversity of this flow is unexpectedly large* For centuries f i e l d cropping, grazing, and forest harvesting have been exposing the s o i l to erosion and consequently increasing sedimentation in streams, 69 r i v e r s and lakes. "Progress* has brought with i t vast road, powerline, and p i p e l i n e networks which also promote erosion and sedimentation. The development of concrete and ashphalt paving combined with urbanization has blanketed extensive portions of the earth with non-absorptive materials and pro-duced almost one hundred per cent runoff of any p r e c i p i t a t i o n f a l l i n g on these areas. This f l u s h i n g of pavements, sidewalks and rooftops y i e l d s a considerable stream load of dust, ash, soot 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 of a g r i c u l t u r a l production has resulted i n vast quantit-ies of i n s e c t i c i d e s , fungicides, herbicides and rodenticides being applied to the land. In conjunction with the ap p l i c a t -ion of these t o x i c substances man has been 'feeding' the environment with tons of f e r t i l i z e r , both natural and manu-factured. Excessive or Ill-timed f e r t i l i z a t i o n of commercial cropland, home gardens and lawns, and now of forestland ha@ triggered unnatural l e v e l s of plant growth i n the waterways which are the re c i p i e n t s of these unused nutrients. S i m i l a r l y , other human a c t i v i t i e s release such contaminants ass deter-gents, de-icing compounds, d u s t - s e t t l i n g agents, s o i l binders. 70 wood preservatives, f u e l o i l and gasoline, scrap metal, p l a s -t i c and glass containers, waste paper products, inorganic acids 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 organic chemicals (Builard, 1966). However, man's assault on the environment has not been r e s t r i c t e d to the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of pollutants throughout the waters of the earth. Agriculture, logging, mining and urbanization have s i g n i f i c a n t l y a ltered vast drainage areas. Removal of the natural forest, shrub, or grass cover not only permits erosion and subsequent sedimentation, but also a l t e r s the balance of the hydr©logic cy c l e . A g r i c u l t u r a l uses, i n -cluding grazing, a f f e c t water q u a l i t y and quantity p r i m a r i l y through the exposure of the s o i l to erosive action and through the reduction of the i n f i l t r a t i o n capacity. Consequently, s o i l i s transported into the stream channels by the increased rate and amount of runoff. Frequently an erosion pavement of pebbles and stones i s l e f t behind and l a t e r an accentuated s o i l moisture deficiency may develop (Bullard, 1966). Timber management practices can create s i m i l a r problems of s o i l erosion, stream t u r b i d i t y and sedimentation i f planned and executed without f u l l consideration of the hydrologic implicat-ions of such operations as road and landing construction, yard-ing and skidding, and slash-burning. Contrastingly, proper 71 planning of timber harvesting can produce an increase in water yield quantity without significantly reducing the quality (Jeffrey and Goodell, 1969). Cutting of the forest cover also affects streamflow regime, by allowing earlier and faster snowmelt. This can have varied effects on the peak flows of a watershed depending on the proportion of the area cleared, the positioning of the logging settings in relation 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 yield from different parts of the catchment is increased or decreased (Jeffrey and Goodell, 1969). The exact effects produced by timber harvesting are closely related to the biotic character-i s t i c s of the forest, the edaphic and topographic nature of the land base, and to the type and seasonal distribution of the precipitation. Just as agriculture and forestry have effects on the quality 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 turbidity and sediment load of the streams in the area. This type of deterioration can be observed at any picnic ground, or camp-72 ground, and along any t r a i l whether in an urban park or a wilderness area. The prevention and control of this type of damage is one of the park and wildland manager's major prob-lems. In conjunction with turbidity, or level of cla r i t y , man has traditionally relied upon taste and odour to determine the s u i t a b i l i t y of water for use. Quite logically therefore, these gross characteristics influence considerably the average person's assessment of water quality. In present day society these basic water quality c r i t e r i a cannot adequately detect the presence of numerous possible contaminants. With regard to recreational ac 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 craft. The nature of these contaminants and the significance of their impacts on water quality vary with the specific activity, the watershed and reservoir characteristics, the magnitude and timing of their release, and the desired uses of the water. When domestic consumption is one of these desired uses relatively specific quality standards have been recommended by the U.S. National Technical Advisory Subcommittee on Public Water Supplies (1968). Similarly the Subcommittee on 73 Research and Aesthetics has made recommendations regarding water quality c r i t e r i a for recreation and aesthetic uses. A comparison of these two sets of raw water quality c r i t e r i a is presented in Table 6; where quantitative standards were not lis t e d by these subcommittees, specific values have been ob-tained from other sources as indicated. Table 6 presents only the most basic water quality c r i t e r i a . In addition to these there are seventeen inorganic chemicals, sixteen organic chemicals and three radioactive isotopes for which permissible concentrations have been established. These thirty-six sub-stances are not removed to any appreciable extent by the defin-ed water treatment plant (Table 6) and i f present in the raw water could be transmitted undetected to the consumer. No quantitative limits have been established for these substances when present in recreational waters; however, they must not occur in concentrations which produce undesirable physio-logical responses in human, fish , 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 quality 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 Public water Supplies Recreation and Aesthetics C r i t e r i a Permissible Desirable Other Than Primary Contact Primary Contact Colour units) 75 10 • 30* Odour virtually absent absent v i r t u a l l y absent vir t u a l l y absent Temperature max. 85°F 40-50°F ** max. 85°F Turbidity 5 ppm 20 ppm * Coliform Organisms 10,000/100 ml 100/100 ml 1,000/100 ml 200/100 ml Fecal Coliform 2,000/100 ml 20/100 ml PH 6.0-8.5 6.5-8.3 notes Standards given above for public water supplies assume treatment consisting of: coagulation, sedimentation, rapid sand f i l t r a t i o n , and chlorination. * Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962. Water for Recreation -Values and Opportunities. O.R.R.R.C. Study Report 10. 73 pp. ** H.S. Babbitt, J.J. Doland, J.L. Cleasby, 1959. Water Supply Engineering, 6th Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Hew York. 75 of the chemical contaminants mentioned above. In the past, and to a considerable extent in the present, these chemicals have been released intentionally or unintentionally into the environment with l i t t l e or no regard for the effects on human, animal, and plant l i f e . Clearly, as man manipulates his environment to satisfy his wants, the water resource is subjected to a great variety 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 precipitation and streamflow, these act i v i t i e s can promote undesirable results. Watercourses which are subjected to abnormally rapid fluctuations in flow create problems for nearly a l l types of water use. Flooding causes deposition of sediment and debris that is most often d e t r i -mental in nature; channel banks can be eroded resulting in a change in the river course, or in the loss of roads and bridges. Agricultural, industrial and domestic users are burdened by increased treatment costs to remove the high sediment load and reduce the turbidity of waters originating on deteriorated watershed lands. These undesirable qualities destroy the aesthetic appeal of streams and lakes, and reduce 76 recreational opportunities (Bullard, 1966). Low flows meant water shortages unless a r t i f i c i a l storage is provided, re-duction in the usefulness of the stream as a recreation focal point, and lessening of the quality 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 specific a c t i v i t i e s ass cultivation of excessively steep slopes; over-application of irrigation water and f e r t i l i z e r s ; over-grazing of rangelands; hydroiogically unsound logging methods and road construction; clearing for industrial, residential, and recreational developments; powerline and pipeline construct-ion; mining operations including dredging, augering, and stripping; and disposal of waste from mining, manufacturing, domestic and recreational a c t i v i t i e s . The activities are essential to our society; 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 affect 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 this study we are concerned with one special aspect of this role, water as a transporter of disease. This unfortunate fact 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 bacterial diseases are, however, relatively easy to guard against through chlorination of domestic water supplies. The threat of v i r a l diseases being spread by water has not been remedied so simply. Researchers in virology have stated that "any virus excreted in the feces and capable of producing infection when ingested should theoretically be transmissible by drinking water", however, "apart from theoretical considerations, there are very few viruses for which epidemiological evidence suggests transmission by drinking water" (Mosely, 1965). The viruses most suspect are those of the enteric group which includes poliovirus, coxsackie virus, echovirus, infectious hepatitis (IH) virus, the adenoviruses and the reoviruses; of these, poliovirus and IH pose the greatest threat. Although numerous studies have been done to try and relate the incidence of IH 78 and poliomyelitis to such factors as finished water turbidity, and residual chlorine level, none have produced significant correlations (Chang, 1968). At present, infectious hepatitis is the only v i r a l disease for which there is epidemiological evidence indicating that i t is water-borne. Furthermore, the exact nature of the ZH agent is not known because i t has not yet been propagated in the laboratory. To complicate the picture s t i l l more, marginal chlorination of water is not adequate treatment to deactivate most viruses; this 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 for water-borne transmission exists, i t may be because detection techniques are too i n -sensitive, and not because water-borne v i r a l disease i s rare (Goldfield, 1965). This proposition i s perfectly valid, however, speculation or inadequate evidence cannot be used as a substitute for proof (Mosely, 1965). A more definitive statement on this problem w i l l have to await the collection of more reliable data on: "(1) virus concentrations in raw and finished water, (2) enteroviral infection rates among children ascertained in rectal-swab surveys, (3) enteroviral antibody development patterns in children, from serological 7® surveys, (4) incidence of c l i n i c a l cases of infectious hepatitis and possibly other enteroviral diseases with care-f u l l y worked-out case records, and (5) carefully checked water treatment data" (Chang, 1968). Treatment of Water If the proposition that v i r a l diseases can be spread through domestic water systems is accepted, how can this occurrence be guarded against? Marginal chlorination is not sufficient. The basic treatment techniques available includes (1) storage, (2) aeration, (3) disinfection, (4) f i l t r a t i o n , (5) sedimentation - either plain or with flocculation, (6) softening, and (7) taste and odour control. In a recent ar t i c l e in the world Health Organization Bulletin (Chang, 1968) the available information on the prevention of water-borne v i r a l infections by water treatment was reviewed and recommendations were made. InactivatiOn of viruses by storage was rejected on the basis that the storage time normally available in domestic water treatment systems would not give dependable reductions in virus concentrations. The process of flocculation was found to be quite useful and under f i e l d 80 conditions should result in a 90-95 percent removal of water-borne viruses. The chemical process Involved i s a relatively non-specific metal-protein reaction, and therefore, the efficiency of removal for various viruses should not vary significantly. F i l t r a t i o n of any type w i l l not, on i t s own, produce any consistently significant reductions in v i r a l concentrations. The combination of chemical flocculation with settling, followed by rapid sand f i l t r a t i o n gave better than 99.7 percent removal in a study using poliovirus 1 (Robeck et a l , 1962). Supplementary to these virus removal techniques is the process of virus destruction. This can be accomplished through the v i r i c i d a l action of chlorine in several forms, iodine, ozone, or ultraviolet light. Chlorine is most commonly used for treatment of large volumes of water and can be i n -troduced as a solid, a liquid or a gas. When molecular chlorine i s dissolved in water i t hydrolyses into hypochlorous acid (H0C1) and hydrochloric acid (HC1). HOCl is known as •free chlorine*, and when i t reacts with ammonia or amino compounds to form amnion ia-ch lor am ines or organic ch lor amine, i t is known as 'combined chlorine*. Free chlorine is the more effi c i e n t disinfectant. Chlorine dioxide is also used and 81 has the advantages that i t does not react with ammonia or amino compounds and i t is not as greatly affected by pH as i s H0C1. lodination, while less efficient than free chlorine treatment, is very easy to use in rural areas and less developed regions. Iodine dosages of less than 4 ppm have not produced undesirable physiological effects among adults, but i t s effects on pregnant women, infants and small children are uncertain and therefore, the process should be restricted to experimental use (Chang, 1968). The efficiency of ozone compares favourably with free chlorine and i t has the advant-ages of absence of odour and taste. Disadvantages are that i t does not disperse evenly and i t i s hard to maintain a residual concentration in the water. Ozonation seems best suited for use prior to chlorination, thus reducing the pathogen load and chlorine demand, and enabling the desired level of protection to be achieved with less chlorine. In this manner the objectionable odour and taste of highly chlorinated water can be avoided. The use of ultraviolet light to reduce the v i r a l concentration in water has been shown experimentally (Oppenheimer et a l , 1959), but a rapid f i e l d test to determine the level of virus inactivation has not been devised. 82 Zn summary, the 'free chlorine' technique appears to be, at present, the most effici e n t process for the destruction of viruses (and bacteria) in water. For the overall elimination of v i r a l agents from water the desirable treatment combination seems to be flocculation with settling followed by rapid sand f i l t r a t i o n and then 'free chlorine' disinfection, 0.25-.30 ppm chlorine residual for 30 minutes, to obtain a total virus reduction of 99.9993% from 'moderately polluted water' (Chang, 1968). With a l l of the mentioned disinfectants the level of inactivation achieved varies with* (1) concentration of the disinfectant, (2) pH of the water supply, (3) temperature of the water, and (4) the contact time (Kabler et 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 irrespect-ive of the particular kinds of secondary uses occurring on the watershed. Given also that good environmental management rarely occurs, water supplies can be reliably freed of bacter-i a l and v i r a l contamination by use of present treatment tech-niques (Chang, 1968). 83 The Recreational Use Controversy As in any controversy, truth and falsehood are considerably intertwined in the discussion of recreation on water-supply areas. The consistently expounded reasons for and against such use were detailed in Chapter Two and are discussed in the following pages. The common argument that recreation space adjacent to metropolitan areas is becoming severely limited is a l l too true, and in many areas poor land use planning or no planning at a l l is aggravating the prob-lem. More and more, single-use policies are becoming an excessively costly luxury. Population densities are increas-ing in previously sparsely populated areas and water treatment w i l l become essential. With this likelihood in mind, recreat-ionists advocate installation of required equipment now at lower costs; thus reducing future capital expenses and allow-ing immediate recreational use. This argument does not apply equally in a l l areas and each situation should be evaluated independently; yet not in isolation from other regional con-siderations. The claim that municipal, state, and federal lands are not 'private', but 'public' lands is true; however, this 84 fact does not convey to anyone the 'right' to use them in any manner that they may choose. Indeed, these lands should be utlized to their f u l l e s t capacity and so as to provide the maximum public benefit (McEwen, 1965). In the fight to open these areas, examples are given where reservoirs are used for recreation and the water is subsequently distributed for consumption with only marginal chlorination. This fact does not prove anything except the extreme variation in management practices and the existence of different concepts of what is safe water and what is an acceptable level of hazard. The counter-argument that enforced opening of agency owned lands would be a violation of property rights without compensation has v a l i d i t y only i f this tactic is utilized? however, publicly owned u t i l i t i e s are subject to public control and 'enforced* opening becomes irrelevant. In the case of private water agencies, compensation for recreational use can and undoubtedly has been made. The claims of reduced control over watershed sani-tation 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 carefully con-85 trolled reservoir patrons (Dodson, 1963). The threat of l i a b i l i t y in case of accidents i s not exclusive to watersheds and reservoirs; i t applies equally as much to any other property. This threat can be n u l l i f i e d through adequate accident Insurance and an active safety pro-gram. User-fees can often include such expenses, and programs can frequently be operated without added cost to the non-participating consumer. Those opposed to recreation on these areas point out that road maintenance costs would be increased and that the forest fixe danger would be much higher. Increased main-tenance of roads is not an inevitable result, 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 this is not inevitable either; in fact, some forest companies have found that many of their fires are reported by the public and that the number of recreationist-caused fires decreases each year (Dube, 1966). In summary, i t seems evident to the author that much of what is presented as unconditional fact i s in r e a l i t y subject to wide variation depending upon specific characteris-tics of the area and the users. Some arguments, both for and 36 against recreational 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 this point should be the functioning of the survey i t s e l f . As stated previously the f i r s t draft of the questionnaire was patterned after a study done in New York State. After extensive modifi-cation and expansion with the aid of the author's program ad-viser the f i n a l draft was prepared and mailed out. As returns were received and reviewed i t became obvious that there were ambiguities and hidden assumptions in 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 alteration of the questionnaire before the main survey was initiated. This measure was, unfortunately, overlooked in the rush to get the survey underway. With regard to the mailed questionnaire survey technique, the author now feels that i t was a very inefficient way of gathering data. This survey extended over a period of six months, June 4th, 1969 to 8 7 November 30th, 1969, and the total response received amounted to 70 per cent* Total useable response was only 60.5 per cent; details are shown in Table 7. It was evident in communicat-ions from several agencies that questionnaires often get mis-placed 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 verify* 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 careless-ness in answering, and ignorance of either what the question asks or of the correct answer for the given agency. Non-response to particular questions results in incomplete sets of observations and complicates the analysis considerably. With reference to the conducted survey, non-response to specific questions caused significant variation in the sample sizes that could be used in the regression analysis and con-sequently portions of the data were wasted at various stages of the analysis. The above-mentioned problems became evident as analysis of the returns progressed, but other than the factor of non-response, none of these potential errors could be either 88 Table 7. Details of Questionnaire Response. \Category Total Useable Agencies Total Useable for Re-Surveyed Response Response gr ess ion Region f % f *1 f *X f * I B r i t i s h 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 A l l Regions 243 100.0 169 70.0 147 60.5 76 31.3 Based on total number of agencies surveyed for each region confirmed or rejected, thus the major disadvantage of this data collection method proved to be i t s unknown r e l i a b i l i t y . This situation was undesirable in relation to the fulfilment of the basic assumptions upon which the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis pro-cedures 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 characteristics of the water supply systems which were (1) currently operating within each of the four regions sur-veyed, and (2) within the regional population as defined under the limitations of the study. Although 100 per cent of each population was surveyed, the results are based upon samples which were, in fact, determined by indefinable non-response factors. B r i t i s h Columbia Population Served For Br i t i s h Columbia the sample obtained amounted to 70.3 per cent of the total surveyed. In relation to the total population of the province, the people served by the responding agencies represented approximately 75 per cent. Of the fifty-two 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 satisfied by these agencies 59.6 per cent of them delivered less than one million Imperial gallons per day; 26.9 per cent delivered between one and five million gallons and only one agency, the Greater Vancouver Water District, provided over 100 million gallons* Of particular Interest to this study was the amount of domestic consumption in relation to the total supplied. .Results showed that forty-four out of fifty-two British Columbia agencies, 84.6 per cent, delivered 51 per cent or more of their water for domestic use (Table 8). It was hoped that later analysis would show this factor to be of significance in relation to the amount of secondary resource use allowed on a given watershed area. Nature of Water Supply and Treatment For British Columbia a l l types of water supply were Table 8. Basic Agency Characteristics - by Region. British Columbia Washington Oregon California f 56 f % f % f % Present *10 M 37 71.2 7 33.3 19 63.3 15 34.1 Population 10- < 50 M 13 25.0 10 47.6 8 26.7 16 36.4 Served >50 M 2 3.8 4 19.1 2 6.7 13 29.5 Projected <10 M 26 50.0 5 23.8 13 43.3 10 22.7 Population 10- < 50 M 17 32.7 8 38.1 11 36.7 16 36.4 Served - 1980 >50 M 5 9.6 6 28.6 2 6.7 15 34.1 Water <1 MM 31 59.6 6 28.6 14 46.7 12 27.3 Consumption 1— < 5 MM 14 26.9 6 28.6 9 30.0 11 25.0 Avg. / 5- <25 MM 3 5.8 4 19.0 3 10.0 11 25.0 Total / D a y >25 MM 1 1.9 4 19.0 1 3.3 8 18.2 Percentage ^51 4 7.7 5 23.8 5 16.7 3 6.8 Domestic Use 51-<75 9 17.3 3 14.3 9 30.0 5 11.4 75 +• 35 67.3 10 47.6 11 36.7 28 63.6 Notes M - thousands, MM - millions Water consumption i s in Imperial Gallons 92 included in the survey whereas for the Pacific Coast States, ground supplies were excluded. This approach was taken for two reasons! (1) i t was desired to obtain as complete an idea of the British Columbia water supply situation as possible, (2) i t was not possible to t e l l beforehand which agencies utili z e d ground water sources. The water supply types liste d includedt (1) extracted from river 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 river or creek, and (5) ground water. The most frequent type of water source was ground water which was lis t e d by sixteen of fifty-two systems? next most frequent was extraction from a river or creek. These two types represented approximately 31 per cent and 27 per cent respectively of the Brit i s h Columbia systems. The com-plete distribution of the water supply types and the com-parative situations in Washington, Oregon and California are presented in Table 9. Xn relation to recreational use of reservoirs the above-mentioned 58 per cent were automatically eliminated? however, with reference to 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 f a c i l i t i e s , i t was hoped to obtain relatively detailed information about 93 Table 9. Nature of Water Supply by Region. Region Supply Type^\. Bri t i s h Columbia f % Washington f % Oregon f % California f % Extracted from River or Creek 14 26.9 11 52.4 13 43.3 11 25.0 Natural Lake Control*d flow 10 19.2 1 4.7 Natural Lake Uncontrol'd flow 1 1.9 1 3.3 1 2.3 A r t i f i c i a l Impoundment of River or Creek 11 21.2 6 28.6 13 43.3 27 61.3 Ground Water 16 30.8 3 14.3 2 6.7 4 9.1 No Response 1 3.3 1 2.3 Total Number of Agencies 52 100.00 21 100.00 30 99.9 44 100.0 Notes For Washington, Oregon and California, proportion of ground water supplies i s not a true proportion - see text for explanation not only the types of treatment, but also the specific methods. Unfortunately this 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 half of 94 the agencies from which data was obtained employed treatment of any sort. 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 uti l i z e d ground water supplies and therefore were subject to considerably lower probabilities of contamination. Of the various types of water treatment only disinfection was ut i l i z e d by more than five of the agencies. F i l t r a t i o n was employed in five systems, sedimentation in four, softening and taste and odour control both were listed twice, and no agency used aerat-ion. Xn general the investigation suggested that water treat-ment procedures are of only moderate importance in Br i t i s h Columbia at the present time. Land Status Xn any discussion of the recreational or multiple use of domestic water supply areas the factor of legal owner-ship 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 policy is greatly simplified. This does not necessarily mean that the area w i l l be managed 95 in the most beneficial manner. Where ownership and control of the catchment or buffer lands are distributed among several parties each with different objectives, and management for domestic water supply must operate under co-operative agree-ments and legislative controls, the result is frequently less than optimum, An examination of the land status data for the Br 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 water-shed 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 river. Of the agencies that recognized reservoir buffer lands, 52 per cent enjoyed complete control of these lands while only 10 per cent of the agencies had complete control of their watershed lands. The major land owner and manager was the provincial government. Fifteen out of twenty-nine water supply systems obtained water from catchments that were at least 75 per cent owned and managed by the government. Management Agreements Closely linked to the question of land status is the matter of management agreements regarding sanitation 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 Br i t i s h Columbia the survey, showed that provincial -legislation was the only formal control over watershed use and sanitation. Only two agencies indicated that they had verbal agreements with either private' or public landowners; no; -written agreements were reported.- Thus, where the water supplier does not legally control the lands either 'through-, ownership or lease,- the maintenance of sanitary conditions-and the prevention .of land abuse i s attempted solely through provincial statutes such as the Health Act, the Pollution . Control Act,- the Forest Act, and the water Act. Authority for the implementation of these Acts and their regulations i s dispersed .among several government '. departments each of which has a'vested interest in -some particular 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 for mismanage-ment of the resource base and jeopardizes th® future of a l l acti v i t i e s except exploitation. 97 Agency Personnel Of the fifty-two responding agencies twenty-two reported no personnel, and twelve failed to answer this particular question, six of the agencies with no full-time staff reported the use of government or private consultants. Among the various fields of knowledge indicated, engineering was by far the most prevalent with sixteen agencies employing between one and five people knowledgeable in this f i e l d and one agency, the Greater Vancouver Water Distr i c t , employing twenty-five. The fields of analytical chemistry and forestry were each li s t e d by two respondents, but no other disciplines were given. Of interest in this respect was the absence of anyone qualified in forest hydrology. The qualification level was limited to bachelor degrees and lower. The Pacific Coast States Xn the analysis of the data for Washington, Oregon and California, the general characteristics of the water supply agencies differed in 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 -dividual State populations. This low©r percentage representat-ion, compared to Bri t i s h Columbia, was primarily because agencies u t i l i z i n g ground water supplies were not surveyed* The distribution of the agencies according to .present population served .and projections for 1980 showed Oregon to b© quite similar to B r i t i s h Columbia (Table 8), while Washington and California had much higher percentages of systems serving in excess of f i f t y thousand people. The proportion of agencies providing 51 per cent or more of their water for domestic use was high i n a l l four regions with Br i t i s h Columbia being the highest followed by California. For the Pacific Coast States the original definition of the study population excluded those agencies obtaining water from underground sources. The basis for this s t r a t i -fication was the United States Public Health Service publicat-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, in fact, u t i l i z i n g ground water* Percentages calculated for a l l four regions, disregarding 99 the ground water systems, showed that British 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 rivers, 33 per cent from a r t i f i c i a l impound-ments and only 5*6 per cent from natural lakes. Oregon depended equally on man-made lakes and river extraction, 43 per cent from each; natural lakes supplied only 3.7 per cent. In the State of California a r t i f i c i a l impoundment predominated, 69 per cent, and extraction from a river or creek accounted for most of the remainder. With regard to water treatment, these three States were much more deeply involved than British Columbia, as is indicated in 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. California appeared to rely most heavily on treatment of her water supplies, followed by Oregon. Possible reasons for these differences in the prominence and sophistication of treatment f a c i l i t i e s includes CD higher population densities as in California, (2) greater concen-trations of non-natural act i v i t i e s , (3) differing levels of control over watershed uses, and (4) differing levels of awareness of potential hazards. 100 Table 10 Summary of Water Treatment by Region - A l l Agencies Included. B r i t i s h Columbia Washington Oregon f % f % f % C a l i f o r n i a TREATMENT: Yes No No Response AERATION: Type not s p e c i f i e d Contact beds or trays Patented aerator Spray aerator Overflow trays, cascade or other splash aerator DISINFECTION! 2 4 4 6 . 1 5 2 8 5 3 . 8 5 1 5 7 1 . 4 3 5 2 3 . 8 1 1 4 . 7 6 4 . 7 6 2 5 8 3 . 3 3 4 1 3 . 3 3 1 3 . 3 3 6 . 6 7 4 0 9 0 . 9 1 4 9 . 0 9 9 . 0 9 Type not s p e c i f i e d Chlorination Hypochlorination Ozone 5 9 . 6 2 4 1 9 . 0 5 10 3 3 . 3 3 22 5 0 . 0 0 16 3 0 . 7 7 7 3 3 . 3 3 12 4 0 . 0 0 1 7 3 8 . 6 4 FILTRATION i Type not s p e c i f i e d Slow sand Rapid sand Roughing or contact Oiatomaceous earth Microstrainer Rainney c o l l e c t o r Anthracite 5 . 7 7 1 . 9 2 1 . 9 2 7 3 3 . 3 3 1 4 . 7 6 4 . 7 6 8 2 6 . 6 7 3 1 0 . 0 0 3 1 0 . 0 0 1 6 3 6 . 3 6 3 6 . 8 2 5 1 1 . 3 6 1 2 2 . 2 7 4 . 5 5 SEDIMENTATION: Type not s p e c i f i e d Basins Microfloc Alum tank C l a r i f i e r 3 . 8 5 3 . 8 5 4 1 9 . 0 5 4 . 7 6 9 3 0 . 0 0 3 1 0 . 0 0 1 3 . 3 3 1 7 3 8 . 6 4 2 4 . 5 5 6 . 8 2 4 . 5 5 SOFTENING: Type not sp 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 . 9 2 1 . 9 2 3 . 3 3 . 2 . 2 7 TASTE AND ODOR CONTROL: Type not s p e c i f i e d Activated carbon Chlorine dioxide Sulphur dioxide Ozone Potassium permanganate 1 . 9 2 1 . 9 2 4 . 7 6 1 3 . 3 3 3 . 3 3 6 . 6 7 10 2 2 . 7 3 2 4 . 5 5 1 2 . 2 7 TOTAL NUMBER OF AGENCIES 52 21 30 4 4 101 The land ; status data for these regions indicated' that the proportion of agencies owning and managing' at least 75 per cent of their reservoir buffer lands and watershed ' lands was roughly the same as for Bri t i s h Columbia.' For the other agencies, however, the ownership pattern was disti n c t l y different. Whereas 51.7 per cent of the responding British Columbia systems operated with at least three-fourths of their watershed lands under provincial government ownership and control, in the three Pacific Coast States comparable levels of State ownership and control occurred in only 3.7 to 9.1 per cent of the respondents. Conversely, federal owner-ship was non-existent in' British Columbia and private owner-ship was limited, while in the States both of these categories accounted for very significant proportions of the catchment lands (Table 11). Management agreements with public or private owners of watershed lands for the purpose of controlling sanitary and land treatment practices were more common than in B r i t i s h Columbia, but most agencies reported no agreements or else indicated state health and pollution control regulations. h detailed comparison can be made from Tables 12a and 12b. With respect to numbers, types and qualifications 102 Table 11. Summary of Land status - by Region. Brit i s h Columbia u © m ?! J 3 I *o Washington o to i l • O o A a u a I S Oregon m s3 CO a California x: V4 e o "0 75-100% Agcy. f &/or Munic. Owned & Mgd. 75+% Leased from Govt. 75+% Prov. (State)? Owned & Mgd. f % f % 12 3 52 10.3 1 3 4.3 10.3 5 2 62.5 18.2 5 22 15 51.7 1 12.5 1 9.1 90+% Prov. (State) Owned f & Mgd. 5 6 3Q-<?5% Fed. f Owned & Mgd. % 75+% Fed. f Owned & Mgd. % 30-<75% Priv. f Owned & Mgd. % 75+% Priv. f Owned & Mgd. % 5 12 22 41.4 1 2 4.3 6.9 4 4 17.4 13.8 1 9.1 2 18.2 1 9.1 1 3 12.5 27.3 9 3 50.0 13.0 1 1 5.6 4.3 1 4.3 1 4.3 1 4.3 2 7 11.1 30.3 2 8.6 3 5 16.7 21.7 16 57.2 1 3.6 2 7.4 1 3.7 I 5 3.6 18.5 3 7 10.8 25.9 1 4 3.6 14.8 1 6 3.6 22.2 Total Number of Agencies 23 29 3 11 18 23 28 27 103 Table 12a. Agreements Regarding Sanitary F a c i l i t i e s . Region Agree-^\^^ ment Type Briti s h Columbia £ % Washington £ % Oregon f % California f % No Agreements 22 42.31 6 28.57 12 40.00 17 38.64 Verbal with Priv. Owner or Iiessee 1 1.92 1 2.27 Verbal with Govt. 1 1.92 Written with Priv. 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 Prov* (State) Healthr-----Regulations 2 3.85 3 14.29 3 10*00 5 11.36 Pollution Con-t r o l Board Regulations 1 1.92 1 4.76 1 2.27 Fed. Legis-lation to Reserve Land 1 3.33 Not Applicable 20 38.46 4 19.05 3 10.00 11 25.00 Blank 1 1.92 1 2.27 No Response 4 7.69 2 9.52 9 30.00 6 13.64 Total 52 100.00 21 100.00 30 100.00 44 100.00 Notes A l l Responding Agencies Included 104 Table 12b. Agreements Regarding Land Treatment Measures. Region . Agree-ment Type Brit i s h Columbia f % Washington f % Oregon f % California f % No Agreements 23 44.23 8 38.10 12 40.00 22 50.00 Verbal with Priv. Owner or Lessee I 1.92 Verbal with Govt. • 1 1.92 1 3.33 Written with Priv. Owner or Lessee 1 3.33 1 2.27 Written (Gen.) 2 or more Types 2 9.52 2 6* 67 Prov. (State) Health Regulations 1 1.92 1 3.33 2 4.55 Pollution Con-t r o l Board Regulations Legally req'd. reforestation program 1 4*76 Not Applicable 20 38.46 4 19.05 3 10.00 11 25.00 Blank 1 1.92 1 2.27 No Response 5 9.62 6 28.57 10 33 • 33 7 15.91 Total 52 100*00 21 100.00 30 100.00 44 100,00 Notes a l l Responding Agencies included 105 of agency personnel in Washington, Oregon and California, the survey showed that fewer agencies operated without full-time staff, consultants were ut i l i z e d less, and the level of pro-fessional qualification was on the average somewhat higher (Table 13 and Appendix IV). Xn addition to the disciplines of engineering, analytical chemistry and forestry, the f i e l d of biology was liste d by a l l three states. Significantly, these regions, like B r i t i s h Columbia, failed to report the em-ployment of any ecologists or forest hydrologists. Present Management Policies General Policies The primary objective of this study, as stated in the f i r s t chapter, was to ascertain the present management policies of Br i t i s h Columbia water-supply agencies. Xn con-junction with this i t was desired to compare Bri t i s h Columbian policies to present policies in the Pacific coast States of Washington, Oregon and California. The following discussion of these topics i s based upon the results of the questionnaire survey Of the four regions. Table 13. Regional Summary of Agency Personnel - Numbers and Disciplines. Region British Columbia Washington Oregon California Disciplined^ None 1-5 21-25 Blank tn x C m i a O t H H SB *-i H » « o e c m H 3 O 1 1 rt S3 to ffi None I- 5 6-10 II- 15 16-20 46-50 Blank Engineering Biology Analytical Chemistry Ecology Forestry Forest Hydrology No Personnel No Response 16 1 1 2 2 22 12 11 1 4 2 3 4 4 14 1 2 2 5 10 26 4 1 1 1 2 8 11 1 1 2 3 5 Notes Tabulated values are numbers of agencies 10? Single Use Agencies The f i r s t aspect of management policy investigated was the question of single-use or *multiple-use*• Single-use agencies were defined as agencies whose policy allowed only for the supplying of potable water. The term 'multiple-use' was not used in the questionnaire because of the numerous and conflicting interpretations of i t . I t was hoped to avoid this confusion by enquiring about the inclusion of 'secondary re-source uses*. For B r i t i s h Columbia the responses indicated that forty-one out of fifty-two systems were involved with potable water supply only; five systems included secondary uses; four questionnaires were returned without an answer to this particular question, and two agencies said that the question was not applicable to them. The corresponding d i s -tributions of replies for Washington, Oregon, and California are presented in Table 14. Agencies l i s t i n g themselves as 'single-use* were asked to rank in order the three most im-portant reasons for this policy. Seven possible reasons were suggested and space was provided for others. Several single-use agencies subsequently indicated that they were not i n -volved in land management. The true relationship between 108 Table 14. Summary of Indicated Management Policy. British Columbia Washington Oregon California f % f % f % f % Indicated Single-use 41 12 17 23 Sot involved in land mgm*te -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 - •mm No Response 4 1 2 3 Total No. of Agencies Percentage Base 52 39 21 16 30 26 44 37 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 for Single-use Management Policy - by Region Region British Columbia Washington Oregon California Rank Reason 1 2 3 9 ? 1 2 3 9 T 1 2 3 9 T 1 2 3 9 T Restricted Authority 4 3 7 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 Limited Budget 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 Lack of Public Demand 13 1 5 19 3 1 1 5 3 2 1 3 9 2 2 3 7 More Problems Than Benefits 1 2 2 5 1 2 3 2 2 4 1 4 5 Legal Obligat'n. 1 2 3 1 2 2 5 2 4 6 4 1 1 9 15 Poten. L i a b l l . for Injury 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 Sec. Uses Incompatible 3 1 3 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 6 2 2 2 7 13 Not Involved in Land Mgm't. 5 2 7 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 No Response 4 1 1 Notes 9 • no rank indicated, T * to t a l frequency. Figures indicate number of agencies. 1X0 this reason gained i t s prominence primarily from British Columbia. On a total 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 legal obligation to supply pure water. The statement that secondary uses are incompatible with the production of potable water was given only slightly less frequently than legal obligation* If the reasons for a single-use management: policy are examined for each region, certain differences are evident. For B r i t i s h Columbia the three most frequently list e d reasons were* f i r s t - lack of public demand, and tied for second -restricted authority and secondary uses are incompatible with production of potable water. In reXation to this study of the recreational 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 easily defensible. If public demand for other uses is low and the resource base is sufficiently large to permit single-use policies, then there is no real necessity for i n i t i a t i n g secondary uses on domestic watersheds and reservoir buffer lands. Additionally, the prominence of this public demand factor would seem to substantiate the supposition that as the intensity of public pressure for recreational use of water-supply f a c i l i t i e s increases, the level of recreation allowed w i l l increase. Secondly, i f the legal authority of the agency encompasses' only the production and distribution of water, the question of permitting secondary resource uses becomes irrelevant. Thus, an agency may consider boating to be an improper use of i t s reservoir, but the decision to permit or prohibit such use may be outside the agency's range of authority. Conversely an agency may wish to incorporate various activities into i t s management program; yet, because of restriction in i t s found-ing legislation, or 'letters patent', i t may not have the legal authority to do so. The premise- that secondary .uses are i n -compatible with the production of potable water is less easily defended. Rather, the author would suggest that while conflicts 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 in the earlier discussion of land-use effects and water contamination. The Washington State responses placed lack of public demand and legal obligation to supply pure water in a t i e for f i r s t place. The third most frequent reason was that second-ary uses create more problems than benefits. Oregon agencies lis t e d , in descending order, lack of public demand, legal 112 obligation to supply pure water, and incompatibility as the three most important reasons for a single-use management policy, California placed legal obligation to supply pure water f i r s t , with incompatibility of secondary uses and lack of public demand ranking second and third respectively. Fur-ther discussion of these last two reasons would not seem warranted because they have been discussed in relation to the Brit i s h Columbia responses. However, the question of legal obligation to supply pure water should be considered. Courts have ruled that municipal corporations which undertake to s e l l water for private consumption are subject to the same rules 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 arise in two wayss (1) neg-ligence, and (2) implied warranty, Negligence could be charged i f the product f a l l s below the standard of good practice and the consumer i s thereby injured (Maloney, 1960). Proof of injury i s often d i f f i c u l t , and the standard of good practice is not clearly defined. 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 seller that the goods are reasonably f i t for the purpose for which they are pur-chased". Under these terms, should the purchaser suffer i n -113 jury because o£ a lack of such fitness, the seller could be held liable, regardless of whether or not there was negligence on his part. In the light 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 lived up to the "standard of good practice" and thus could not be charged with negligence* Similarly, compliance with the USPHS standards would provide the best defence to an action based on implied warranty. Thus, legal obligation to provide 'pure' water does in fact exist, but this i s true irrespective of the management policy of the agency. A single-use policy merely simplifies, for the water purveyor, the problem of meeting this legal obligation. The contention that secondary uses create more problems than benefits can also be supported on the basis of simplified operation. The r e a l i t y of the situation, however, seems to indicate that such uses as flood control and hydro-electric power production have beon incor-porated with domestic water production quite frequently and without undue conflict. 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 in terms 114 of water yield and defrayal of water production expenses (Jeffrey, 1969}. With regard to recreational use of these areas, a San Diego, California, 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 in a narrow sense, , l i f e would be simpler without i t " . At the same time he recognized the community benefits of reservoir recreation and held the view that a reservoir multiple-use program can be maintained i f proper education, planning, and management techniques are employed (Dodson, 1963). Secondary Use Agencies The policy discussion thus far has concerned only those agencies which classed themselves as single-use agencies. The alternative policy i s , of course, one which allows for secondary resource uses. Zn the Br i t i s h Columbia portion of the survey, only five out of thirty-nine agencies involved in land management indicated that their policy included secondary uses of their catchment, area, buffer lands, or reservoirs. The survey samples of Washington, Oregon and California a l l showed higher percentages of agencies incorporating other re-115 source uses with the production of domestic water. California?! systems appeared to be most oriented towards integrated use of their water resources, as evidenced by the fact that forty-six per eent of the respondents included secondary uses (Table 14) and forty per cent considered that they operated under a philosophy of integrated resource use. The assessment of secondary uses was made according to five management categoriess (1) not allowed, (2) allowed unregulated, (3) allowed regulated, (4) actively planned and managed, and (5) not applicable, Xn relation to these cate-gories, one major fault in the questionnaire design became evident; exp l i c i t definitions should have been provided for a l l terms and answer categories used. Instead, implicit definitions derived from the context of the particular quest-ion were relied upon. Consequently, th© possibility of mis-interpretation was increased and the level of uncertainty associated with the tabulated answers was raised. In the case of the above listed management categories i t was assumed that, for 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 in this assumption was realised from a 1X6 comparison of the responses to directly relation questions Consequently, reliable statements could be made only in re-lation to the presence or absence of a use and not in relation to the nature of i t s management* Seven land uses were l i s t e d in the questionnaire and space was provided for any other uses to be specified. 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 agriculture, (5) mining, (6) hydro-electric power generating, (7) flood control, and (8) recreation. Of these uses, hydro-electric power generation and flood control have negligible adverse influences on raw water quality. Zn fact, flood control measures should improve the quality of water received at downstream locations. Both of these secondary uses Influence the reservoir levels and would also affect any streamfiow regime manipulations* The remaining uses have direct effects on both water quality and quantity, and there-fore, are of greater significance and more controversial with respect to their being included on lands used for the pro-duction or protection of domestic water supplies. British Columbia? Tabulation of the resource uses allowed by *secondary use* agencies in British 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 five areas (Table 16). Grazing and flood control occurred on two areas, and other agricultural activ-i t i e s and mining were each allowed on one out of the five areas. Because of the evident confusion in the interpretat-ion of the terms used to describe the type of secondary-use regulation, definitive statements on this matter cannot be made. For two respondents, acti v i t i e s were classed as regu-c lated merely i f they were known to be controlled by some government agency. Thus, logging, grazing, mining, and hydro-electric development were regulated while other agricultural ac 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 five agencies indicated that they actually controlled recreational use, one by pro-hibiting i t , and one by allowing hunting and fishing by per-mit 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, in many cases this was impossible because of conflicting answers or non-response. 118 Table 16. Secondary Uses Allowed - A l l Regions Brit i s h 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 control 2 2 5 12 Recreation 3 2 6 17 Total Number Secondary Use Agencies 5 5 11 17 Zn addition to enumerating the resource uses occurr-ing, 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 five agencies reported uses occurring because they had no legal right 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 actively incorporated into this agency's operation. In summary, the results seem to indicate that a l -though these five water supply agencies have stated that secondary resource uses are included in their management policies, in re a l i t y the uses either occur irrespective of agency policy, or are extremely limited. In most investigations, what originally seems black and white usually turns out to be mostly grey. This seems to be true with regard to water supply management policy. Of the thirty-four 'single-use* agencies involved in land manage-ment, fourteen were also Involved with resource uses other than water production, nine of these agencies stated that uses occurred because they had no legal right to control them; three said this was not the case, and two failed to respond to this question* Logically, 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 activities occurred on five Or fewer areas (Appendix IV). A factor which appeared to be of significance 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 District, had control 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 primarily the prerogative of the provincial government with some private control. The Pacific 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 inclusion of timber harvesting over other possible supplementary land uses. Zn Oregon the next most frequent use was recreation followed by grazing and flood con-t r o l . Washington agencies indicated that mining was included on three out of five areas and recreation was present twice. The nature of the mining was not specified, therefore, the real significance of this use is unknown. The State of California, in which seventeen out of thirty-seven respondents classed themselves as 'secondary-use' agencies, showed a considerable diversity 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 activ i t i e s allowed by •secondary-use' systems Is given in Table 16. In response to the question concerning the legal right to control uses, t h i r -teen out of thirty-two American agencies indicated that they lacked the necessary authority. This situation would seem to echo the diverse legal status of these regions * catchment lands. Responses to the question, "Does your agency operate under a philosophy of integrated resource use?", were affirm-ative from twenty-three agencies, negative from four, and no response from f i v e . The reason offered most frequently in support of this policy was that reservoirs and catchment lands should be managed so as to provide the maximum level of re-source use that i s consistent with water supply safety. The opinions that secondary uses should be provided to the extent possible without loss of raw water quality and that integrated use i s permissible when water is treated, were expressed several times and one Californlan agency held the view that i t was good business to incorporate other uses with the pro-duction of potable water. As was the case in British Columbia, certain of the respondents from Washington, Oregon and California indicated 122 that although they considered themselves to be single-use agencies, their watersheds and reservoirs served other functions besides water supply. About one out of every four areas was uti l i z e d for some secondary purpose compared to one out of every three in Brit i s h Columbia. The types and fre-quencies of these uses are shown as part of Appendix XV. A regional summary of a l l the reported uses and their respective frequencies of occurrence or non-occurrence, disregarding agency policy, is presented in Table 17 and shows that for Briti s h Columbia and Oregon logging and recreation occurred considerably more often than the other uses. Washington agencies incorporated logging relatively frequently, but other uses were somewhat limited. In California the frequencies were more uniform indicating that individual agencies included a wider range of a c t i v i t i e s . Recreation was the most common and grazing was next. The lesser importance of logging, com-pared to the other regions, resulted from the lower percent-age of catchment and buffer lands that were supporting commercial timber. Table 17, Regional Summary of Reported Uses - Irrespective of Agency Policy British Columbia Washington Oregon California No Yes $ No Yes $ No Yes $ No Yes $ Commercial Logging 24 14 1 8 7 1 10 16 mm- 26 11 -Salvage Logging only 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 -Notes $ indicates no response 124 Recreational Use Policies Within the general theme of integrated uses on municipal water supply reservoirs, their buffer zones, and their catchment lands, there arises the specific subject of recreational use of these areas* The importance, and frequency of occurrence of recreation in relation to other secondary uses have been discussed in the preceding pages. The reasons for 'single-use* as put forth by the survey respondents, and the concepts supporting a philosophy of integrated resource use have been presented. In the following section the detailed 'facts' concerning recreation, as revealed by the water pur-veyors of B r i t i s h Columbia and the Pacific coast States, are considered. Recreation Potential and Opportunity As a prelude to the actual recreation policies of these agencies, the questionnaire included a request for each respondent to estimate the recreation potential of their own lands, and also to estimate the recreation opportunities within a one hundred mile radius of their most important raw water 125 reservoir and/or watershed. Both estimates were to be made using a five point scale and eight activity groups were i n -cluded in the opportunity question. Responses to the question of recreation potential showed that for Bri t i s h Columbia approximately one third of the agencies to which the question applied considered their lands to have a high to excellent potential for recreation* Similarly, for Washington, Oregon and California estimates of high to excellent potential were given by f i f t y to f i f t y - f i v e per cent of the agencies. It was suggested that agencies with a single-use management policy might tend to underrate the potential of their lands for re-creation. An examination of the distribution of high and excellent ratings does not confirm this suspicion (Table 18). In the assessment of recreation opportunities sur-rounding the surveyed water supply systems there did not appear to be any obvious regional differences that would promote differences in recreation policy. For the eight activity groups listed, the percentages of high to excellent ratings were consistently high as were frequencies of non-response. Only the skiing and skidooing ratings for the California agencies appeared to be significantly lower (Appendix IV). These two factors, self-rated recreation Table lit* Summary of Respondent-rated Potential of Their Own Lands Region British Columbia Washington Oregon California ^^~~-\policy Rating 1 2 A l l 1 2 A l l I 2 A l l 1 2 A l l Excellent 3 - 3 mm - - 5 • 1 7 1 8 9 High 3 1 4 2 2 4 - 3 3 3 4 7 Average 4 1 5 am 1 - 1 3 4 5 2 7 Low 3 1 4 2 - 2 i 2 3 2 1 3 Very Low 5 1 6 - 1 1 2 1 3 2 - 3 Hot Applicable 16 - 21 7 - 8 6 6 9 2 13 So Response J L JL JL JL J5 JZ _1 - _2 Total Agencies 41 5 52 12 5 21 17 11 30 23 17 44 % Average or Higher 56 50 50 75 66 70. 69 93 % High to Excellent 33 25 32 50 50 50 56 40 50 31 30 55 Notes Management Policy 1 = Single Use; Management Policy 2 » Secondary Uses Incl. Percentages based on* (Total Agencies - Not Applic. • No Response ) Rows do not necessarily sum because of non-response to policy question. 127 potential and recreation opportunity level, were incorporated into subsequent regression analysis. Recreation Activities The investigation into the types of recreation activ-i t i e s that were allowed on domestic watersheds and reservoirs was originally to be limited to only those agencies which speci f i c a l l y allowed by choice recreational use. The compli-cations o f t (1) agencies which supported a single-use con-cept, but did not have the legal means to enforce i t , and (2) agencies which gave incomplete or inconsistent responses to the management policy questions, made i t necessary to dis-regard the stated policy and summarize the types of recreation and their frequencies s t r i c t l y as indicated in Section Three of the questionnaire. The only qualifying c r i t e r i a used in 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 acti v i t i e s were grouped under two headings, land-oriented and water-oriented. The land ac t i v i t i e s listed in the questionnaire were picnicking, camping, hiking, horse 128 riding, nature observation, hunting, snow skiing, and skidoo-ing. Golf was added to the l i s t by one agency in California ' and consequently had to be included in the tabulation. Water-oriented recreation was divided into fishing - from shore only, fishing - from boat only, fishing - both types, canoeing and rowing, motorboating - electric powered, motorboating -gasoline powered, waterskiing, sailing, swimming, and scuba diving. No other water acti v i t i e s were indicated by respond-ents. Differences between the numbers of agencies that indicat-ed the occurrence of recreation and the numbers of agencies for which ac t i v i t i e s were recorded resulted from non-response. For British Columbia the analysis showed that pic-nicking, camping and hunting were the most frequently occurr-ing land a c t i v i t i e s , and fishing and gas-powered motorboating were the most common water a c t i v i t i e s . It i s suggested that electric powered boating i s relatively rare and for this reason occurred less frequently. A l l other land and water activities occurred on at least three out of eight areas. Of the Washington agencies involved in recreation, two out of three completed the activity section. Both agencies indicated that picnicking, hiking, nature observation, hunting and snow skiing occurred, but only one indicated camping, horse riding 129 and skidooing* Water a c t i v i t i e s , in comparison with B r i t i s h Columbia (Tables 19a and 19b), were almost nonexistent; only fishing, and canoeing and rowing occurred on one area. Similarly, in Oregon water-oriented ac t i v i t i e s were quite limited; fishing occurred four times out of five; canoeing and rowing occurred once, and swimming occurred on two areas. Land-based recreation was somewhat more prevalent with hunting being most frequent, and skiing and skidooing least frequent. Responses from California placed picnicking and hiking f i r s t among the acti v i t i e s l i s t e d . These two uses occurred on fifteen of sixteen areas. As can be seen from Tables 19a and 19b, other land acti v i t i e s were quite prevalent except for skiing and skidooing. In contrast to Washington and Oregon, water recreation proved to be quite common among Californian agencies. Fishing from shore and boat occurred on fourteen areas with the remaining two agencies allowing fishing from shore only. Swimming and scuba diving occurred on seven of sixteen areas. This more prominent position of recreation probably resulted from factors such as greater public pressure for use of water supply f a c i l i t i e s , higher average level of water treatment, greater overall emphasis on integrated use of natural resources, and lesser supply of alternate recreation Table 19a. Recreation Activities Occurring on Watershed Stands - by Survey Region \. Region Activity British Columbia Washington Oregon California Yes NO $ Total Yes No $ Total Yes No $ Total Yes No $ Total Picnicking 5 2 1 8 2 2 2 2 1 5 15 1 16 Camping 5 2 1 8 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 11 5 16 Hiking 4 3 1 8 2 2 2 2 1 5 15 1 16 Horse Riding 4 3 1 8 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 9 7 16 Nature Observ. 4 3 1 8 2 2 2 2 1 5 12 4 16 Hunting 5 2 1 a 2 2 4 1 5 8 8 16 Snow Skiing 3 3 2 8 2 2 1 3 1 5 4 8 4 16 Skidooing 3 3 1 8 1 1 2 1 3 1 5 3 8 5 16 Golf S 8 2 2 5 5 1 15 16 Notes $ indicates no response Table 19b. Recreation Activities Occurring on Reservoirs - by Survey Region Region British Columbia Washington Oregon California A c t i v i t y ^ \ ^ Yes Ho $ Total Yes Ho $ Total Yes Ho $ Total Yes HO $ Total Fishings Shore Only 1 1 6 8 1 1 2 2 1 2 5 2 14 16 Fishings Boat Only 2 6 8 1 1 2 3 2 5 16 16 Fishings Both 5 2 1 8 1 1 2 2 3 5 14 2 16 Canoeing & Rowing 4 3 1 8 1 1 2 1 3 I 5 11 3 2 16 Motorboats Electric 2 2 4 8 2 2 4 1 5 12 1 3 16 Motorboat § Gas 5 2 1 3 2 2 4 1 5 13 2 1 16 Waterskiing 3 4 1 8 2 2 4 1 5 8 7 1 16 Sailing 4 3 1 8 2 2 4 1 5 8 7 1 16 Swimming 3 4 I 8 2 2 2 3 5 7 8 1 16 Scuba 3 4 1 8 2 2 4 1 5 7 8 1 16 Hotes $ indicates no response 132 f a c i l i t i e s . The attempt to identify some of these factors through regression analysis i s discussed in later sections, Although i t was stated that the attempt to establish the management level of each secondary use was unsuccessful because of inconsistent interpretation of the terms used, i t is worthwhile to observe that ho agencies in California i n -dicated 'unregulated' recreational use, and that no agencies in either B r i t i s h Columbia or Washington indicated any recreat-ion occurring on an 'actively planned and managed' basis (Appendix IV). Furthermore, twelve of the sixteen California agencies l i s t i n g recreation a c t i v i t i e s , considered 'actively planned and managed' to be the appropriate description of their management policy. In spite of the acknowledged un-certain interpretation of the management level terms, the results mentioned above and presented in Appendix XV seem to indicate a considerably more sophisticated type of management in California and to a lesser extent in Oregon, than in Washington and Br i t i s h Columbia* Recreation Controls In the management of any land unit a prime require-ment is to have an adequately defined and effective system 133 of controls to enable regulation of the planned resource uses. In the case at hand, recreational use of domestic water supply areas, this i s a v i t a l aspect of the management policy. The survey enquired about the methods of user access control, use intensity control, and conduct control,, and also about the type of regulations u t i l i z e d to support the control techniques. The assessment of user access control 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 registration. Res-ponses to these questions of controls and regulations were rather limited, and those received were predominantly from California. The most common method of user access^ control in this region was the issuance of access permits for a fee; f i f t y per cent of the respondents used this technique by Itself or in conjunction with other control methods. For California the next most common method was area design followed by area zoning. Control through area design would imply specific physical arrangement of recreation f a c i l i t i e s so as to direct users away from desired non-use areas. In contrast, area 134 zoning would seem to imply a delineation of restricted areas and use areas through signing and/or fencing. Responses from B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon totalled 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 registration, and one Oregon respondent indicated that area design, free permits, and area zoning were respectively f i r s t , second and third level control methods. Coupled with access control i s the question of use-intensity control. As recreation planners and managers are unhappily realizing, areas of a l l types have certain load limits beyond which deterioration i s magnified greatly and the probability of adverse effects on the environment i s significantly higher. In relation to water quality this factor i s of v i t a l importance. The enquiry into intensity control in this survey was open-ended in that no methods were listed* Consequently, the results were not as inform-ative as they could have been. Out of twenty-four respond-ing agencies, ten indicated that they controlled the intensity of recreational use. Two agencies did not l i s t any control methods. Three areas regulated use by releasing only a 135 limited number of access permits. The remaining five areas indicated that once the design capacity of their 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 this specific design capacity technique were in California and incorporated recreation on an 'actively planned and managed' basis (Appendix IV). Conduct control was divided into three types, education and persuasion, rules and regulations - honour system, and rules and regulations - enforcement and penalty system. Space was provided for other methods, but none were reported. As in the previously discussed questions, only California responded well to this enquiry. Enforced rules and regulations was the prime method of conduct control employed. Next in importance was the honour system with defined rules and regu-lations. Education and persuasion was seldom used by i t s e l f and quite frequently combinations of a l l three techniques were used. Only in B r i t i s h Columbia were there any agencies which did not indicate some method of conduct control (Appendix IV). As a logical supplement to the examination of con-t r o l methods i t was enquired as to what regulations on re-creational use had been established with respect to protection 136 of: (1) the watershed and/or the reservoir buffer lands, and (2) the water quality. One Br i t i s h Columbia agency i n -dicated that municipal ordinances had been established. One agency in Oregon and seven in California also indicated that municipal ordinances were in effect. In addition, three California agencies had established their own zoning regu-lations. The remaining six systems that responded to this question had not instituted any regulations of their own, but instead, relied upon forest service regulations, and state and county health regulations. Examples of these agency, municipal and state ordinances are provided in Appendix XV. Recreation Implications The inclusion of recreation on domestic water supply reservoirs and watersheds undoubtedly has certain implications with regard to management for water production. It i s typic-a l l y stated that raw water quality i s reduced by the presence of recreation on an area. In contrast to this i s the state-ment from the San Diego, California, U t i l i t i e s Department that "absolutely no evidence exists of any contamination of the reservoir waters or shorelines because of the city's present 137 reservoir recreation program" (Dodson, 1963). This con-troversy prompted the author to enquire about: (1) changes in water quality as a result of recreational use, (2) the level 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 IV). Response to the question about changes in water quality showed that only two agencies out of thirty-one had detected changes which they would attribute to recreation. One British Columbia agency said water turbidity had increased and one Oregon respondent said the coliform bacteria count had increased. None of the sixteen California systems to which the question applied, reported any changes in water quality as a result of recreation. The enquiry about studies of the impact of recreation programs on water quality and yield indicated that, either relatively l i t t l e has been done in 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 City of The Dalles, Oregon, indicated that they were currently involved in a watershed study in co-operation with the U.S. Forest Service, X38 U.S. So i l Conservation Service and Oregon State Forestry* One other study was reported by the City of Bellingham, Washington; this investigation had been conducted by the Institute of Freshwater Studies at Western Washington State College, Bellingham. The enquiry into the level of 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 level would be necessary. Bight agencies did not respond to this question, one said the question did not apply, and one California agency replied that surface supply treatment was mandatory. An examination of treated water costs in relation to the level of recreation reported shows that of twenty agencies with water costs of less than thirty cents per thou-sand Canadian Imperial gallons, exactly one half indicated five or more act i v i t i e s occurring on their 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 thirty cents per thousand gallons. In comparison, sixty-four per cent of the agencies reporting no recreation had treated water costs of less than thirty cents per thousand gallons; therefore, on the basis of the survey data i t would appear 139 that no simple cause and effect relationship exist© between level of recreation and water cost. In conjunction with the consideration of raw water quality and treatment cost in relation to recreation, one should also consider the question of compensation for the costs incurred from recreation. I f indeed water quality i s lowered and therefore treatment costs are raised, who should pay these additional costs incurred to produce high quality 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). In response to this, the following results are pre-sented. Of 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 total of seven times (Appendix IV). Clearly, 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 the value and logic in the assessment of user fees. 140 The foregoing discussion has focused on possible costs of recreational use of domestic water supply reservoirs and watersheds. Some of these cost increases can also result from uses such as grazing, mining and logging, and so should not be attributed to recreation alone. Just as there are costs associated with use there are also costs associated with non-use of these reservoirs and catchments; some are tangible and some are not*. In relation to secondary uses such as timber harvesting, grazing, and forage production, the failure to Incorporate them where feasible may mean loss of revenue to the water agency, and in the case of timber harvesting, loss of potential water yield increases. In some areas re-moval of catchment lands from the supply of grazing lands available, can place unnecessary strains on livestock operat-ors. Non-use from a recreational viewpoint has traditionally not resulted in a loss of revenue to the agency; however,it can force the population of the area to incur greater costs to obtain their recreation. As the levels of discretionary income and leisure time continue to increase, the use loads on a l l recreation f a c i l i t i e s become heavier and heavier* Beaches, picnic areas and campgrounds within a one hundred mile radius of modern urban centres are subjected to tremendous 141 weekend loads, Alouette Lake and Coitus Lake Provincial Parks in the B r i t i s h Columbia Lower Fraser Valley are both prime examples of this situation, as are the numerous public beaches throughout the Greater Vancouver area. As these pressures grow, the justification of single-use land manage-ment policies becomes ever more d i f f i c u l t ; the cry for 'recreation on the watersheds' becomes ever more common. In this regard It i s f u l l y accepted that the water supply industry has a responsibility to the public for the production of safe, high quality water* I t must also be realized by water pur-veyors that they cannot concentrate on this primary respons-i b i l i t y to the exclusion of a l l other needs of society; i n -deed, society w i l l not permit this attitude (McEwen, 1965), As is becoming increasingly recognized, the protection of public health Involves more than protection from physical disease; other essential human needs must be provided for and recreation i s one very human need. If this is recognized, " i t would seem better for the water supplier to approach the recreationist and ask his assistance in determining how reservoirs and watersheds can best serve recreational needs without jeopardizing the health of the water consumer, The objective should be to arrive at a combination of uses that w i l l provide the greatest public benefit." (McEwen, 1965), 142 If this positive approach were taken, and resource managers and planners would set aside their vested interests and attempt to integrate their ideas to obtain this maximum public bene-f i t , the problem of 'public health', in i t s broadest sense, would be i n f i n i t e l y reduced. Too often short-term profits 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 com-pletely, opportunities for co-ordinated and complementary developments throughout a region are Ignored or missed a l -together and the malignant, disjointed growth continues. Regression and Correlation Analysis As outlined in the statement of the problem, a major objective of the study was to determine what factors influence the intensity of recreation occurring on municipal water supply areas. It was hoped that an insight into the nature of these factors could be gained through regression and correlation analysis of the data gathered in the survey of water supply agencies. 143 Preliminary Examination of the Data Prior 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 variables. Ex-amination of the resulting scattergrams showed very weak relationships between the multiple use and recreational use scores and any single independent variable. 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 privately controlled watershed lands, and average percentage forest cover of watershed lands showed the most promise of being significantly related. 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 forest cover of watershed lands, and self-rated recreation potential 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 in the scattergrams of a l l areas combined. For Data Set XX the plotting of the variable pairs was even 144 less enlightening than for the f i r s t set; very few showed any possible relationships at a l l . I t should be noted, how-ever, that the evaluation of the suggested relationships depicted by the scattergrams was hindered somewhat by the fact that non-responses could not be distinguished from legitimate zero values because the computer program interprets blank fields as zero values. Zn relation to the application of regression and correlation analysis there are several assumptions upon which the v a l i d i t y of the techniques depend. These assumptions are, according to Steel and Torrie (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 third assumption of importance i s that experimental errors are random, independently and normally distributed 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 ratio test of significance. As Steel and Torrie point out, "in practice, we are never certain that a l l these assumptions hold; often there is good reason to believe some are false". Very rarely do data exactly f u l f i l the requirements of the 145 theoretical model, and therefore, procedures for testing 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 in the preceding description of the analysis techniques employed, complete sets of variables are required for the calculation of regression equations. In the f i r s t t r i a l a step-wise elimination regression was performed for each dependent variable with the i n i t i a l equation includ-ing a l l of the independent variables. Consequently, the number of observations that could be ut i l i z e d was reduced from seventy-six to thirty-nine* this represented a sixteen per cent sample of the total population to which questionnaires were sent. Calculation of simple linear correlation co-efficients from these basic s t a t i s t i c s showed that multiple use was most highly correlated to the size of the present population served (Xl) with a coefficient of 0.49502. 146 Recreational use was most closely correlated with the average percentage of forested watershed lands (X22). Both the un-weighted recreation score (Y2) and the weighted score (Y3) showed inverse relationships with the percentage of forest cover (Table 20).Although the correlations of present popu-lation served to the recreational use scores were non-signif-icant at the five per cent level, they were positive which coincided with the multiple-use case. Similarly, the other significant correlations were consistently positive or nega-tive for a l l three dependent variables. As pointed out by Ezekiel and Pox (1963) correlation coefficients calculated from small samples have a tendency towards upward bias and should be adjusted. Accordingly they have derived graphical adjustments from the results of earlier 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 correlation existing in the universe on the basis of the correlation shown in a given sample, we can estimate a minimum value for the true corre-lation, with a given chance of being wrong" (Ezekiel and Fox, 1963). If the above calculated correlations are adjusted with the aid of the simple correlation chart (Figure 6), the Table 20. Simple Correlation Coefficients - A l l Variables - A l l Regions Combined .Dependent Variables Independent Variables Multiple Use Score Y l Recreation Score 1 Y2 Recreation Score 2 Y3 Present population served Xl Water consumption X2 % domestic use X3 Degree of treatment X4 Avg. % munic. eontr'ld. buffer lands X5 Avg. % privately eontr'ld. buffer lands X6 Avg. % federally eontr'ld. buffer lands X7 Avg. % prov.(state) eontr'ld.buffer lands X8 Avg. % munic. eontr'ld. watershed lands X9 Avg. % priv. eontr'ld. watershed lands X10 Avg. % federally cOntr* Id. watershed lands X l l Avg. % prov. (state) eontr'ld.watershed landsX12 Total number of personnel Number of engineers Number of biologists Number of analytical chemists Number of foresters Number of bachelor degrees Number of post-graduate degrees Avg. % forest covered buffer lands Avg. % shrub covered buffer lands Avg. % forest covered watershed lands Avg. % shrub covered watershed lands Recreation potential Recreation opportunity X13 X14 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 X22 X23 X24 X25 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 N.S. * N.S. ** •**. N.S. ** N.S. •**• N.S. N.S. * ** ** N.S. N.S. 0.21595 N.S. 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, 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 ** -0.12904 N.S. Notes * - significant at .05 probability level •* - significant at .01 probability level N.S. - non-significant at .05 probability level 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 Minimum correlation in universe, for varying observed correlations and size of sample 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Correlation observed in sample Mjuoteenfe Chart. 58 Boekiei* M. and K,A* Fox* ' 19i correlation of multiple-use with present population served i s 'reduced from «HS.49 to a 'minimum true correlation* 'of approximately +0.27 with the probability that this statement w i l l be wrong for 1 sample out of 20, on the '.average.' The' correlation of recreational us© with average percentage of forested watershed lands would be reduced from -0.53 to a 149 minimum of approximately -0.31 with the same probability for error. It i s recognized, therefore, that correlation and regression analysis based on relatively small samples can lead to over-estimates of the s t a t i s t i c s r(R) and r 2 (R2) and under-estimates of standard errors, and that results must be care-f u l l y and somewhat cautiously interpreted. The f i r s t step-wise elimination performed showed that there was a significant regression relationship between multiple-use score (Vi) and the combination of present popu-lation served (XI), average percentage of municipal and/or agency controlled buffer lands (X5), and average percentage of shrub covered buffer lands (X2I). The linear regression equation incorporating the variables yielded an unadjusted coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.39760. A detailed description of the calculated equation is presented in Table 21. Further elimination of independent variables pro-duced a simple regression of Y l on present population served (Xl), significant at the 1% level, which had an unadjusted R2 of 0.24061. The R2 s t a t i s t i c i s a measure of the proport-ion of the variance in the dependent variable (Y) which is accounted for by differences in the independent variable (x)? R2 i s commonly expressed as a percentage. In the regression 150 of Yl on XI, X5, and X21 only 39*8% of the variation In Y l i s explained by the independent variables. The corresponding standard error of estimate is *5.8 or +61.5%; plainly the calculated equation, while s t a t i s t i c a l l y signifleant, could not predict the level ofmultiple-use with any reasonable degree of precision. Another aspect that must be considered independently from the s t a t i s t i c a l accuracy and precision of the equation is the logical explanation of apparently significant variables. In relation 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 level of multiple-use increased also. This could be accounted for on the basis that agencies serv-ing larger populations would have larger or more numerous reservoirs and catchment areas. This situation would seem to lend i t s e l f to the co-ordination of secondary uses with water production. Additionally, larger agencies tend to have more.intensive management with better qualified 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 this would hot seem to be directly related but rather a reflection.of the more dominant 151 position of shrublands in California which happens- to be co-incident with the more dominant position of secondary uses in that region. The third significant 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 to expect that as the degree of agency control increased this singie^use policy would become more apparent. The regression of Recreational-use Score One (Y2) on the Combined set of twenty-five independent variables resulted in one significant equation involving nine of these factors (Table 22), Reference to Table 20 shows that of these variables only average percentage of forest cover on water-shed lands (X22) and recreation potential of agency lands (X24) had a significant simple linear correlation with re-creational-use score* The other seven variables taken i n -dependently had Coefficients ranging from a maximum of 0.25 (X2) to a minimum of 0.007 (X17). The combined regress-? ion of these nine independent variables showed:an R2 value of 0*6329 and a standard error of estimate of +3; 9 (71%)* > Relationships such as this are vir t u a l l y useless and the most 15-2 Table 21. Description of I n i t i a l Multiple-use Regression Equations - A l l Regions Combined Y-var. x-var. Simple Correl* Coeff. Intrcpt. or Regr. Coeff. R2 SEy Yl XI X5 X21 0.4950 -0.1440 0.3200 8.9122 X.1B-05 -0.0498 0„0882 .3976 5.84 Yl X l 0.4950 8.1962 1.1E-05 .2406 6« 33 Table 22. Description of I n i t i a l Recreational Use Regression Equations - A l l Regions Combined Simple intrcpt* Y-Var. x-Var. Correl. or Regr. R2 SE. Coeff. Coeff, Y2 11.1818 .6329 3.86 X2 0*4589 1.6E-07 X5 -0.1440 -0*0635 X6 -0.0651 -0.0668 X8 -0.0710 -0.0914 X l l 0.3579 -0.0460 X17 0.1152 -0.0437 X13 0.4648 -0,4933 X22 -0.4593 -0.0908 X24 0.0816 0*1714 153 meaningful results from this phase of the analysis would seem to be the indication that for the study area as a whole, recreational use varied inversely with the percentage of forest covered watershed lands and directly with the estimated recreational potential of these lands* Further analysis with a l l regions combined did not seem warranted. Analysis of Data Set One by Region As a logical follow-up to 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 linear correlation from the previous combined analysis, strength of relationship suggested from scattergrams, and with the aim of maximizing the number of complete sets of observations. A review of the data Indicated that while British Columbia and California could be analyzed individually, Washington and Oregon would have to be combined to obtain a workable number of observations and combination of variables. Simi-l a r i t i e s i n the scattergram trends for these two regions also suggested their combination. 134 Br 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 British Columbia TRIP Program. The British Columbia sample used amounted to fifteen sets of observations or twenty per cent of the population surveyed. The analysis showed no s i g -nificant regression for multiple-use score at the .05 probab-i l i t y level. The best equation for the unweighted recreational-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 R2 value was 0.7601 arid the standard error was 3.62 (74;3%). Recreation score two (Y3), which was weighted by the management level, showed a s i g n i f i -cant relationship with the same variables, an R2 value of 0.7883 and a standard error of 7.71 (66,;9%), 7.4% lower than the Y2 equation (Table 23). The next phase was to perform all-combination re-gression runs for groups of up to five independent variables. The significant equations from the f i r s t phase were examined using the all-combinations routine and the individual s i g n i f i -155 Table 23* Description of I n i t i a l Regression Equations - for British Columbia only Y-Var. X-Var. Simple Correl. Coeff. Intrcpt. or Regr. Coeff. R2 SEy Y l no significant equation Y2 X4 X22 X23 0.6246 -0.5898 0.2198 33.2314 -1.1735 -0.3701 0.4765 .7601 3.62 Y3 X4 X22 X23 0.5827 -0.6673 0.2911 80*8194 -2.1095 -0.9124 1.0616 .7883 7.71 Notes Number of observations (n) - 15 cant variables were tested in combination with other closely related independent variables such as the group dealing with the status of buffer lands. The combinations tested, the significant groups, and the respective R2 and SEy values are presented in Table 24. Subsequent to the testing of the all-combinations groups, variables were selected for further analysis using the step-wise elimination option in the multiple regression program developed by Kozak and Smith (1965). This program 156 Table 24. Variables Tested Using All-Combinations Option - British Columbia only Variables Tested n Signif. X's ,R2 SEy Signif. Level Rec-1 on* X4, 18 X4 .2546 5.56 .05 X22, X23 X22, X23 .5573 4.43 .05 Mult-use on8 XI - X4 15 hone Rec-1 ons XI - X4 15 . •. X4 .3066 5.55 .05 Mult-use on: X5 - X8 18 X5 .3203 4.43 .05 X9 - X12 none Rec-1 ons X5 - X8 18 none X9 - X12 none Rec-2 ons X5 — X8 18 X7 .2706 12»62 *05 X9 - X12 none 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 in order to be consis-tent with the all-combinations routine as to the calculation method used* The simple linear correlation coefficients (r) for the Br i t i s h Columbia portion of this analysis are pre-sented in Table 25. The regression of multiple-use score (Yl) on the selected X-varlables produced one significant equation involving only average percentage of municipally controlled buffer lands (X5); the unadjusted R2 value was 0*5134 and the standard error was +3.34 (59.6%). The recreational-use scores (Y2 and Y3) showed somewhat different relationships than in earlier runs* The unweighted recreation score (Y2) showed a significant simple regression relationship with degree of water treatment (X4)> and had an unadjusted R2 of 0.3901 with a standard error of +5*31 (109%). Although this relationship is logical i t could not be considered very use-f u l . The weighted recreation score (Y3) produced a highly significant equation involving nine independent variables; i t accounted for 97.8 per cent of the Y variation and had a standard error of estimate of +3.69 (32.0%). Details of these equations are presented in Table 26. Continued elim-ination of variables produced a significant simple regress-Ion of Y3 on X22, average percentage of forest covered water"' Table 25. Simple Correlation Coefficients - British Columbia only "~ — — - — : Dependent Var. independent Var. Mult-use Rec-1 Rec-2 Xl 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. % priv. eontr'ld. watershed lands 0;3470 0.1388 0.2161 X12 Avg. % prov. eontr'ld. watershed lands -0.1292 0.2044 0.1812 X13 Total number of personnel 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* -0.6673** X23 Avg. % shrub covered watershed lands -0.0625 0.2198 0.2911 X25 Recreation opportunity 0.0637 0.0352 -0.0776 Notes * - significant at .05 probability level ** - significant at .01 probability level 159 Table 26, Details of Significant Equations for Yl, Y2 and Y3 - British Columbia only Simple Intrcpt. Y-Var. X-Var. Correl, or Regr. R SE, Coeff. Coeff. Y l 8.2415 .5134 3.34 X5 -0.7165 -0*0655 Y2 1.0530 *3901 5.31 X4 0.6246 1.6825 Y3 227*58 *9779 3.69 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 Y3 51.1346 .4453 11.49 X22 -0,6673 -0*4810 shed lands (Table 26). As was pointed out in the discussion of the analysis with a i l regions combined, sta t i s t i c s such as r, and R 2 are generally biased upwards when calculated from small samples, and SEy is generally biased downwards or under-estimated* The amount of such bias i s d i f f i c u l t to calculate and i s Complicated by the fact that the data were ISO obtained through a mailed questionnaire survey in 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 precision. Furthermore, non-response to the questionnaire, either in total or in part, added the possibility of other unknown biases which could not be compensated for. It was noted by Ezekiel and Fox (1963) that, "a s t a t i s t i c a l determination of the nature of any relation, no matter how complicated the methods used, t e l l s nothing of the 'reason* for the relation observed". The analysis by i t s e l f cannot provide the interpretation of cause and effect. Hope-ful l y , the analysis w i l l establish the 'facts' of the relations; the meaning of these facts must be established through reference to specific technical information and through clear, logical thinking. An interpretation of the preceding 'facts* concerning the relationships of secondary uses to various characteristics of municipal water supply areas in Bri t i s h Columbia, w i l l be made in conjunction with similar interpretations for the other regions surveyed. Pacific Coast States For this portion of the analysis i t was necessary, as indicated previously, to combine the samples from Washing-161 ton and Oregon in order to make best use of the data from these two regions. The data base from California was s u f f i c -ient to allow a separate analysis. As for Br i t i s h Columbia, the f i r s t regressions were calculated using TRIP and the significant equations are presented in Table 27* Only one equation, multiple-use score (Yl) in Washington and Oregon, i n -volved more than One independent variable and had a reasonably high coefficient of determination. A l l combinations of this multiple regression were run as well as a l l Combinations of related variable groups for both regions. The best equation from this run included a i l four of the variables that were in the original equation produced by TRIP, Because only four independent variables were being considered the sample size available was increased from sixteen to twenty-seven; the resulting R 2 value for the same combination of variables was reduced from 0.8410 to 0.6204 while the standard error was increased from *2.31 to +3.42* Tables 28a and 28b give the results of the all-combinations analysis. The third 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 to the preceding analysis. A relatively 162 Table 27. Description of I n i t i a l Regression Equations - for Pacific Coast States Simple.;- Intrept.-.' '•'••'^  Y-Vax. x-var. Correl. or Regr. R2 SEj Coeff. • Coeff. Washington and Oregon Y l Y2 Y3 California Y l Y2 ' ' Y3 XI X3 X9 X25 X3 x i X23 X23 3.0947 .8410 2.31 0.4639 0.9E-05 -0*3566 -0.0905 -0.4265 0.0689 0.3854 0,2319 8.3342 .3522 -0,5935 -0*0943 9.7186 .2403 0.4902 I.0E-05 3.58 22.4431 .3288 10.22 -0.5734 -0,2556 7.92 11.1976 .2561 '4*55 0*5061 -0*0974 42.0692 .2294 18*50 0.4789 -0.3682 Notes Number of observations (n) 8 3 16 (Washington and Oregon) 17 (California) 163 Table 28a. Variables Tested Using All-Combinations; Option - Washington and Oregon only Signif* Variables Tested n Signif. X*s R2 SE y Level Mult-use ons X l , .313; X9, X25 27 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 none X9 - X12 none Mult-use ons X20 - X24 17 none Rec-1 on? X20 - X24 none 164 Table 28b. Variables Tested Using All-Combinations Option - California only Variables Tested n 3ignif% X's' R 2 Signif• Level Mult-use ons X5 - X8 21 none 2?9 - X12 none Ree-1 on« X5 — X8 21 none X9 - X12 none Rec-2 ons X5 - X8 21 none -;X9.-;3C12" none Mult-use ons X20 - X24 19 X23. 8.21 .05 Rec-1 one X20 - X24 19 none Rec-2 on: X20 - X24 19 X23, X24 .3420 18.98 .05 large number of variables were tested, consequently the sample size available was restricted to fifteen observations for each region. The simple correlation coefficients (r) are presented in Table 29, As can be seen from the table, none of the variables tested for Washington and Oregon showed a correlat-ion with multiple-use score that was significant at the 5% Table 29. Simple Correlation Coefficients - Pacific Coast States - — D e p e n d e n t Washington and Oregon California Independent " - — Mult-use Rec-1 Rec-2 Mult-use Rec-1 Rec-2 XI Pres. Popul. Served 0.4590 0.2764 0.1711 0.4839 0.2214 0.2082 X2 Water Consumption 0.2999 0,5239* 0.4907 0.5172* 0.2562 0.2363 X3 % Domestic Use -0.3657 -0.5988* -0.5776* -0.1620 -0.1155 -0.0985 X4 Degree of Treatment 0.1269 0,2333 0.1833 -0.1357 -0.0626 -0.0265 X5 Avg. % Munic. C.B.L. -0.2400 0.0609 0.1018 -0.0451 0.0126 0.0206 X7 Avg. % Fed. C.B.I*. 0.3153 -0.0085 0,0153 0.2990 0.4664 0.4976 X9 Avg. % Munic. C.W.I*. -0.3543 0.2169 0.2417 -0.1611 -0.2350 -0.1595 X10 Avg. % Priv. C.W.L. - • - — -0.3570 -0.0501 -0.1172 X l l Avg. % Fed. C.W.1*. mm - 0.2462 0.2066 0.2350 X13 Total Personnel 0.2100 0.0683 0.0607 0.4452 0.2218 0.2074 X20 Avg. % Fst. Gov. B.L. -0.1166 0.3981 0.4569 -0.1255 -0.2061 -0.1439 X2I Avg. % Shr. Cov. B.&.* -0.2120 -0.3910 -0.3674 0.4677 0.6114* 0.5944* X22 Avg. % Fst. Cov. W.L. -0.2080 0.0967 0.1975 -0.4099 -0.6016* -0.5613* X23 Avg. % Shr. Cov. W.I*. -0.2421 -0.2401 -0.2609 0.6196* 0.6922** 0.6405* K24 Recr. Potential - - • - -0.2147 0.1448 0.2315 X25 Recr. Opportunity 0.4814 -0.2051 -0.2682 0.0698 0.1866 0.2918 Notes * - significant at .05 probability level ** f- significant at .01 probability level 166 probability level. The California data showed significant 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 significant in Washington and Oregon, whereas in California the buffer land and watershed cover types showed significant relationships. Of this f i n a l set of equations calculated, only the regression of Yl for the combined Washington and Oregon region produced a good R2 value, 0.9185, with a standard error of estimate of +1.74 (19.3%). A second run involving the same independent variables, but considering only Yl, which allowed an increased sample size, resulted in an equation with an R2 of 0.8177 and SEy of +2.41 (26.3%). This clearly demonstrates the uncertainty of relationships developed from small samples. An examination of the detailed description of these equations (Table 30) shows a change in the significant independent variables. The regressions for recreational-use in Washington and Oregon showed significant but weak relationships with percentage domestic use (X3)• The California data produced no significant relationships for multiple-use score (Yl) and weak relationships between recreational-use score and average percentage of forest covered watershed land (X22) (Appendix V). 167 Table 30, Details of Significant Equations for Y l - Washington and Oregon only Simple Xntrcpt. R 2 Y-Var. x-Vax. Correl. or Eegr. SE„ Coeff, y Y l 13.0683 .9185 1.74 XI 0.4598 1.7B-05 X2 0.2999 -7.7B-08 X3 -0.3657 -0.1283 X9 -0.3543 -0.0676 X25 0.4814 0.1896 Yl 7.2405 .8177 2.41 XI 0.3278 1.1E-05 X3 -0.2634 -0.0885 X9 -0.3832 -0.0661 X13 0.1059 -0.4691 X25 0.5322 0.3131 Explanation of the Indicated Relationships The 'facts' of the analysis showed that the level of secondary resource use, as indicated by the multiple-use score (Yl), and the level of recreational use, as indicated by recreation score (Y2 and Y3), were significantly related to several of the measured agency characteristics. The characteristics considered totalled 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 positive correlation with the present population served (Xl). On a regional basis this independent variable exhibited a very weak negative correlat-ion in Br i t i s h Columbia (Table 25) and a relatively stronger positive correlation in the Pacific Coast States (Table 29). The author suggests the negative correlation for Br i t i s h Columbia i s largely due to the fact 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 popu-lation, are supporters of the 'isolation' philosophy. The stronger positive correlations for the other regions would seem to support the previous suggestion that larger agencies logically offer more opportunity for secondary uses because of their larger and more numerous reservoirs and greater areas of buffer lands and catchments. Zt must be noted that none of the simple correlations for X l were significant, but that this variable did contribute significantly in the re-gressions for multiple-use in the Washington-Oregon region. Water consumption (X2) was almost perfectly corre-lated with population served, in the British Columbia analy-s i s , and therefore was also positively correlated with the 169 three dependent vaxiablea. For Washington, Oregon, and California the correlation was positive and significant in relation to Y2 in the Washington-Oregon sample, and in re-lation to Yl in California. Its significance singly and in the Yl regression equation for Washington and Oregon i s a result of i t s strong inter-correlation with population served. Percentage domestic use (X3) showed consistent and logical relationships with a l l three dependent variables. The use scores, Yl, Y2 and Y3, varied inversely with percent-age domestic use. The simple correlation coefficients were strongest in Washington and Oregon and were significant at the 5% level for Y2 and Y3. Percentage domestic use contri-buted significantly to the multiple-use score regression equation in the Washington-Oregon sample and produced a significant simple regression equation with the recreation-use scores, Y2 and Y3. This inverse relationship appears quite logical in that agencies which supply water for i r r i -gation and industrial purposes have less demanding water quality standards to meet and therefore are l i k e l y to allow more secondary usage of their reservoirs, buffer lands and catchments. Conversely, agencies which supply solely domestic water have to meet relatively s t r i c t quality standards and 17© consequently secondary uses are commonly more limited or else prohibited. Recreational use in particular is either excluded or quite closely controlled. h positive relationship between secondary use and level of water treatment (X4) would be expected; as more uses occur on a reservoir or catchment the probability of contam-ination increases and a higher level of treatment is required to maintain a given level of risk. This relationship is an observable fact, but not an inevitable one. The data for Br i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon did in fact show a positive correlation between secondary uses and the level of water treatment. California showed a very weak negative correlation. Xt is suggested that the generally higher level of water treatment present among the California agencies and required by state law would reduce the importance of this factor and that the low negative correlation could occur by chance, or could even indicate that California management techniques are more advanced and in closer harmony with the requirements for the production of high quality raw water. The next sequence of independent variables to be considered forms one of the aforementioned subgroups - land status. Variables X5 to X8 described the legal status of 171 the reservoir buffer lands, and variables X9 to X12 described the status of the watershed lands. The relationships shown by the simple correlation coefficients were non-significant except for X5 in the B r i t i s h Columbia sample. The X5 v a r i -able, average percentage of municipally and/or agency con-trolled buffer lands, showed a highly significant inverse relationship with multiple-use score (Yl) and similar, but non-significant, correlations with the recreation scores (Table 25). The relationships between average percentage of municipally and/or agency controlled watershed lands (X9) and the use scores were negative also. This indicated decrease in the level of secondary resource use as the percentage of agency control increases i s consistent with the high proport-ion of B r i t i s h Columbia agencies that have a single-use management policy (Table 14), and therefore tend to limit other uses to the extent that they are able. Federal control of buffer lands and watersheds in the Pacific Coast States was positively correlated with multiple-use and recreational use but not sufficiently to be significant at the .05 probability level. The nature of the observed relationships can be p a r t i a l l y attributed to the stronger emphasis that is placed on integrated resource management by federal agencies, 172 and also to the fact that federal agencies operate within a separate frame of reference and set different p r i o r i t i e s on the various resource uses than does a locally oriented water agency. In a similar way, private control and provincial (or state) control of catchment areas and buffer lands result in resource use p r i o r i t i e s that di f f e r from those of a municipal water supply agency. The correlations of private and provincial control with the use scores were weak and showed both positive and negative trends which suggest the existence of somewhat complex relationships. In the statement of the problem i t was hypothesized that the numbers, fields of specialization, and qualifications, of agency personnel would influence the level of secondary resource use - in particular recreation - occurring on domestic water supply reservoirs and watersheds. These factors were incorporated into the correlation and regression analy-sis as independent variables Xl3 to X19. With a l l regions combined, total number of personnel, number of engineers and number of employees with bachelors degrees a l l showed s i g -nificant simple correlation with multiple-use score, but were non-significant in relation to recreation score. In con-junction with four other variables, number of bachelor degrees 173 did contribute significantly to the regression equation for unweighted recreation score, in the combined analysis. On a regional basis only the total number of agency personnel contributed significantly to the regressions. This variable (X13) showed a completely consistent positive correlation with a l l three dependent variables; as the total number of personnel on staff increased so did the level of secondary resource use. These correlations were not significant at the .05 probability level, but the trend cannot be discounted completely. The most logical explanation of the indicated trend is that both number of personnel and level of secondary use are related to the size of the agency as discussed in re-lation to population served (Xl). The hypothesis that the professional background of agency personnel, as reflected in f i e l d of specialization and level of qualification, would influence the inclusion 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 intensity of recreational use was affected by the vegetative cover types of the buffer lands and watershed lands, the follow-ing independent variables were included in 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 forest covered watershed lands (X22), and (4) average percentage of shrub covered watershed lands. The resulting correlations with a l l regions combined were consistently negative for percentage of forest cover and positive for shrub cover. Regional analysis confirmed these relationships for British Columbia and California, but for the combined region of Washington and Oregon the trends were opposite (Table 29). The Bri t i s h Columbia data showed a sig-nificant negative correlation between percentage of forest covered watershed lands (X22) and both recreation scores, and this variable was also significant in the regression equations for the weighted recreation score (Y3). Shrub cover of buffer lands and watershed lands, and forest cover of water-shed lands were a l l significantly to highly significantly correlated with recreation score in the California sample. In addition multiple-use was significantly correlated with percentage of shrub covered watershed lands. None of the simple correlations for the Washington-Oregon region were significant at the .05 probability level, and none of the cover type variables were included in the significant regress-ion equations. 175 When one tries to set forth logical explanations for the apparent correlations of vegetative cover types with secondary resource uses, the dubious nature of the relation-ships becomes evident. Because only forest and shrub cover types were included in the analysis, the possibility of more informative correlations with other cover types was precluded. In addition to this, the terms forest and shrub are much too general and subject to very different interpretations. Forest on the British Columbia coast i s vastly different from forest in eastern Oregon; consequently, the relationships with re-source uses can be very different also. Multiple-use score was, in a l l regions, negatively correlated with percentage of forested buffer and watershed lands; this would seem logical in that uses such as grazing and other agriculture are not possible on many types of forest land; mining, hydro-electric power development, and flood control are independent of vege-tative cover types, and recreation i s subject to relatively complex variations. Explanation of the observed correlations between recreational 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 readily attractive for water-centered uses such as swimming,fishing, and boating as are shrub and grass covered lands. Similarly, forest cover hampers picnicking around water features, and can inhibit camping in some situations. From the management point of view, forest areas may require closer supervision of ac t i v i t i e s to ensure that users abide by agency regulations; thus fewer forested areas would be uti l i z e d for recreational developments within water supply areas. Percentage of forested watershed lands (X22) was also negatively correlated with recreation score and could be sub-ject to the same influences. Additionally, the highly for-ested watersheds could conceivably be the more remote ones. This inaccessibility could significantly reduce the demand for use of such areas. Alternatively remote watersheds are subject to fewer p o s s i b i l i t i e s for pollution and produce higher quality raw water; managers of such areas may ex-clude recreation to protect this advantage. The Greater Vancouver Water Di s t r i c t is a prime example of this type of management philosophy. The fact that these relationships between recreation score and cover types were reversed for Washington and Oregon would seem to support the previous 177 suggestion that, the specific type of forest or shrub cover.-' present on an area i s intimately related to the recreational 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 to clear l y define these relationships with recreational use. The f i n a l two independent variables included in the analysis of Data Set One were self-rated recreation potential of agency lands (X24). and estimated recreation opportunity level (X25). With a l l regions combined recreation potential showed significant and positive simple correlations with both recreation scores; on a regional basis neither variable was significantly correlated with any of the depend-ent variables. Given that recreation occurs on an area, one would expect the level of recreational use and development to be higher i f the recreation potential of the area were higher. The trends shown by the simple correlation coefficients con-firmed this in a i l regions studied. Conversely, one would expect the level of recreational use on a municipal water supply area to decrease as the alternative recreation opportunities in the surrounding areas increased. This ex-pectation was f a i r l y well confirmed for British Columbia, 1 7 8 Washington and Oregon, hut did not appear to hold for C a l i f -ornia, h possible explanation of this seemingly i l l o g i c a l relationship i s that the very dense and affluent population of California has such a high demand for 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 reservoirs and lands are subjected to the 'unsatisfied' demand. I t i s also true that while the general opportunity level may be high in many areas of C a l i f -ornia, the opportunities for fresh water recreation may be very limited, as is the case in San Diego. In summary, i t can be stated that for the study area as a whole several logical relationships showed st a t i s -t i c a l significance even at the .01 probability level, but the actual correlations were very weak with the highest simple correlation coefficient being only 0.63. The best regression equation produced with a l l regions combined accounted for only 63% of the variation in the dependent variable (Y2) and had a standard error of estimate of 71%. Simple corre-lations between a given pair of variables varied greatly among the regions, but were consistently very low with a maximum of 0.72 in one instance in British Columbia. The Br i t i s h Columbia and the Washington-Oregon analyses produced 179 multiple regression equations which accounted for as much as 97% of the Y-varlation, hut s t i l l had standard errors 1 of at least 20%. These values are not'adjusted to allow for small sample size* The best equation involved nine independent'' variables, and no equation with an R2 of more than 0.8 had less than four. The California analysis produced no equations with reasonably high R2 values, tn essence this portion of the analysis showed weak but somewhat logical relationships between the general agency characteristics and secondary re-source uses as measured by the multiple-use and recreational use scores. Analysis of Data Set Two Data Set Two consisted of independent variables that defined the specific characteristics of each storage or terminal reservoir, i t s buffer lands and watershed, and de-pendent variables that defined the levels of recreational use occurring on or around a given reservoir. Both general re-creation scores and water recreation scores were used* The analysis was conducted in a similar manner as for 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 reservoirs. In-stead, the data was s t r a t i f i e d according to reservoir type and then analyzed. The total number of reservoirs included in the data set was eighty-seven; however, non-response to various questions resulted in only thirty complete sets of observations* Because of the low number of observations i t was necessary to keep the Br i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon data together and treat the three areas as one region. California was analyzed separately. An examination of the simple correlation coefficients 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 reservoir surface area (X28) exhibited some significant corre-lations, but the area of reservoir buffer lands (X29) and the area of the watershed (X30) were not significantly correlated with any of the dependent variables. The significant regress-ion equations produced in this phase of the analysis involved only one independent variable in a l l cases. For Type 1 reservoirs, the storage reservoirs, percentage of shrub covered Table 31. Data Set Two - Simple Correlation Coefficients - by Reservoir Type - A l l Regions Combined Dependent General Recreat*n General Recreat'n Water Recreation Water Recreation Variable Score 3 (Y6) Score 4 !Y7) Score ] L CY4) Score 2 Res. Xndep. Type 1 Type 2 Type 1 Type 2 Type 1 Type 2 Type 1 Type 2 Variable Res. Max. Capacity 0.3444 0.5925* 0.2915 0.6024* 0.1480 0.5195* 0.1071 0.5041 Reservoir Surface 0.2416 0.5141* 0.1931 0.4741 0.0528 0.3726 0.0287 0.3253 Area 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 % Forest Cover B.L. -0.5112 -0.3065 -0.5035 -0.2416 -0.3113 -0.1934 -0.3366 -0.1317 % Shrub Cover B.L. 0.7232** 0.7728** 0.6991** 0.6935** 0.4857 0.5999* 0.4908 0.5198* % Forest Cover W.L. -0.5228* -0.4145 -0.5221* -0.3513 -0.3269 -0.2965 -0.3330 -0.2368 % Shrub Cover W.L. 0.7395** 0.6512** 0.7481** 0.6532** 0.6105* 0.5970* 0,6208* 0.5806* Botes Sample size = 15 * - significant at ,05 probability level ** - significant at ,01 probability level 182 watershed lands (X34) was the only significant variable. Per-centage of shrub covered buffer lands (X32) was; the only variable which showed a significant regression relationship with recreational use on and around terminal reservoirs (Type 2). The equations accounted for 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 for less of the variation and had even higher standard errors. The remainder of the analysis was done with the California observations separated from the other three regions. Insufficient data pertaining to storage reservoirs was a v a i l -able from B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon to justify any regression calculationsj however, regressions were run for the terminal reservoirs in this region and for both reservoir types in the California portion of the study. For the Type 1 or storage reservoirs, from the California sample, there were very low but significant positive correlations of recreation score with percentage of forest covered buffer lands (X31), and percentage of forest covered watershed lands (X33). Similarly, water recreation score showed a signifleant positive correlation with X33 (Table 33). These variables also produced significant simple regression 133 Table 32. Description of significant Equations for Data Set Two - A l l Regions Combined Reservoir Depen. Ho .of Signif« Type Var* Obser, x'a R2 SE y Storage Y6 15 X34 0.5468** 2.53 (54.2%) Y4 15 X34 0.3728* 1.99 (99.5%) Terminal Y6 15 X32 0.5972** 2.60 (76.5%) Y4 15 X32 0.3599* 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 in 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 in California, Correlations with percentage shrub cover were consistently positive for a l l areas although generally non-significant. At the same time the correlations with percentage forest cover were negative for the combined region and positive for California. The regression equations, while statistically Table 33. Data Set Two - Simple Correlation Coefficients - by Reservoir Type British Columbia. Washington and Oregon California Dependent General Recr eat 8 n Water Recreation General Recr eat'n Water Recreation Variable Score 3 (Y6) Score 1 CY4) Score 3 CY6) Score 1 <Y4) Zndep. Type 2 Type 2 Type 1 Type 2 Type 1 Type 2 Variable Res. Max. capacity ©.6094* 0.7669** 0,1343 0.6514** 0.0358 0.4982 % Forest Cover B.L. -0.3640 -0.5417 0.4120* 0.1714 0.3647 0.4234 % Shrub Cover B.L. 0.2097 0.4810 -0.1227 0.6263* -0.0819 0.3471 % Forest Cover W.L. -0.4261 -0,6075* 0.4419* -0.0093 0.4347* 0.2680 % Shrub Cover W.L. 0-1657 0.3125 -0.1847 0.4914 -0.1210 0.2662 Botes * - significant at .05 probability level ** - significant at .01 probability level Number of observationss B.C., wash., & Oreg. a « 12 Ca l i f . Type 1 n = 28 Ca l i f . Type 2 n » 15 185 significant, were not indicative of any strong or reliable linear regression relationships. Reservoir maximum capacity and a l l four of the vegetative cover type variables appeared in various combinations or singly (Table 34)• The R 2 values were relatively low and standard errors of estimate were ! phenomenally high. i n summary, the investigation of recreational use in relation to specific reservoir characteristics showed that for the study area as a whole the levels of both general recreation and water recreation were most strongly related to the percentages of forest and shrub covered buffer and watershed lands. Reservoir maximum capacity and surface area were the only other significant variables. 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 California separated from B r i t i s h Columbia, Washington and Oregon, the recreation level was moat highly related to reservoir maximum capacity (X27)y however, this was only true for terminal reservoirs. Reservoir surface area, area of buffer lands, and area of watershed lands did not show very strong corre-lations with the dependent variables and these values were so frequently missing that they were eliminated from the regional 186 Table 34. Description of Significant Equations for Terminal Reservoirs - by Region Region & Depen. Var. No. of Obser. Intrcpt. or Regr. R 2 SE. B.C. - Wash. - Oregon Rec-3 (Y6) Rec-3 WR-1 (Y4) WR-1 12 12 12 12 X27 0.178E-09 31.867 X33 -0*301 X34 -0*345 0.281 X27 0.996E-10 15.943 X33 -0.156 X34 -0.166 3714* 3.83(135%) .4865* 3.65(129%) .5882** 1.38(138%) .7280** 1.18(118%) California Rec-3 (Y6) 15 X27 X31 X32 •0.434 0.982E-10 0.063 0.058 .7084* 2.24(55%) WR-1 (Y4) 15 -0.048 .6092** 1.75(82%) 187 analysis* Prom the preceding sttidy of Data Set One i t was expected that the cover types would be significant, and logic seems to support the idea that recreational use would increase as reservoir size increases. Size i s a composite term that, i n relation to reservoirs, includes both surface area and volume. From a purely recreational viewpoint, surface area should be most related to the level of use. In terms of the recreational use of a domestic water supply reservoir, volume assumes a more important position. Large capacity reservoirs provide an increased natural pollution safety factor because of the greater dilution factor and generally longer holding time; thus, the relatively strong positive correlation of reservoir maximum capacity with recreation level, and i t s prominence in the regression equations would seem to have a logical basis. 138 V SUMMARY AMD CONCLUSIONS Present Management Situation British Columbia Water-supply management in British Columbia was shown to be relatively unsophisticated. Groundwater supplies and extraction from rivers 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 chlorination. The survey indicated that private, and provincial government control dominated the water supply lands and that maintenance of sanitary conditions and the prevention of land abuse were solely dependent upon provincial statutes. This lack of agency control was reflected in the management policies and practices reported. Of the forty-six 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 their water. In total 'secondary' uses were reported by forty-one per cent 139 of the agencies; thus, although secondary use policies were declared by only eleven per cent of the respondents, in practice secondary us00 were much more'common. Adjustment for those agencies not involved in 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 variety of activities (Tables 19a and 19b). Pacific Coast States In comparison with British Columbia. Washington, Oregon and California a l l exhibited a considerably higher level of water-supply management. This was in accord with their more advanced stage of development and their greater population densities. The major difference in the nature of the water supplies used was the very minor role of natural lakes; Washington,' with about five per cent, had the highest proportion of this type. In contrast, nineteen per cent of the Bri t i s h Columbia agencies ut i l i z e d this source, water treatment was much more common, the lowest proportion being in Washington (71.4 per cent) and the highest in California 190 (90.0 per cent), and the technical complexity was greater (Table 10). The percentage of agency controlled lands in the Pacific Coast States was approximately the same as for Brit i s h Columbia; however, federally owned and managed lands assumed major importance. In general, land control was more fragmented than in Bri t i s h Columbia. Some management agree-ments were reported, but state legislation was s t i l l the pre-dominant form of control over sanitation and land abuse. Secondary uses were most prevalent in California and a l l of the respondents classifying themselves as 'secondary-use' agencies included recreation as one of the uses. In contrast to the situation in Washington and Oregon, and especially in Brit i s h Columbia, recreational use was primarily a regulated use and very often planned and managed in detailed fashion with s t r i c t controls. The range of acti v i t i e s occurring on . a given area varied considerably but did include water con-tact sports in about forty per cent of the cases where recreat-ion 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 Realities of Recreational Use Much has been said about recreation on domestic water-supply reservoirs and watersheds; some of i t i s true, some 'almost true', and some of i t false. In this study an attempt was made to establish the r e a l i t i e s of recreational and other uses of these areas. The investigation into the established 'facts' per-taining to land-uses, water contamination, transmission of disease via water, and water treatment, revealed several important items. Both research and practice have shown that man's use of natural resources need not leave a path of des-truction. While i t i s true that man cannot l i v e without altering his environment to some extent and that v i r t u a l l y a l l of his act i v i t i e s are at least p a r t i a l l y destructive, the techniques to eliminate or minimise this damage to nature are readily available, only the desire to implement them i s lacking. In the past, use of the land has consistently pro-duced contaminated water. In order to ensure himself of a supply of pure water man has, wherever possible, set aside areas for the production of this v i t a l commodity. In is o l a t -ing domestic water supplies man in essence condoned the 192 pollution of the other water resources and inhibited the development of ecologically sound resource management practices. It was clearly established that innumerable con-taminants are constantly being released into watercourses, and recreation contributes i t s share. I t was also established that well planned and managed recreation f a c i l i t i e s can be operated in conjunction with domestic water-supply f a c i l i t i e s and have minimal effects on raw water quality. An added factor predominantly associated with recreational use i s the potential 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 this r i s k to a minimum. Xn the discussion of the controversy over recreation-a l use, i t was recognized that many of the arguments present valid reasons for and against this use, but they are most often valid in relation to specific situations and should not be unconditionally applied to 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 deterioration in raw water quality could be attributed to recreation and that there was no simple cause and effect relationship between level of recreation and water costs* In relation 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 lost through the prohibiting of timber harvesting, grazing, and forage product-ion, loss of potentially higher water yields, or Increased travel costs incurred by recreatlonists forced to go further af i e l d for their enjoyment. Perhaps the most significant r e a l i t y of non-use of these areas for 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 earlier, thinking, planning, and managing in a dream-world of single-use areas i s rapidly becoming a luxury that cannot be afforded. Recreational Use - Influencing Factors? M set forth in the statement of the problem, one of the objectives of this study was to determine what factors 3.94 influence the intensity of recreation occurring on municipal water-supply reservoirs and watersheds. In addition to re-creation the presence of other secondary resource uses was investigated and a similar attempt was made to relate 'multiple-use* to various agency characteristics. A multiple regression and correlation analysis was carried out u t i l i z i n g two separate data sets, and dependent and independent v a r i -ables as set out in Appendix III. The analysis showed s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant correlations between both multiple-use (Yl) and recreational-use (Y2 and Y3), and several independent variables. The occurrence of secondary uses and i n particular recreation was related to such agency characteristics 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 federally managed lands, (6) number of agency personnel, (7) average percentages of forest and shrub covered buffer and watershed lands, (8) agency rated recreation potential of their lands, and (9) recreation opportunity in surrounding areas. The levels of correlation varied from region to region, and the variables that appeared in the significant regression equat-195 ions also varied. The attempt to relate the level of recreat-ion allowed to specific reservoir characteristics was p a r t i a l l y successful in that some significant simple correlations and regression equations resulted; however/ a l l were very weak. Only reservoir maximum capacity (X27) and the vegetation cover types were significantly related to the level of recreation occurring. Unfortunately, several factors that were included in the i n i t i a l set of hypotheses were not measured adequately by the questionnaire and so could not be included in the regression and correlation analysis. A review of these variables in relation to the ones analyzed, suggested the presence of complex interrelationships. The proximity of the reservoir or watershed to population centres would seem to influence the amount of public pressure for recreational use; i t would also affect the i n i t i a l quality of the water in that more remote areas would have fewer sources of pollution. The obsession of water purveyors with protection of their 'high quality* raw water is reflected in the A.W.W.A. policy statement on recreational use (Appendix XV); therefore, i t would seem logical that recreational use would tend to be i n -versely proportional to the i n i t i a l quality of the water. Considerations such as the f e a s i b i l i t y of excluding 196 recreational use and the legal authority to provide recreat-ional f a c i l i t i e s are influenced by the legal status of the lands involved, and by the presence or absence of recreation prior to the area being used for the production of potable water. Zt was shown in the analysis that recreation tended to decrease as the degree of agency control over the area i n -creased. It i s suggested that i n addition to these factors and the analysed agency characteristics, there are complex and extremely variable p o l i t i c a l l y oriented factors which work both for and against the inclusion of recreation and other uses on a domestic water-supply reservoir or i t s watershed. These elements are not readily quantifiable; thus their i n -fluences could not be incorporated into the type of analysis uti l i z e d i n this study. Conclusions At the beginning of this enquiry i t was hypothesized that recreational use of watersheds and their reservoirs, and the production of high quality water for domestic consumption are mutually compatible land uses. On the basis of the research 197 carried out, i t has been concluded that when conducted in accord with an ecologically sound management plan, recreation and the production of high quality potable water are indeed mutually compatible land uses. It was shown that deterioration of the land base and water quality need not accompany resource development. In particular, recreation can be incorporated quite successfully with the production of water for domestic use as was evident in the survey results. 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, recreational a c t i v i t i e s did not significantly contribute to bacterial pollution (worms and Brickler, 1967). Furthermore, i t was shown that the spread of bacterial diseases, such as typhoid fever, through water i s easily prevented by Conventional water treatment* i t was established that while virus diseases are potentially transmissible by water, i n -fectious hepatitis i s the only one for which there i s reason-ably sound epidemiological evidence of this method of spread. Research into the removal and destruction of viruses in water supplies has demonstrated that present techniques can produce water that i s safe according to a i l reasonable standards, and s t i l l within the limits of practicability* Finally, i f one accepts recreation as a legitimate 193 and feasible use of these domestic water-supply areas, what should determine the management policy of an area and who should define this policy? Most basically, resource manage-ment policies should be determined with the aim of providing the greatest public benefit; policies formulated contrary to this are no longer tenable. Definition of this 'greatest public benefit' 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 justify rejection of the concept. Xn the consideration of resources and their manage-ment, the ultimate unity of the natural system must be recog-nised. Xt must also be recognized that man i s a part of the system and completely dependent upon i t . With these points in mind i t can be seen that management policies for domestic water-supply areas are intimately related to the management policies for a l l other areas and resources. Never before has this fact been so plainly evident; each action brings with i t a reaction. F e r t i l i z e r s , pesticides, and chemical wastes often produce damaging effects many miles from their source; a s h i f t in land use alters the desirability and even the po s s i b i l i t y for other uses in adjacent areas, unplanned urban and industrial expansion usurp valuable agricultural or recreational land; thus creating diseconomies through the 199 importation of foodstuffs, and causing over-loading of alternate recreation areas. Within this framework of complex and often conflicting interactions, the recreational role of a given water-supply area must be based upon* (1) a compre-hensive assessment of the environmental characteristics of the area, taking into consideration a l l resource uses, and (2) an assessment of the area's local, regional and inter-regional importance in relation to the needs of each resource use. If the preceding is taken as what should determine the management policy, there remains the question of who should define this policy* Unquestionably, policy formation in a democratic system i s the prerogative of legislative bodies composed of elected representatives. In keeping with the principle expounded by Montesquieu in his work The S p i r i t of Laws (1748) and accepted as a fundamental principle in the American Constitution, legislative, executive, and j u d i c i a l powers should be exercised by separate and distinct bodies. The formation of the management policy for domestic water-supply reservoirs and catchments i s , therefore, the respons-i 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 executive personnel is to implement this policy. On the basis of professional qualifications the executive staff may make policy recommendations, but should not be allowed to assume the legislative function. Too often, those most intimately involved have a very one-sided view of what constitutes •good management* or the 9greatest public benefit*. In addition to this personal bias there i s often a bias accord-ing to one's particular specialization; water agency per-sonnel are predominantly engineers and are certain to have different views from foresters, ecologists, w i l d l i f e biolo-gists, or sociologists. Just as the views of professionals di f f e r so the views of the ordinary citizens and resource users di f f e r and must be heard and respected. Consequently, the author believes that management policies, in particular recreation policies, should be formulated by the elected legislative body, in accord with the wishes of the majority of electors, and in consultation with a wide variety of resource planning and management specialists. In this way the probability of achieving a successful integration of uses would be greatly increased. In cases where the water agency does not directly 201 control the catchment lands, or where the supply i s extracted from an inter-regional river or a major lake, policy format-ion must be influenced through legislative controls and ideological salesmanship. Ideally a l l resource managers, whether private corporations or public agencies, should be concerned with the maintenance of a high quality water resource, i n the past this was not true; in the present there appears to be hope; in the future man's survival 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 Policy. Jour. A.W.W.A., Vol. 50(5) May, 1958. pg. 579. Banks, W. 1940. Heed for Increased Space for. Recreation* Symposium on the Recreational Use of Watersheds, Jour. A.W.W.A., Vol, 32s 1009. Blake, Kelson Manfred, 1956. Water for the Cities. Syracuse University Press. 341 pages. Bonyun, R.E., et a l . 1948. Public Use of Reservoir Lands and waters. Jour. A.W.W.A*, Vol. 40(9)% 945-960. Brink, V.C. 19537 Climates of Brit i s h Columbia for Agrologists - Part I* Technical Communication, Agronomy Department, University of B.C. Bullard, W*E. 1966. Effects of Land Use on Water Resources. Jour. Water Pollution Control Fed., Vol, 38(4)s 645-659. Campbell, Ernest H. 1959. Legal Aspects of Municipal Water Supply in the Pacific 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. Bull. Wld* Hlth. Org. 38s 401-414 Dodson, Roy E. 1963. Recreational Use of Reservoirs in San Diego. Jour* A.W.W.A., Vol. 55(9)* 1115-1119* Dube, Won* 1966. The Challenge of Industry in Planning Public Forest Recreation. Pulp & Paper Mag. of Canada, Vol. 67 - II WR-560* Dulles, Foster Rhea. 1965. A History of Recreation -America Learns to Play. 2nd Edition. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. 446 pages. 203 Ez e k i e l , Mordecai and K a r l A . Fox. 1963* Methods of Correlation and Regression Analysis* 3rd Edition* John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hew York. 548 pages. Fischer, R „ A , 1928. The General Sampling D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Multiple C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t . Proceedings of the Royal Society, A , v o l . 121* 655-673. G o l d f l e l d , M* 1965* Discussion of "Transmission of V i r a l Diseases by Drinking Water" ins Transmission of Viruses by the- Water' Route* Berg, G., Editor* John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hew York. Gove, P h i l i p Babcock* Ed, 1967* Webster's Third Hew International Dictionary* G & C Mirriam Company, Hew York. Government of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1963* B r i t i s h Columbia Manual of Resources and Development. Bureau of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s , Dept. of 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 of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1969. B*c. Facts and S t a t i s t i c s . Economics' and S t a t i s t i c s Branch,; Dept. of Ind. Devel. Trade & Comm. 76 pages. Government of Canada. 1969. Canada Year Book. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Dept. of industry. Trade and Commerce* Ottawa, Ontario. 1329 pages, Harding, S.T. , 1960. Water i n C a l i f o r n i a . H-P Publications, Palo Alto, C a l i f o r n i a . 231 pages. Hlghsmith, Richard M., J r . Ed i t o r , 1968. Atlas of the • P a c i f i c Horthwest. ,4th E d i t i o n . Oregon State University Press, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. 167 pages* Hyde, R.R. 1935* Outdoor Recreation i n Great B r i t a i n . Zn Recreation and Education, International Labour O f f i c e studies and Reports, Series G, Ho, 4. P.S„ King & Son Ltd*, London. J e f f r e y , W.W. and 3*G. Goodell, 1969. Land Management i n Municipal watersheds* A paper presented to the 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 Efficiency of , Disinfectants in Water. Amer. Assoc. Public Health Reports, Vol.:76(7)g 565. Kozak, A. and J.H.G. Smith. 1965. A Comprehensive and Flexible Multiple Regression Program for 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. Vol. 58(10)r 1270. October, 1966. Maloney, Frank E. I960. Water Standards - Legal Viewpoint. Jour. A.W.W.A. Vol. 52(9)t 1180-1188. Montesquieu, Baron de, Charles de Secondat. 1748. The Spi 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.. Editor. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. 484 pages. Oppenheimer, F., Bensei, E., and A.R. Taylor. 1959. The Ultraviolet Irradiation of Biological Fluids in Thin-flowing Films. Amer. J. Public Health Vol. 49s 903-923. Riehl, M e r r i l l L. 1956. Considerations in Recreational Use of Impounding Reservoirs. Jour. A.W.W.A. Vol. 48(5)* 1406-1408. Robeck, 6.6., Clarke, N.A., and K.A. Dostal. 1962. Effectiveness of Water Treatment Processes in V i r a l Removal. Jour. A.W.W.A. Vol, 54s X275. Rowe, J.S. 1959, Forest Regions of Canada. Forestry Br. Bulletin No. 123. Dept. of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Ottawa. Rumney, George R. 1968. Climatology and the World's  Climates. The Macmillan Company, New York, 656 pages. 205 Steel, &.G.0. and -J.H. Torrie.'' I960. Principles and Procedures) of Sta t i s t i c s . McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York. 481 pages. Tnarn©aur@>.-FiE.'-and H.L. Russell. 1940* Public Water • Supplies. 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc.. Hew York. ' 704 page©. U.S.'Dept. @£ Coaamerc®, Bureau of the Census. 19®®* S t a t i s t i c a l Abstract ©f the United States. U.S. Sept. of th© Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1968. Water Quality C r i t e r i a . Report of 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. Dissert. 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 in Stream Pollution. Jour. Water Pollution Control Fed., Vol, 36(7)t 914. Worms, Allan J . asad S.K. Brickler. . 1967. Effects ©f Recreation Use and Development on Water Quality. Resource Development Series 12, University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. 7 pages. APPENDIX | Mailing Addresses for Survey Regions 207 Mailing Addresses for Agencies Surveyed - British Columbia* Armstrong Chilliwack Courtenay Cranbrook Dawson Greek Duncan Enderby Fernie Grand Forks Kamloops Kelowna Kimberley Langley City J o D . Hayden, City Clerk Box 40, Armstrong. Elk Creek Waterworks Chilliwack, B.C. W.C. Moore, City Clerk Box 939, Courtenay. G.M. Robertson, City Clerk 40 Tenth Avenue South, Cranbrook, A.L. Anderson, City Clerk Box ISO, Dawson Creek G. M. Berry, City Clerk 281 Canada Avenue, Duncan. H. J . Watt, City Clerk Box 68, Enderby. F . J . Butala, City Clerk Box 190, Fernie. E.T. Clegg, City Clerk Box 220, Grand Forks. D.H. Brown, City Clerk 7 Victoria St. West, Kamloops* J . Hudson, City Clerk 1435 Water Street, Kelowna. D. Torgeson, City Clerk 340 Spokane Street, Kimberley. C T . Partington, City Clerk Box 489, Langley City. 208 Nanaimo Nelson North Vancouver Penticton Port Alberni Prince George Prince Rupert Revelstoke Rossland T r a i l Vancouver Vernon Victoria White Rock H. Nicholson, City Clerk 455 Wallace Street, Nanaimo. C. W.R. Harper, City Clerk 502 Vernon Street, Nelson R.C. Gibbs, City Clerk 209 West Fourth St., North Vancouver. H.G. Andrew, City Clerk 171 Main Street, Penticton. H.D. Thain, City Clerk 400 Argyle Street, Port Alberni. A. Thomson, City Clerk 1100 Patrica Blvd., Prince George. D. Ratcliffe. City Clerk 424 West Third Ave., Prince Rupert. P. Hayward, City Clerk Box 170, Revelstoke. W.H. Vickers, City Clerk Box 1179, Rossland. J.P. Logelin, City Clerk 1394 Pine Avenue, T r a i l . F.R. Bunnell, Commissioner Greater Vancouver Water Di s t r i c t 2294 West 10th Ave., Vancouver 9. J.V. Witham, City Clerk (acting) 3400 30th Street, Vernon. Greater Victoria water Dis t r i c t 479 Island Highway, Saanich. White Rock Waterworks Co. White Rock. 209 Campbell River Chilliwack Diet. Coldstream Kent Di s t r i c t Kitimat Langley D i s t r i c t Matsqui Dis t r i c t Mission North Cowichan Powell River Salmon Arm Spallumcheen Squamish Sumas Slimmer land A.S. Khowles, Dis t r i c t Clerk Box 730, Campbell River J.A. Mulford, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 27.0, Chilliwack. J.F.. Trehearne, Di s t r i c t Clerk R.R. 2, Vernon. P..J.. G&irns, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box 70, Agassis. N. Underhi11, Di s t r i c t Clerk 1101 Kingfisher Ave., Kitimat. D.J. Doubleday, D i s t r i c t Clerk Murrayville, B.C. A.H.W. Moxon, Di s t r i c t Clerk 32383 South Fraser Way, Abbotsford. G0A. Reid, Di s t r i c t Clerk Box 1090, Mission City. A. VandeCasteyen, Di s t r i c t Clerk Box 273, Duncan. T. McVea, Di s t r i c t Clerk 6910 Duncan Street, Powell River. D..R. Smith, Dis t r i c t Clerk Box 40, Village of Salmon Arm. W.E. Saby, Di s t r i c t Clerk Box 100, Armstrong. W.D. Kennedy, Di s t r i c t Clerk Box 310, Squamish. H. Harnett, D i s t r i c t Clerk 34609 South Fraser Way, Ahhotsford. G.D. Smith, Dis t r i c t Clerk Box 159, Summerland. 210 Terrace Castlegar Comox Creston Fort St. John Hope Klnnalrd Ladysndth Merritt Mission City Quesnel Sidney Smithers Williams lake J. Pousette, D i s t r i c t Clerk Box §10, Terrace. A. Percheson, Town Clerk Box 519, Castlegar. Miss E . M . Turnbull, Town Clerk Box 220, Comox. J.K. Hocking, Town Clerk Box 1339, Creston. E o R . Crabbe, Town Clerk Box 969, Fort St. John. S.D. Stearn, Town Clerk Box 609, Hope. A. Selbie, Town Clerk Box 250, Klnnalrd. J.W. Runciman, Town Clerk Box 220, Ladysmith. J.Co Mehain, Town Clerk Box 189, Merritt. R.A. S t i l l , Town Clerk Box 1150, Mission City. E.A. Green, Town Clerk Box 1060, Quesnel. A.M. Ferner, Town Clerk Box 190, Sidney A. Brown, Town Clerk Box 379, Smithers. R.H. Blackwood, Town Clerk Box 1928, Williams Lake. Burns Lake Cache Creek Clinton Cumberland Fort St. James Frultvale Gibsons Landing Golden Lake Cowichan Lillooet Kakusp Oliver Osoyoos Parksville T. Forsyth, Village Clerk Box 570, Burns Lake. D.6. McCormack, village Clerk Box 471, Ashcroft. G. Sawada, Village Clerk Box 309, Clinton. S.E.. Mounce, Village Clerk Box 340, Cumberland. K. Sutherland, Village Clerk Box 127, Fort St. James. R.W. Maddison, Village Clerk Box 370, Frultvale. D. Johnston, Village Clerk, Box 66, Gibsons. D. Ornond, Village Clerk Box 350, Golden, W.A. Chappell, Village Clerk Box 860, Lake Cowichan. G.A. Wiley, Village Clerk Box 610, Lillooet. Mrs. F. Sadd, Village Clerk Box 280, Nakusp. A. Winn, Village Clerk Box 638, Oliver. R.G. Smith, Village Clerk Box 301, Osoyoos. W.J. Cuthbert, Village Clerk Box 306, Parksville. Princeton A.J. Herman, Village Clerk Box 278, Princeton. Salmon Arm F.S. Middle ton, Village Clerk Box 99, Salmon Arm. Vanderhoof R.J. Cavanagh, Village Clerk Box 97, Vanderhoof. Warfield R. Carter, Village Clerk 555 Schofield Highway, T r a i l . 213 Mailing Addresses for 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 South Bend Tacoma Walla walla Wenatchee Woodland Enquiries to a l l above places were addressed to 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 for Agencies Surveyed - Oregon. Albany Ashland Astoria Baker Bandon Bend Brookings Canyonville Condon Coos Bay Goquille Corvailis Pacific Power & Light Company Box 472, Albany Edward Fallen, Superintendent City Bail , Ashland Astoria Water Supply City Hall 97103 Vern Jacobson, City Manager City Hall 97814 Joe W. Burgher, Superintendent City Hall 97411 W.P. Drost, City Superintendent City Hall Brookings Water System 703 Chetco Avenue Brookings 97415 Wm. L. Preston, Superintendent City Hall 97417 B i l l Humphrey, Water Superintendent City Hall 97823 Coos Bay - North Bend water Board 264 South Broadway, Coos Bay Ron Dungey, water Superintendent City Hall 97420 John F. Porter, c i t y Manager City Hall 97330 Cottage Grove L.W. Coiner, City Engineer c i t y Hall 216 Dallas Drain Eugene Florence Forest Grove Garibaldi Gold Beach Grants Pass Hillsboro Hood River lid Grande McMinnville Madras M i l l City P.F. Friesen, Water Superintendent City Hall 97338 A.B. Giovanini, Superintendent City Hall 97435 Eugene Water & Electric Board 500 East Fourth Avenue, Eugene Don L. Hagle, Superintendent City Hall Troy Hines, Superintendent City Hall Garibaldi water Supply W.D. Fouste, Superintendent City Hall 97118 DeWain Wolfe, Superintendent City Hall 97444 Archie J. Twitchell, City Manager City Hall 97526 J.W, Barney, City Manager City Hall Hood River Water System Superintendent City Hall Phil Staker. Water Superintendent City B a l l 97850 water & Light Commission 250 Third Street McMinnville C.E. Ward, Jr<>, Water Superintendent City Hall Pacific Power & Light Company Stayton 217 Milton-Freewater Monmouth Myrtle Greek Myrtle Point Newport Oakridge Oceanlake Oregon City Portland Port Orford Powers Rainier Redmond Reedsport Henry Schneider, City Manager City Hall 97862 W.G. Wilmot, City Superintendent City Hall Darrell H. Bowman, Superintendent City Hall 97457 John D. Harriman, Superintendent 424 F i f t h Street Myrtle Point 97458 Donald A. Davis, City Manager c i t y Hall A. G. Johnson, City Superintendent City Hall Jack ft. IrsBlanc, Superintendent City Hall B i l l Jackson, Superintendent City Hall Ken Anderson, Chief Engineer City Hall 97201 City of Port Orford Water System Port Orford 97465 Harry Rolfe, Superintendent City Hall 97466 Pete lie Sollen, Superintendent City Hall 97048 John B. Berning, City Superintendent City B a l l B. A. Bartow, Superintendent Clear Lake Water System Reedsport 97467 a i s Roseburg Sandy Seaside Silverton Springfield Sutherlin Sweet Home The Dalles Tillamook Toledo,. Union Vernonia Warrenton Oregon Water Corporation FoO. .Box 1305 Roseburg 97470 R. Shanes, Water Superintendent City Hall Seaside Water System City Hall 97138 Lewis' -W. Yates, Superintendent City Hall, Salem C. Darreii SwatseX, Superintendent Springfield U t i l i t y Board Box 300, Springfield Terrel. Superintendent City Hall 97479 James Maloney, Water Superintendent City Hall 97386 Jim Manes, Supt. of Public Works City Hall Ted Fisher, Superintendent City Hall 97141 William Stone, City Manager City Hall Fred Peterson, water Superintendent City Hall 97883 Lee Jessee, Superintendent City Hall 97064 Alvin Joe Birkholz, Superintendent City Hall 97146 219 West Linn Winston Q.M. Corey, City Hall Super intendent 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 -> California Angels Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 245 Market Street San Francisco 94106 Antioch Antioch City P.O. Box 369 Antioch 94509 Areata Areata City 736 P street Areata '95521 Auburn Meadow Vista County Water Di s t r i c t P.O* Box 278 Meadow Vista 95722 Benicia Benicia City P.O. Box 456 Benicia 94510 Bishop Chula v i s t a Bishop City 207 West Line Street Bishop 93514 California-American Water Co, 386 Third Avenue chula Vista 92010 San Jose, & Vic, Calistoga California water Service Co, P.O. Box 1150 San Jose 95108 Calistoga City 1232 Washington street Calistoga 94515 Cedar Flat 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 City 815 West Sixth Street Corona 91720 Crescent City Crescent City 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 E l Modeno California-American Water Co. P.O. Box 8438 San Marino 91108 Santiago Water Company P.O. Box 188 San Dimes 91773 Elsinore Elsinore Valley Mutual water Dist* 16755 Grand Avenue Elsinore 92330 Elsinore Elsinore City water System 130 south Main Street Elsinore 92330 Elsinore Elsinore water Dis t r i c t 16788 Rice Road Elsinore 92330 Eureka Eureka City Water System P.O. Box 1018 Eureka 95501 F a i r f i e l d F a i r f i e l d City Water System City Hall F a i r f i e l d 94533 Ferndale Citizens U t i l i t i e s Company 550 Shaw Avenue Ferndale 95536 Folsora Folsom City Water System 50 Natoma Street Folsom 95630 Fort Bragg La Mesa Fort Bragg City Water System 416 North Franklin Fort Bragg 95437 Helix Irrigation 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 City water System 517 G street Lincoln 95648 Lompoc Los Angeles Monrovia Lompoc City water System 119 West Walnut Avenue Lompoc 93436 Department of water and Power P.O. Box 111 Los Angeles 90054 Monrovia City water System 415 South Ivy Avenue Monrovia 91016 srapa Oroville Napa City Water System 955 School Street Napa 94558 Orovllle-Wyandotte irrigation Dist. P.O. Box 229 Oroville 95965 Palm Springs Desert water Agency 1345 North Palm Canyon Dr. Palm Springs 92262 Pasadena PetaXuma PXaeerviXXe PortoXa Redding Red BXuff RedXands Pasadena c i t y water system X00 Herth Garfield Avenue Pasadena 9X109 PetaXuma c i t y water system P.O. BOX, 949 • PetaXuma 94952 PXaeerviXXe City water System P.O. Box 372 Placerville 95667 PortoXa City water System P.O. Box 1154 PortoXa 96122 Redding City water System P.O. Box 2003 Redding 9600X Red Bluff City water System P.O. Box 8X0 Red Bluff 96080 RedXands City water System P.O. Box 280 RedXands 92373 Rialto RlaXte City Municipal water Dint* 150 South Palm Street RlaXto 92376 RoseviXXe RoseviXXe City water System 3X6 Vernon Street RoseviXXe 95678 Sacramento Sacramento City Water System City Hall, Room XX2 Sacramento 958X4 Saint Helena Saint Heiena City Water System 1480 Main Street Saint Helena 94574 224 San Bernardino San Bernardino City Municipal water Diet. P.O. -'Box 710 San Bernardino 92403 San Diego San Francisco San Diego Water System 5851 Ryan Road San Diego 92105 San Francisco City & County water System 1000 E l Camino Real Millbrae 94030 San Jose San Jose'water works 374 West Santa Clara San Jose 95113 San Jose San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara San Jose City' Water System-' City Hail, 801 North F i r s t Street San Jose 95110 San Luis Obispo county water works • < -'-.District' #1 P o0. Box 1328 San Luis Obispo 93401 Santa Barbara City water system P.O. Drawer P Santa Barbara 93102 Santa Cruz Santa Paula Sonoma (County) Encinitas V i c i n i t y San Dieguito Santa Cruz City Water System P.O. ;Box -'919' Santa Cruz 95060 Santa-Paula water works Ltd. P.O. Box 230 Santa Paula 93060 Sonoma County Flood Control & Water Conservation D i s t r i c t 2555 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa 95401 San Dieguito Irrigation D i s t r i c t 59 East D street Encinitas 92024 225 Vallejo Ventura watsonville Yucaipa Yucaipa Bast Bay Grass Valley Bemet-Valle Vista San Rafael Placerville Rancho Santa Fe Vallejo City Water System P.O. Box 831 Vallejo 94590 Ventura City Water System P.O. Box 99 Ventura 93001 watsonville City Water System P.O. Box 149 Watsonville 95076 San Bernardino valley Munic. water Dist. P.O. Box 458 Yucaipa 92399 Western Heights water Company 32344 Avenue O Yucaipa 92399 East Bay Municipal U t i l i t i e s Diet. 2130 Adeline street Oakland 94623 Nevada Irrigation D i s t r i c t P.O. Box 1019 Grass Valley Lake Hemet Municipal Water Di s t r i c t P.O. Box 97 Hemet 92343 Marin Municipal Water D i s t r i c t 220 Hellen Avenue Corte Madxe 94925 E l Dorado Irrigation D i s t r i c t P.O. Box 152 Placerville 95667 Santa Fe Irrigation D i s t r i c t P.O. Box 409 Rancho Santa Fe 92067 APPENDIX XX Pinal Draft of Questionnaire T H E UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A V A N C O U V E R 8, CANADA FACULTY OF FORESTRY 1 Dear I am a graduate student i n the Faculty of Forestry at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, and an commencing a Master's thesis focusing upon the recreational use of municipal water-supply areas, with, particular emphasis upon are^s supplying water for domestic consumption. The basis for my thesis i s to be the data obtained'from the enclosed questionnaire, which has been sent to water-supply agencies throughout British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. To enable me to conduct this survey, I ask your co-operation in answering this questionnaire. Please feel free to comment in the spaces provided, or enclose supple-mentary information when returning the questionnaire, " i t would greatly speed my conclusion of this study i f you would complete the questionnaire at your earliest conven-ience and" return i t to me i n the self-addressed envelope. I wish to thank you very much for contributing your time and effort to aid me i n my studies, and would be happy to provide you with an abstract of my thesis following*its completion. Yours sincerely, MGM/ap Melvin G. Moffat Faculty of Forestry UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver 8, B.C. SURVEY OF MUNICIPAL WATER-SUPPLY AREAS Regions Surveyed J B r i t i s h Columbia Washington Oregon California Section I General Information To be completed by a l l agencies Section II General Management Policy To be completed by a l l agencies Section III Policy on Recreational Use To be completed ONLY by agencies ALLOWING recreational use PAGE 1 SECTION 1 Section 1. General Information. To "be completed by a l l agencies. **a. Present population served? 4. Water Supply F a c i l i t i e s a. Treatment plant? Yes ( ) No ( ) I f yes, then s p e c i f y type, as to the f o l l o w i n g : Aeration b. Projected service population f o r year 1980? p a. Water Consumption Avg. total/day? (1000's of s a l . ) D i s i n f e c t i o n F i l t r a t i o n Sedimentation Softening b. Domestic Use/dav? % of t o t a l Non-domestic Use/dav? 7<> of t o t a l Taste and odor c o n t r o l b. I f water i s treated? Capac. of plant (1000's of gal.) / nr. / dav. 3. Nature of Water Supply? a. r i v e r or creek ( ) b. na t u r a l lake - c o n t r o l l e d ( ) flow c. natural lake - uncontr'led ( ) flow d. a r t i f i c i a l impoundment ( ) e. ground water ( ) c. What i s the present c a p i t a l investment i n the water supply system? d. What i s the cost per m i l l i o n gallons of water?"(include operation, maintenance, and amortization of investment costs) Untreated water $ Treated water $ COMMENTS: Heservoir lio. (most to least important) Mature of 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 . 5-6. K> fcrj o I—V (1) most to least important with regard to meeting day to day demand (2) natural water body (lake), or, a r t i f i c i a l impoundment ( 3 ) Heservoir Type i s one of the foliowins* storage - reservoir providing storage of untreated water at upstream points i n the watershed terminal - areas providing end storage of water pr i o r to treatment d i s t r i b u t i o n - reservoirs within the area served and d e l i v e r i n g finished water ready for consumption N0T3 - l i s t Only i f space l e f t over. ( 4 ) name of p r i n c i p a l creek, r i v e r , or lake (identify which) ( 5 ) lands surrounding the reservoir(s) PAGE 3 SECTION 1 6* a. What i s the status of the lands surrounding the reservoir(s)? % of Total Area (1) agency owned - agency managed ( ) (2) municipally owned - agency managed ( ) (3) municipally owned - municipally managed ( ) W leased from gov't, (prov., state, fed.) ( ) (5) leased from private ( ) (6) prov. (state) owned & managed ( ) (7) federally owned & managed ( ) (8) privately owned & managed ( ) (9) other (please soecify) ( ) b. What i s the status of the lands comprising the contributory watershed(s)? % 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 ( ) (?) federally owned & managed ( ) (8) privately owned & managed ( ) (9) other (please sDecify) ( ) PAGE 4 SECTIOU 1 7. Are you considering the acquisition of additional reservoir buffer lands, or watershed lands? Yes ( ) No ( ) Reasons: 8. What agreements, i f any, have you with private or public owners of watershed lands above the reservoirs (or water-intake) with respect to: (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 are qualified i n the following f i e l d s : F i e l d Number Degree or Diploma C i v i l engineering ( ) Biology ( ) Analytical chemistry ( ) Ecology ( ) Forestry ( ) Forest hydrology ( ) Other (specify) ( ) . PAGE 5 SECTION 1 ^ * a e What are the vegetative cover types of the b u f f e r lands? r e s e r v o i r Reservoir No. (most to l e a s t important, as i n ques. #5) Cover Type Forest % Shrub % Grass % Other ( s p e c i f y type) % 1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. b. What are the vegetative cover types of the watershed lands? Watershed Area (most to l e a s t important, as i n ques. #5) Cover Type Forest % Shrub % Grass % Other ( s p e c i f y type) % 1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. COMMENTS PAGE 6 SECTION 2 Section 2. General Management Policy. To be completed by ALL agencies "*"*L# a. Is your agency*s management policy one of single-use secondary resource uses included? or are (1) Single-use (Potable water supply OiilLY) ( ) (2) Secondary uses included (IP so, skip to question ffL2i) ( ) b. Reasons for Singlenise Policy (rank i n order the 3 most important) (1) Restricted authority ( ) (2) Limited budget ( ) (3) Lack of public demand for other uses ( ) (4) Creates more problems than benefits ( ) (5) Legal obligation to supply pure water ( ) (6) Potential 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 soeclfy) ( NOTE IF other uses occur CONTRARY to agency policy, please give details i n Question #$2. OTHERWISE skip to Question #3*3. COMMENTS: PAGE 7 SECTION 2 12 a. Indicate which of these other resource uses ares 1. Mot allowed 2. Allowed - unregulated, 3. Allowed - regulated 4. Actively planned and managed INDICATE BY NUMBER for each of the following: Logging (commercial) Grazing Other agriculture Mining Hydro-electric power Flood control Recreation (any type) Other (please specify) b. Do uses occur because your agency has no legal right to control 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 potential of the lands administered by your agency? Excellent High Average Low Very Low ( ( ( ( ( b. What are the recreational opportunities within a 100 mile radius of your agency's most important raw-water reservoir and/or watershed? (most important with regard to meeting day to day demand) ACTIVITY OPPORTUNITY LEVEL (indicate with an X) Excellent High Average Low Very Low Fishing (fresh water) Boating Swimming Picnicking Camping Hiking Snow skiing Skidooing Other (specify) c. Who could supply additional information about recreation opportunities i n this area? Municipal < State National PAGE 9 SECTION 3 Section 3« 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) * a. Which WATER oriented r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s are permitted and what ( i f known) was the i n t e n s i t y of use (1968)? YES A c t i v i t y Area V i s i t o r s (Reservoir No. 1968 as i n Ques. #5) Fi s h i n g - from shore only ( ) ( ) ( - from boat only ( ) ( „) ( - both - - - - - - ( ) ( ) ( Canoeing and rowing ( ) ( ) ( , , Motorboating - e l e c t r i c powered ( ) ( ) ( - gas powered ( ) ( ) ( Waterskiing ( ) ( ) ( S a i l i n g - - - - - - - - ( ) ( ) ( Swimming ( ) ( ) ( Scuba d i v i n g - - - - - - ( ) ( ) ( Other (specify) ( ) ( b. Which LAND oriented r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s are permitted and what ( i f known) was the i n t e n s i t y of use (1968;? YES A c t i v i t y Area V i s i t o r s (Watershed Area 1968 as i n Ques. 10) Pi c n i c k i n g ( ) ( ) ( Camping ( ) ( ) ( Hiking - - - - - - - - ( ) ( ) ( Horse r i d i n g ( ) ( ) ( _ Nature observation - - - - ( ) ( ) ( Hunting ( ) ( __) ( Snow s k i i n g = - - - - - - ( ) ( ) ( ___ Skidooing ( ) ( ) ( Other (speci f y ) (___ ) ( PAGE 1 0 SECTION 3 1 5 . User Access Control (Indicate the methods used, by ranking most to least important.) None ( ) Area design - - - - - - - ( ) Area zoning ( ) Permits - free - - - - - - ( ) Permits - fees ( ) Fee charge (without permits) - - ( ) Clubs & Associations only ( ) Other (specify) ( ) ( ) 16. Do you control tne intensity of recreational use? Yes ( ) No ( ) If YES, explain how: 1 7 . Indicate the PKlNCIPAL method of conduct control employed. Education and persuasion ( ) Rules and regulations - honour system ( ) Rules and regulations - enforcement and / s penalty system Other (please specify) ( ) ( ; A^GiS 11 SECTION 3 18. What regulations on recreational use have been established with respect to protection of: ( 1 ) the watershed and/or the reservoir buffer lands (2) the water quality (If available, please send copy of regulations. If published regulations not available, please indicate regulations below.) 19. Have you detected any changes i n water quality as a result of recreational use? Yes ( ) No ( ) If YES, please give details below: 20. What level of treatment would be necessary i f recreation were NOT permitted? COMMENTS: PAGE 1 2 SECTION 3 2 1 . How are the costs added by recreational use met? (If more than one. method, indicate order of importance.) ( 1 ) Completely self-supporting recreation programs (2) P a r t i a l l y self-supporting recreation programs ( 3 ) Increased water rates (4) General tax levy (5) Other (please specify) 2 2 . If there have been any studies done i n your area of the impact of recreation programs on water quality and yie 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 III Regression Analysis Data card Format 229 Data Card Arrangement - Plotting and Regression Analysis Data Set One - General Agency Characteristics Card 1 Card Variable c o l . No. Format Variable Description 1-5 Identification number and card number 6 Blank 7-9 Yl F3.0 Multiple-use score 10-12 Y2 F3.0 Recreation-use Score 1 Rl =» Sum (activities 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 privately con-trolled buffer lands 46—49 X7 F4.0 Average percentage federally eon-trolled buffer lands 230 50-53 X3 F4.0 54-57 X9 F4.0 58-61 X10 F4.0 62-65 X l l F4.0 66-69 X12 F4.0 80 Card 2 Card Variable Col* Mo* Format 1-5 6 7-9 X13 F3.0 10-12 X14 F3.0 13—15 X15 F3.0 16-18 X16 F3*0 19-21 X17 F3.0 22-24 X18 F3.0 25-27 X19 F3.0 Average percentage state (provinc-i a l l y ) controlled buffer lands Average percentage municipally and/or agency controlled watershed lands Average percentage privately con-trolled watershed lands Average percentage federally con-trolled watershed lands Average percentage state (provinc-i a l l y ) controlled watershed lands Indicates agency without reservoirs -code 1 Variable Description Identification number and card number Blank Total number of personnel Number of engineers Number of biologists Number of analytical chemists Number of foresters Number of bachelor degrees Number of post-graduate degrees 231 23-31 X20 F4oO Average percentage forest cover -buffer lands 32-35 X21 F4.0 Average percentage shrub cover -buffer lands 36-39 X22 F4.0 Average percentage forest cover -watershed lands 40-43 X23 F4.0 Average percentage shrub cover -watershed lands 44-45 X24 F2.Q Rated potential of lands 46-48 X25 F3.0 Opportunity Score 80 Indicates agency without reservoirs -code 1 Data Set Two - Specific Reservoir Characteristics Card Variable Col. No. Format Variable Description 1-5 Identification number and card number 6 Blank 7-9 Y6 F3.0 Recreation-use Score 3 R3 m Sum(activities allowed) 10-12 Y7 F3.0 Recreation-use Score 4 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 35-41 X30 F7.0 42-45 X31 F4.0 46-49 X32 F4.0 50-53 X33 F4.0 54-57 X34 F4.0 58-60 Y4 F3.0 61-63 Y5 F3.0 Area of reservoir buffer- lands Area of watershed Percentage forest cover of buffer lands Percentage shrub cover of buffer lands Percentage forest cover of watershed lands Percentage shrub cover of watershed lands Water Recreation Score WRI «•• Sum(water activities) water Recreation Score 2 WR2 = Sum(water activity x mgm*t. wt.) APPENDIX IV Summaries of Management Policies 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. IN the Constitution of the American Water Works 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 distri-bution of safe and adequate water sup-plies; [3] to promote satisfactory rela-tionships with the consuming public; and [41 to give proper consideration to and express opinions upon practices which will enable the industry to ren-der 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 fos-ter measures designed to provide the public with safe and adequate water. Purveyors of public water supplies have always had the primary respon-sibility for providing the consumers with safe and palatable water. This traditional objective has a major bear-ing upon the attitude which the water works executive takes when consider-ing 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 protec-tion of water supplies are so varied as to locality, size, and facility that a definite policy attendant t o the own-ership and control o f reservoirs and their marginal areas has not been es-tablished by practice. The establish-ment of a specific overall policy is im-practicable. Further, the water works executive must necessarily consider the implications of the varying attitude* of the public toward the utility's prop-579 235 580 crtii's. Tin's variation is wide when applied to privately owned and pub-licly owned properties. He must, however, alwavs hear in mind his pri-mary responsibility to supply a safe and palatable water. Moreover, the location, purpose, and utility of reser-voirs must be considered in reaching decisions concerning recreational uses. Reservoirs may be classified as: 1. Iiqua/i::iiif/ reservoirs—reservoirs within the area served and delivering finished water ready for consumption to the distribution system. 2. Terminal reservoirs—-limns pro-viding end storage o f water prior t o treatment. 3. Upstream reservoirs—reservoirs providing storage of untreated water at various points in the watershed to provide or supplement the supply at the terminal. Equalizing and Terminal Reservoirs Policy: It is considered generally that recreational use of equalizing and terminal reservoirs and the adjacent marginal lands is inimical to the basic function of furnishing a safe and pota-ble water supply to the system's cus-tomers, and should be prohibited. Upstream Reservoirs Impounded or stored water in up-stream reservoirs can he.. classed in three categories: Class ./. Water derived from an un-inhabited or sparsely inhabited area, at or near the point of rainfall or snow melt collected in a storage reservoir, clean and clear enough to be distrib-uted to the consumers with disinfection only. Policy: Safe practice in the water works held recognizes the necessity ol permitting no recreational activity on four. AWWA the w-ater and watershed lands in and about such storage reservoirs. Class B: Water impounded from an area not heavily inhabited and allowed to flow from storage in a natural stream to the point of withdrawal and requiring treatment in varying degree in addition to disinfection. Policy: Limited recreational activi-ties on such reservoirs and adjacent lands are considered permissible under appropriate sanitary regulations. Class C: Water which has flowed in a natural stream before storage for a considerable distance, having received polluting materials from municipalities, industries, or agricultural areas; con-fined in a reservoir primarily for pur-poses of storage until such time as low stream flow makes the stored water necessary for the use of the down-stream city; and later allowed to flow from the reservoir to the tributary-water works in an open stream acces-sible to the public; and requiring com-plete treatment. Policy: Recreation is considered per-missible under appropriate sanitary regulations. The determination of the kind and extent of recreational use shall be the sole responsibility of the water works executive of the system involved, whose primary obligation it is to provide a safe and potable water, and subject only to existing police powers. Summary The American Water Works Asso-ciation registers its opposition t o legis-lation permitting or requiring the o p e n i n g of domestic water supply res-ervoirs and adjacent lands to recre-ational use. Control of water supply reservoirs must remain the prerogative o l t h e water purveyor. A W W A S T A T K M K N T O F 1 ' O L I C Y 236 Agency Personnel Qualifications - by Region British Columbia Washington Oregon California Bachelor Degree 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 ications 2 1 5 4 No Response 2 1 1 2 Agencies U t i l i z i n g Consultants - by Region Brit i s h 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 - for Bri t i s h Columbia only Actively Hot Allowed Allowed Planned Ho Allowed Unregul. Regul. & Mgn'd. Response Commercial Logging 2 1 7 3 21 Grazing 6 2 3 23 Other Agriculture 5 2 3 25 Mining 6 1 2 - 25 Hydro-elec• Development Flood Control 26 4 - 4 - 26 Recreation 3 5 5 - 21 Total Ho. 34 (Adjusted for those agencies not of Agenciess involved in land management) 233 Summary of Other Pees Reported by 'Single-use 1 Agencies - for Washington only Commercial Logging Actively Hot Allowed Allowed Planned Ho Allowed Unregul. Regul. & Mgn'd. Response 1 1 1 8 ©razing 1 1 1 8 Other Agriculture 2 1 — — 8 Mining 2 - - - 9 Hydro-elec. Development Flood Control 2 1 - 1 - 9 Recreation 1 - 1 - 9 Total Ho* of Agenciess 11 (Adjusted for those agencies not involved in land management) 239 Summary of Other Uses Reported by 'Single-use' Agencies - for Oregon only MOt Allowed Allowed Unregul. Allowed Regul. Actively Planned & Mgn'd. J Ho Response Commercial Logging «• 1 3 1 10 Grazing 3 1 - - 11 Other Agriculture 3 1 - - 11 Mining 2 mm 1 - '12 Hydro-elec. Development 3 - - - 12 Flood Control 3 mm - 12 Recreation 2 2 1 - 10 Total Ho. of Agencies* 15 (Adjusted for those agencies not involved in land management) 240 Summary of Other Uses Reported by 'Single-use' Agencies - for California only Not Allowed Allowed Unregul. Allowed Regul. Actively Planned & Mgn'd. No Response Commercial Logging 2 - 1 17 Grazing m m 1 2 1 16 Other Agriculture I 1 1 17 Mining 1 - • 1 18 Hydro-elec. Development 1 1 - 18 Flood Control 1 1 18 Recreation 1 «*• 2 1 16 Total No. of Agencies s 20 (Adjusted for those agencies not involved in land management) Recreation Opportunities within 100 Mile Radius (A l l Responding Agencies Tabulated) British Columbia Systems Excellent High Average Low Very Low HO Response £ % f % f % f % f f % Fresh Water Fishing 24 46.2 6 11.5 7 13.5 15 28.8 Boating 22 42.3 6 11.5 4 7.7 4 7.7 2 3.8 14 26.9 Swimming & scuba 17 32.7 5 9.6 7 13.5 5 9.6 2 3.8 16 30.8 Picnicking 22 42.3 8 15.4 4 7.7 4 7.7 14 26.9 Camping 22 42.3 6 11.5 5 9.6 4 7.7 1 1.9 14 26.9 Hiking 24 46.2 4 7.7 5 9.6 4 7.7 15 28.8 Snow Skiing 18 34.6 7 13.5 5 9.6 2 3.8 1 1.9 19 36.5 Skidooing 19 36.5 7 13*5 7 13.5 2 3.8 17 32.7 Notes Percentages based on total number of responses, n=52 Recreation Opportunities Within 100 Mile Radius (All Responding Agencies Tabulated) Washington Systems Ho Excellent High Average Low Very Low Response £ % f % £ % £ % £ % £ % Fresh Water 6 28.6 4 19.0 2 9.5 i 4.8 8 38.1 Fishing Boating 8 38.1 1 4.8 1 4.8 2 9.5 1 4.8 8 38.1 Swimming & Scuba 6 28.6 2 9.5 2 9.5 1 4.8 2 9.5 8 38.1 Picnicking 9 42.8 2 9.5 1 4.8 1 4.8 8 38.1 Camping 8 38.1 4 19.0 1 4.8 8 38.1 Biking 9 42.8 2 9.5 2 9.5 8 38.1 Snow Skiing 6 28.6 1 4.8 1 4.8 2 9.5 1 4.8 10 47.6 Skidooing 6 28.6 1 4.8 3 14.3 11 52.4 Notes Percentages based on total number of responses, n=21 Recreation Opportunities Within 100 Mile Radius (A l l Responding Agencies Tabulated} Oregon Systems So Excellent High Average Low Very Low Res pease f % f % f % % f % f % Fresh Water 15 50.0 8 26.7 10.0 4 13.3 Fishing Boating 14 46.7 5 16.7 3 10.0 3 10.0 1 3.3 4 13.3 Swimming & Scuba 12 40.0 5 16.7 7 23.3 2 •6*7 4 13.3 Picnicking 15 50.0 9 30.0 3 10.0 3 10.0 Camping 17 56.7 4 13.3 3 10.0 1 3.3 5 16.7 Hiking 16 53.3 4 13.3 6 20.0 4 13.3 Snow Skiing 12 40.0 3 10.0 1 3.3 5 16.7 9 30.0 Skidooing 12 40.0 2 6.7 1 3.3 5 16.7 10 33.3 Botes Percentages based on total number of responses, n~30 Recreation Opportunities Within 100 Mile Radius (All Responding Agencies Tabulated) California Systems SO Excellent High Average Low Very Low Response f * f % f 96 £ % f % f % Fresh Water 15 34.1 7 15.9 4 9.1 6 . 13 . 6 . 12 27.3 Fishing Boating 19 43.2 7 15.9 4 9.1 2 4.5 12 27.3 Swimming & Scuba 19 43.2 7 15.9 3 6.8 1 2.3 1 2.3 13 29.5 Picnicking 17 38.6 8 18.2 6 13.6 2 4.5 11 25.0 Camping 15 34.1 5 11.4 7 15.9 5 11.4 1 2.3 11 25.0 Biking 18 40.9 5 11.4 4 9.1 4 9.1 2 4.5 11 25.0 Snow Skiing 8 18.2 5 11.4 3 6.8 1 2.3 15 34.1 12 27.3 Skidooing 4 9.1 4 9.1 2 4.5 1 2.3 11 25.0 22 50.0 Notes Percentages based on total number of responses* n«44 Summary of Land and Water A c t i v i t i e s - Management Policy Type 2 Regions B r i t i s h Columbia Washington Oregon C a l i f o r n i a Activ- Total Total Total Total i t i e s Yes No N.A. Blank ? (f) Yes Ho N.A. Blank $ (f) Yes No N.A. Blank ? (f) Yes No N.A. Blank $ (f) Picnicking 2 1 3 ! 1 1 1 1 3 Camping 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 Hiking 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 Horse Riding 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 Nature Observ. 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 Not Applicable Hunting 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 Snow skiing 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 Skidooing 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 Golf 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 Fishing - Shore Only 2 1 3 1. 1 2 1 3 Fishing - Boat Only 2 1 3 . 1 1 2 1 3 Fishing - Both 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 Canoeing & Rowing Motorboat - Elec. 2 2 1 1 3 3 \ 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 Not Applicable Motorboat - Gas 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 Waterskiing 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 S a i l i n g 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 Swimming 2 i 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 Scuba 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 Summary of Land and Water A c t i v i t i e s - Management Policy Type 3 Regions B r i t i s h Columbia Washington Oregon C a l i f o r n i a A c t i v - Total Total Total Total i t i e s Yes No N.A. Blank $ (f) Yes No N.A. Blank $ (f) Yes NO N.A. Blank ¥ (f) Yes No N.A. Blank 5 (f) Picnicking 3 2 5 1 1 - 1 1 4 4 Camping 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 Hiking 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 4 4 Horse Riding 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 . Nature Observ. 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 Hunting 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 Snow Skiing 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 Skidooing 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 Golf 5 5 1 1 1 1 4 4 Fishing - Shore Only 1 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 Fishing - Boat Only 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 4 4 Fishing - Both 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 Canoeing & Rowing 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 Motorboat - Elec. 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 Motorboat - Gas 3 2 ' 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 Waterskiing 1 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 S a i l i n g 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 Swimming 1 4 . i 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 Scuba 1 4 5 1 1 1 3 1 4 Summary of Land and Water A c t i v i t i e s - Management Policy Type 4 Regions B r i t i s h Columbia Washington Oregon C a l i f o r n i a A c t i v - Total Total Total Total i t i e s Yes No N.A. Blank $ (f) Yes No N.A. Blank ? (f) Yes No N.A. Blank $ (f) Yes No N.A. Blank ? (f) Picnicking 1 1 11 1 12 Camping 1 1 8 4 12 Hiking 1 1 11 1 12 Horse Riding 1 1 8 4 12 Nature Observ. Not Applicable Not Applicable 1 1 9 3 12 Hunting 1 1 6 6 12 Snow Skiing 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 12 Skidooing 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 12 Golf 1 1 1 11 12 Fishing - Shore Only 1 1 1 11 12 Fishing - Boat Only 1 1 12 12 Fishing - Both 1 1 11 1 12 Canoeing & Rowing Motorboat - Elec. Not Applicable Not Applicable 1 1 1 1 10 10 1 1 1 1 12 12 Motorboat - Gas 1 1 10 2 12 Waterskiing 1 1 7 5 12 Sa i l i n g 1 1 8 4 12 Swimming i 1 1 7 5 12 Scuba 1 1 7 5 12 248 Summary of User Access Control - by Region and Management Policy ^\Region Methods ^ \ British Columbia Washington Oregon California None 3 1 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 Volun. Reg. 1 No Response Blank 1 2 Total No. of Agencies 5 1 1 1 4 12 Note* Black represents Management Policy 3 - Allowed Regulated Red represents Management Poli c y 4 - A c t i v e l y Planned & Managed 249 Summary of Use Intensity Control - by Region and Management Policy \vRegion British Columbia Washington Oregon California Method X. Yes No $ Yes No $ Yes No $ Yes No $ Limited Mo. of Permits 1 1 1 Letter of Permit Design Capacity Limit 5 Not Yet Necessary 3 No Method Indicated 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 Total No. of Agencies 5,0 1,0 1.1 4, 12 Notes Black represents Management Policy 3 - Allowed Regulated Red represents Management Policy 4 - Ac t i v e l y Planned & Managed $ - Indicates No Response Summary of Conduct Control - by Region and Management Policy Region British Columbia Washington Oregon California Rank Metho<J\^^ 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 2 3 9 None 1 1 Education & Persuasion 1 2 1 1 Rules & Reg. Honour Syst. 2 1 3 1 1 Rules & Reg. Enforcement 1 1 3 6 1 No Response 1 1 2 Total No. of Agencies 5,0 1.0 1.1 4, 12 Notet 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 9 m no rank indicated 251 Summary of Regulations on Recreational Use - by Region and Management Policy ^ \ Region Regu-lations British Columbia Washington Oregon California None 2 Signs Asking for Co-oper. Signs Prohibit-ing Dumping Municipal Ordinances 1 1 1 6 Forest Service Regulations 1 1 1 No Trespass Law (State* Prov.) Fish & Game Dept. Regul. Prov.(State) & County Health Regulations 1 2 Agency Zoning Regulations 1 2 No Response 2 1 1 Total No. of Agencies 5 0 1 1 1 4 12 Notes Black represents Management Policy 3 - Allowed Regulated Red represents Management Policy 4 - A c t i v e l y Planned & Managed HELIX IRRIGATION DISTRICT'S LAKE JENNINGS O P E N 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. F E E S The Helix Irrigation District operates the lake on a non-profit basis. The fishing fees pay for the fish which are planted and for the maintenance of the lake during the fishing season. T R O U T Catchable size rainbow trout are normally stocked each week in Lake Jennings during the fishing season to provide consistently good fishing. C A M P G R O U N D 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. R U L E S A N D R E G U L A T I O N S 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 CLOSED T O T H E PUBLIC, in accordance with the regu-lations 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 launch-ing 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 accompany-ing 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. ( O V E R ) 253 9. Subject to County animal health and quarantine regu-lations 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 re-sult 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. .. All rules and regulations of the State and County per-taining 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 A N D REGULATIONS E F F E C T I V E AS OF N O V E M B E R 1,1967 L A K E J E N N I N G S L O C A T I O N M A P EXTRACTS FROM CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE WATER DEPARTMENT CHAPTER VI, ARTICLE 7 Sec t i ons 67.00 to 67.70 (exc lud ing Sec t ions 67.55 to 67.59, publ ished separate ly) - 1 3 - 6 9 S E C . 67.40 W A T E R I M P O U N D I N G S Y S T E M — P O S T I N G OK N O T I C E S -A U T H O R I T Y T O E N F O R t E |{EGU I . A T I O N S (a) That the properties of the water impounding system owned by and under the control of The City of San Diego sliall IK -posted with notices against tres-passing, bathing, or unauthorized shooting, hunting, fishing or camping, and warning all persons against violation of any nf the ordinances of The City of San Diego, of the laws of the State of California, or any rules or regulations adopted pursuant thereto, which provide for the protection of any reservoir, or properties of the water impounding system. (b) That all officials and employees of the Division of Recreation and the Impounding and Transmission section of the Maintenance and Operation Division of the Water Department of The City of San 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 I M P O U N D I N G S Y S T E M — D E S I G N A T I O N O F P E R M I S S I B L E U S E S : (a) That the City shall designate, through the City Manager, which reservoirs o r property of the water impounding system of The City of San Diego, or any o f them, shall be open to the public for the purpose of camping, boating, shoot-ing, hunting and/or fishing, and unless otherwise permitted thereby, no reservoir o r property of the water impounding system of The City of San Diego shall be open to the public for any purpose. (b) That the City Manager be, and he is hereby authorized and empowered to adopt such rules and regulations or modification thereof, regulating and con-trolling entry, camping, boating, shooting, hunting and/or fishing privileges and sanitation, upon the reservoirs and properties of the water impounding system owned by or under the control of The City of San Diego. S E C . 67.42 W A T E R I M P O U N D I N G S Y S T E M — D E C L A R A T I O N O F R E G U L A T I O N S O F U S E : That all rules and regulations or modifications thereof concerning entry, camp-ing, boating, shooting, hunting and, or fishing privileges, and sanitation, upon the reservoirs or property of the water impounding system o'Nvned by or under the control of The City of San Diego, which are approved by the City Manager of said City, are hereby declared to be the rules and regulations governing such privileges and sanitation. S E C . 67.43 W A T E R I M P O U N D I N G S Y S T E M — P E R M I T S F O R H U N T I N G , F I S H I N G , C A M P I N G : (a) A l l persons desiring to shoot, hunt, fish, go boating or camp upon the properties of the water impounding system of The City of San Diego, where open to the public, shall first obtain a permit from The City of San Diego, and such permit or permits shall be issued in accordance with instructions of the City Manager. A l l holders of sucb permits shall present same to the respective keepers or their representatives for.checking. Permits shall not be transferable from 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 Manager. (c) No hunting, fishing 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 Dulzura Creek. 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 form prescribed by the City, which will show the amount paid for the permit, and the purpose date and period of time for which the permit was granted. S E C . 67.45 W A T E R I M P O U N D I N G S Y S T E M — R E G U L A T I O N S F O R R E C R E A T I O N A L A C T I V I T Y : — R E S T R I C T E D A R E A S : (a) A n y person availing himself of the recreational privileges and while upon-the properties of the water impounding system of The City of San Diego shall be subject to such local rules and regulations as are in effect, or as may be hereafter enacted for the various reservoirs and reservoir sites, and for the violation of the same a permit may be revoked and the party violating may be ejected from the properties. (b) A n y person while upon the properties of the water impounding system of The City "of San Diego, or on property controlled by The City in the operation and management of its water system, shall be subject to such local rules and regulations, including sanitary regulations, for the protection of the water supply, as are in effect or may be hereafter enacted for the water impounding system, or portions thereof, and for the violation of the same the party may be ejected from the properties and be subject to the fines for a misdemeanor as provided in the following sections. (c) A n y person apprehended upon the properties owned or controlled by the Water 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 , K E S I D E N T I U , P K O P E R T Y -C O N N E C T I O N en\it<;i:s 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, shall beiore such application wil l Regulations Relating to R E C R E A T I O N O N D O M E S T I C W A T E R S U P P L Y R E S E R V O I R S 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 D R I N K I N G W A T E R SUPPL I E S (Register 56, No. 22—12-22-56) 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, whole-some and potable, and does not endanger the lives or health of human beingf. r O T E : Authority cited for Article 5 ( § § 7623 through 7630) : Sections 102, 203, 203, and 4010 through 4035, Health and Safety Code. History: 1. New Article 5 ( § § 7623 through 7630) filed 12-14-56; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 56, No. 22 ) . 7624. Application of Regulations. These regulations are in-tended to be strictly applied to domestic water supply reservoirs oper-ated 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 in-tended solely or primarily for domestic purposes. The term "domestic water purveyor" means any person, corpora-tion, public utility, municipality, district or other agency or institu-tion 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 reser-voir, 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 with-out 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 P U B L I C H E A L T H T I T L E 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 reser-voir area and location of appurtenant facilities, a statement describing the details of the intended recreational use, a description of - the pro-gram for regulating use of the area, plans and description of the recrea-tional 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 num-ber of users. Such detailed plan shall have been approved by the gov-erning board of the water purveyor. 7628. Guides to Evaluating Application. In evaluating such application, the department shall be guided by the following considera-tions : (1) The size of reservoir, length of time of storage in the reservoir, topography of the reservoir site, prevalence of wind-induced currents, and other factors which may induce short-circuiting 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 pub-lic 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 depart-ments 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 depart-ment 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 satis-factory to the State Department of Public Health, approved dual chlorination may be acceptable; T I T L E 17 D R I N K I N G W A T E R SUPPL I ES (Register 56, No. 22—12-22-56) 1 5 6 . 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 distri-bution 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 to fishing, 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 reser-voirs is prohibited. 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 4 3 5 6 4 - 4 5 0 4 - 6 5 2A 260 Summary of Chancres in Water Quality Resulting from Recreational Use - by Region Region Brit i s h Columbia Washington Oregon California Change \. Yes Ho S Yes Ho $ Yes Ho $ Yes Ho $ Coliform Count Increased 1 Coliform Count Decreased 1 Turbidity Increased 1 Algal Growth Increased Ho Data 1 Blank 7 1 1 3 1 13 1 Total Ho* of Agencies 8 2 5 16 Hotet $ 8 8 no response Summary of Level of Treatment Required i f Recreation Prohibited - by Region ^ \ Region Level o x \ ^ Treatment British Columbia Washington Oregon California Total for A l l Regions Same Treatment 5 1 3 12 21 Ho Treatment Disinfection Only Surface Supply Treatment Mandatory 1 1 Hot Applicable 1 1 Ho Response 3 I 2 2 8 Total Ho. of Agencies 8 2 5 16 31 Summary of Methods of Meeting Recreation Costs - by Region Region British Columbia Washington Oregon California Rank Methods 1 2 1 1 1 2 9 Completely Self-supporting 8 1 Partially Self-supporting 1 4 1 Increased water Rates 1 2 Gen. Tax Levy 1 1 Not Applicable 1 1 Deficit Made Up From Gen. Funds 1 Gov't. Grants 1 No Response 3 1 1 Total No. of Agencies 5 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* 60- 70* Total 0 4 4 1 2 1 2 14 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 • 5 1 1 2 6 1 1 2 7 1 1 8 2 1 1 4 9 1 1 1 3 10 11 12 1 1 13 14 1 1 15 16 1 1 Total 8 7 5 5 2 4 31 APPENDIX V Regression Analysis Basic s t a t i s t i c s and Equations zm Details of Signifleant Equations for Y2 and ¥3 - w&ahiragton and Oregon combined Y-var* x-*var* Simple ; Corral, coeff. fatrcpt* or Regr* Coeff. R2 ¥2 X3 ^0.5988 8*4719 *0*0935 .3585 3*63 Y3 S3 -0,5776 22.8086 -0,2536 • 3336 ;:-l©*4. Details of Significant Equations for Y2 and ¥3 - California only Y*Var* X ~ V a r , Simple Correl* coeff. Xntrcpt« or Regr. Coeff. R2 Y2 X22 -0.6016 11.2576 -0.1003 .3620 3*86 Y3 X22 -0.5613 42*3600 -0.3824 .3151 16*32 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101993/manifest

Comment

Related Items