Posted by: D_C_
Posted by: earleb
Convince BC Parks and the Metro watershed to let bikes in and we'd get that.
Keeping people out of our water supply is a good thing...
Not saying people should be swimming in the water, but does a few trails in the watershed really have an impact?
Posted by: earleb
Posted by: D_C_
Posted by: earleb
Convince BC Parks and the Metro watershed to let bikes in and we'd get that.
Keeping people out of our water supply is a good thing...
Not saying people should be swimming in the water, but does a few trails in the watershed really have an impact?
A trail next to the lake? I’m in. Literally. So, yes.
Does a bear shit in a lake? It must be more than protecting the quality of the water as the filtration would deal with that surely? Most water source lakes all over the world double as recreational lakes. Must be missing something. Just reduce the potential for amount of contaminants? If that's the case the cost benefit must be swinging in the direction of opening up for recreation.
Posted by: heckler
Posted by: earleb
Posted by: D_C_
Posted by: earleb
Convince BC Parks and the Metro watershed to let bikes in and we'd get that.
Keeping people out of our water supply is a good thing...
Not saying people should be swimming in the water, but does a few trails in the watershed really have an impact?
A trail next to the lake? I’m in. Literally. So, yes.
I am okay with them fencing you out of the lake if we can get access to the damn alpine by bike.
Posted by: earleb
Posted by: heckler
Posted by: earleb
Posted by: D_C_
Posted by: earleb
Convince BC Parks and the Metro watershed to let bikes in and we'd get that.
Keeping people out of our water supply is a good thing...
Not saying people should be swimming in the water, but does a few trails in the watershed really have an impact?
A trail next to the lake? I’m in. Literally. So, yes.
I am okay with them fencing you out of the lake if we can get access to the damn alpine by bike.
It's not just the lake...it's the watershed. All water flows downstream, so any water source in the area, will drain into the lake itself. Which is why you can't camp on Crown Mtn, West Crown, Dam, etc...
Interesting that we used to take sailing lessons in Glenmore Reservoir....Calgary's water source.
yet there are ski hills, roads, etc, right there
Posted by: syncro
yet there are ski hills, roads, etc, right there
The ski hills and public roads are outside of the watersheds. They don't drain into the reservoirs. Take a look at the map here with watershed boundaries: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Maps/WatershedMap.pdf
They’re right on the edge, so I would disagree with the idea there is no run-off that heads into the watershed. $$$
Some mountain biker taking a pee into the forest a vertical km from the watershed is going to wipe out all of Metro Van's water supply.
As someone above pointed out, many reservoirs act as recreational resources. It's pretty common to have access to watershed and reservoirs in the UK for instance.
When I moved here, I was surprised when I first looked at to local maps and saw all this public land which the public can't access...
I don’t know about that watershed, but in the Sooke watershed water treatment was considered as the water was getting regularly contaminated due to hunters, people dumping cats, runoff from logging, forest fires etc.
They went a different direction, excluding public access effectively, eliminating industrial activity And restoring watercourses that led to the reservoir.
Keeping the natural system intact was (is? I haven’t been involved for 20 years) determined to be a more cost effective method of delivering clean water than treatment. Perhaps that’s the approach there. Treatment would be very expensive for a city the size of Vancouver so I could see eliminating access as a way of reducing the degree of treatment necessary.
Well, they spent $850 million to build the Seymour Filtration plant so there already is treatment.
Treatment comes in many forms. If you eliminate the public, reduce contamination, and maintain the natural systems that produce clean water you reduce the level of treatment necessary, you don’t eliminate the need for treatment altogether, you just reduce it.
Treatment for the CRD was projected to cost over a billion. I’m guessing that $850 million plant would have cost a lot more if the public was allowed to be in there.
Posted by: KenN
I'm pretty up to speed on water treatment. I've spent 20 years as a consulting engineer, working on design and start-up of water and wastewater treatment plants.
That was question I had - is the design of the Seymour filtration plant reliant on the quality of the water coming in? Would outcomes be worse if the water coming in was of poorer quality?
Forum jump:
