CBC - what’s happening?

Posted by: D_C_

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?

Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant (SCFP) was built primarily to deal with the huge particulate problems that resulted from mudslides in the watershed (remember that year when our tap water was grey/brown?).  But it also has the full regime of treatment processes for disinfection (UV and chlorination).  The plant can treat up to 1,800 million litres/day.  Certainly the plant will be affected by incoming water quality, but the capacity limit is based on the worst-case.

Keep in mind that the worst water quality is usually in the winter months (when the mudslides are likely due to ground saturation) when water consumption is at its lowest.  During summer months, water consumption is high, but source water quality is typically better.

So bottom line, SCFP is unlikely to hit a capacity cap due to source water quality - it's already been built into the model.

Posted by: KenN

Posted by: D_C_

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?

Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant (SCFP) was built primarily to deal with the huge particulate problems that resulted from mudslides in the watershed (remember that year when our tap water was grey/brown?).  But it also has the full regime of treatment processes for disinfection (UV and chlorination).  The plant can treat up to 1,800 million litres/day.  Certainly the plant will be affected by incoming water quality, but the capacity limit is based on the worst-case.

Keep in mind that the worst water quality is usually in the winter months (when the mudslides are likely due to ground saturation) when water consumption is at its lowest.  During summer months, water consumption is high, but source water quality is typically better.

So bottom line, SCFP is unlikely to hit a capacity cap due to source water quality - it's already been built into the model.

Donald Trump called to say that's fake news and should be no surprise when CBC are socialists and very bad people who do bad things many bad.

Logging and road building were allowed in all 3 watersheds until the early 1990's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Vancouver_watersheds

IMO, it's all about risk management and risk tolerance.  In the US, particularly California, source water reservoirs are used as recreation areas.  Pretty much no holds barred on swimming, power boating, jet skis, etc.  They accept the risk of contamination for the benefit of recreational use.  In all seriousness, a few swimmers peeing in the lake, or some gas spillage is trivial compared to the billions of litres held in the reservoir and won't likely stress treatment capacity.

In most of Canada, they simply opt for a more cautious approach and fence off the source watersheds from the public.

I can see valid arguments for both sides.  Risk of contamination is minimal and highly likely to be removed during the treatment process.  But then, all it takes is one sick fuck dropping something into the reservoir that passes through the WTP, to poison an entire city.  But I suppose that's still possible even in our closed watersheds, if someone is determined enough.

Posted by: KenN

Posted by: D_C_

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?

Seymour-Capilano Filtration Plant (SCFP) was built primarily to deal with the huge particulate problems that resulted from mudslides in the watershed (remember that year when our tap water was grey/brown?).  But it also has the full regime of treatment processes for disinfection (UV and chlorination).  The plant can treat up to 1,800 million litres/day.  Certainly the plant will be affected by incoming water quality, but the capacity limit is based on the worst-case.

Keep in mind that the worst water quality is usually in the winter months (when the mudslides are likely due to ground saturation) when water consumption is at its lowest.  During summer months, water consumption is high, but source water quality is typically better.

So bottom line, SCFP is unlikely to hit a capacity cap due to source water quality - it's already been built into the model.

This model is based on the public being excluded and the risks being relatively low, ya?

Would treatment to accommodate for public use and resultant contamination would be more extensive and more money, or would there just be more times where the water is low quality and/or unsafe and there isn’t really much to be done about it?

Is there commercial timber harvesting or other commercial resource extraction happening in that watershed?

Posted by: syncro

They’re right on the edge, so I would disagree with the idea there is no run-off that heads into the watershed. $$$

All the effluent from Grouse drains down the line of the Cut (there was a sewage overflow a few years ago....it was a mess at the top of Skyline/Baden Powell). Cypress flows west in all cases where there are structures.

Posted by: mudrunner

Posted by: syncro

They’re right on the edge, so I would disagree with the idea there is no run-off that heads into the watershed. $$$

All the effluent from Grouse drains down the line of the Cut (there was a sewage overflow a few years ago....it was a mess at the top of Skyline/Baden Powell). Cypress flows west in all cases where there are structures.

Run-off isn't the same as effluent. I find it hard to believe that nothing along that blue line won't end up in the watershed and the reservoir.

Somebody needs to start a thread for the watershed issue, I keep looking here to see if anything has been going on with CBC

Posted by: TonyJ

Somebody needs to start a thread for the watershed issue, I keep looking here to see if anything has been going on with CBC

Rode CBC recently.  

Metro Vancouver signs warning of trail changes ahead, then fifty meters of dry benchcut trail, then back to rocky jank with cheater lines around many of the more difficult sections.   Lots of loose armouring that needs stability resurrecting. A couple places of new attempts to get the water off the trail, some successful, others not so much.  Millennium log in great shape!  Other log rides and bridges cut out and tossed aside, Metro style.

A lot of great work could get done with some collaborative planning and volunteer labour.   This is not happening to my knowledge.

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.

KenN:  When I lived in lower Lonsdale, my tap water was delicious.  Now, I live in Lynn Valley and the tap water sucks.  What gives?

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: mudrunner

Posted by: syncro

They’re right on the edge, so I would disagree with the idea there is no run-off that heads into the watershed. $$$

All the effluent from Grouse drains down the line of the Cut (there was a sewage overflow a few years ago....it was a mess at the top of Skyline/Baden Powell). Cypress flows west in all cases where there are structures.

Run-off isn't the same as effluent. I find it hard to believe that nothing along that blue line won't end up in the watershed and the reservoir.

It looks like anything south of the gondola will not end up in the water shed (look at the line of the creek in the topo). Anything above that is hiking trails and not open to camping or overnight. The structures being the main source of discharge, are not in-line with run-off (or effluent) to the water shed. But it's a moot point. Dump a water bottle of coloured substance and see if it makes it 100'.

Posted by: mudrunner

But it's a moot point. Dump a water bottle of coloured substance and see if it makes it 100'.

for sure, and that was kind of my whole point with my first comment. with the amount of other types of activity in the region, restricting  recreation access doesn't make a lot of sense. the restriction is fear based on the idea that activity might somehow contaminate the water shed. guys have gotten kicked out for riding their bicycles along the service road yet it's ok to drive a truck through there. the story they're selling to restrict access doesn't jive with the other activities that do happen legitimately. how sweet would it be to do a descent from seymour peak?

The times I got the ride of shame by the patrol truck, the word from them about it was along the lines of preventing vandalism on the logging equipment. Meaningless words but that's what they were at the time.

On topic... Still remember Dip-what's-his-name just about having an aneurysm when he and Jeremy ran into us riding what was to be called CBC before it was unveiled. First time I met the guy and you know what they say about first impressions. For those of us from the days prior to mass public forestlands consumption... not very many of us... it was known as The Faultline or Andrea's Fault and originated by Clicker. It was a beautiful thing until someone wrote a magazine article about it... smh

Posted by: Mike.T

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.

KenN:  When I lived in lower Lonsdale, my tap water was delicious.  Now, I live in Lynn Valley and the tap water sucks.  What gives?

Source is the same, so my first guess would be perhaps piping in your new home?  If you went from a new(ish) condo in Lolo to an older home that's a real possibility.  I lived in a new home in LV 2012-2017 and found no difference in water quality when I moved to Parkgate area.

New homes/apartments typically use PEX piping, older homes have a lot of copper piping.  Homes built before late 80s/early 90s would be before lead was banned from the solder for piping, and the lead leaches into your water.  Have you compared what the water is like first thing in the morning (after sitting in the pipes overnight vs. after opening tap and letting it flush for 2-3 minutes?