Maintaining the safety of water supplies is therefore an important goal. The contamination of water is directly related to the degree of disturbance and contamination of the environment, since rain flushes airborne pollution from the skies, then washes over the land before running into creeks, lakes and below-ground aquifers from which drinking water is obtained.
The chances of disease infection from water are increased by logging and road building in watersheds due to loss of natural filtration by the undisturbed forest, by increased wildlife use of early successional vegetation, by human access that increases the likelihood of pollution, and by turbidity of the water due to erosion from roads and deforested slopes that makes disinfection difficult.
The fact that more than four out of every five people in B.C. depend on surface sources for their domestic water emphasizes the importance of watershed protection. Most community watersheds in the province are small; the mean area is 5.5 square kilometres. Although the smaller the watershed the more sensitive it is to damage from forest land use, exclusion of timbering and of use by cattle are not management goals at present though they have been in the past. As part of the Forest Practices Code, the Community Watershed Guidebook advises on forestry and agricultural practices such as timbering, grazing, and the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and fire-fighting chemicals within water source areas, but protection is discretionary. For example, no reserve zone is maintained around class S4 headwater streams; i.e. those less than 1.5m in width.1
The STATE OF THE WORLD Report for 1998 (issued by the Worldwatch Institute, New York: W.W.Norton) has harsh words for the lack of surface water protection in B.C.: "Clear-cutting was the harvest method on 92 percent of the blocks, including landslide-prone slopes; 83 percent of streams were clear-cut to the banks; fish-bearing streams were misclassified or unidentified by the companies; and destructive yarding--dragging logs through streambeds--was approved and common." The Report concluded "that the Forest Practices Code's standards were inadequate and that too much of the responsibility for identifying and protecting sensitive areas was left to the discretion of logging companies, who abused this obligation."2
The Ministry of Health notes that "most cases are not confirmed by a lab, and the actual incidence of waterborne disease in B.C. may be 10 to 100 times greater than shown." (The upper figure, should it prove true, would mean 4000 to 6000 cases per 100,000, an epidemic devitalizing four to six percent of the total population every year). Approximately 250 users of small water supplies in B.C. were being advised to boil their water in 1995. The boil-water advisory is two minutes or, at elevations over 2500 meters, three minutes.3,4 Costly alternatives to the boil-water advisory are community installations that filter the water and disinfect the waterworks with chemicals, and/or home systems that filter and disinfect the tap water.
Half a dozen different kinds of waterborne bacterial and parasitic diseases have been reported from time to time in the province. Bacterial infections by Campylobacter, Shigella, and Salmonella, as well as suspected viruses, caused seven of the 27 serious outbreaks in B.C. since 1980. Of the other 20 outbreaks, the chief trouble-makers are tiny parasitic animals (protozoa): Toxoplasma (fortunately rare), Giardia (the most common) causing giardiasis or beaver-fever, and Cryptosporidium causing cryptosporidiosis.3 These are intestinal (enteric) illnesses whose symptoms are diarrhoea, abdominal cramps, gas, malaise and weight loss. Vomiting, chills, headache and fever may also occur. The symptoms usually happen within 6-16 days after infection with Giardia, and 2-25 days after infection with Cryptosporidium.
Both giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis last for about a month. Anti-parasitic drugs are available for treatment of beaver-fever but not for the more dangerous cryptosporidiosis. No effective medical treatment to clear the latter infection exists. A strong immune system is the best defence. Cryptosporidiosis, and to a lesser extent beaver-fever, can pose serious threats to immuno-compromised people such as transplant patients receiving immuno-suppressive drugs, or those with AIDS or cancer.4 Unfortunately, iodine, chlorine and some portable water filters are not effective against Cryptosporidium although filtration is the primary line of defence against it.
Among the centres that have experienced waterborne disease outbreaks in B.C. are Victoria, Valemount, Princeton, Cranbrook, Creston, Revelstoke, Kelowna, and Penticton. During the Princeton outbreak an estimated 88 percent of the population caught beaver-fever (and wouldn't you know, there was a beaver in the watermain!). In Kelowna an estimated 10,000 people became ill from cryptosporidiosis.3
(1) BY REDUCING TO A MINIMUM THE DISTURBANCE AND CONTAMINATION OF SOURCE WATERSHEDS.
This is the obvious focus for management in relatively unpolluted environments. Undisturbed forested watersheds act like sponges that absorb precipitation (rain and snow melt), filter it, and release water gradually to keep streams and springs running clear throughout the year. Forests protect watershed soils against erosion that causes cloudiness (turbidity) in water. Disturbances such as logging around small streams and their headwaters adversely affect water supply and quality by reducing the forest's ability to store, filter and gradually release precipitation. Loss of tree cover, plus the inevitable skid trails and roads, increase erosion, sedimentation, and water turbidity. Early successional vegetation that follows logging is attractive to ungulates and to aquatic animals such as beaver, increasing the likelihood of water contamination.
In environments polluted by human use, industry, and agriculture, water treatment is unavoidable if such diseases as cholera, typhoid, dysentery, and hepatitis are to be prevented. Unfortunately water treatment involving filtration and chemicalization has many drawbacks: it is costly, it is not always effective against bacterial diseases and parasites, the taste of the drinking water is adversely affected, and various unhealthy substances--some of them potentially cancer-causing--may be created in the treated water depending on its organic matter content and the disinfectants used. Chlorine and chlorine compounds--the cheapest and most widely used disinfectants--are particularly suspect.
Costs are low when undisturbed Nature does the filtering, purifying, and slow releasing. Water quality problems and water-borne diseases may not be totally eliminated in water drawn from watersheds protected by old coniferous ("mature" and "overmature") forests but they are substantially lessened compared to areas where water sources are unprotected watersheds.
All B.C. Ministries of Health, Environment and Forestry agree, on paper, that WATERSHED PROTECTION PLANS are a necessary part of protecting raw water supplies that come from springs, creeks, reservoirs, lakes and shallow wells. The Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water4 recommends as essential the "multiple-barrier concept of water treatment," where the first barrier is watershed protection "where feasible."
The B.C. Ministry of Health provides assistance in the development of local watershed or well-field protection programs such as Integrated Watershed Management Plans and Well Protection Programs. As reported in 1997, the MOH has "traditionally deferred" to the MOE and the MOF in source water issues. "Our role in source water protection is primarily in an advisory capacity."3 Thus the Ministry of Forests, whose main mission is to authorize logging, has been handed the role of chief guardian and protector of source watersheds. (More than 2000 years ago Aesop pointed out the dangers of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse).
Contrary to the above statements, the Ministry of Health did not "traditionally defer" to MOF/MOE on water source issues. In a mandate that went back to 1898 the Department of Health through regulations issued under Section 6(r) of the Health Act had the power to restrict activities in community water supply areas in order to fulfil its responsibility for protecting the public health. During the 1970s the Ministry of Health was persistent in its efforts to have the authority and responsibilities of Medical Health Officers recognized.
In 1976 the MOH reported to the Chairman of the Task Force on Multiple Use of Watersheds for Community Water Supply that, "Our Departmental Solicitor advises that there is authority in the (Health) Act for the Medical Health Officer to prohibit access to watersheds." Two years later in a Memorandum to Task Force Chairman J.D.Watts from Wm Bailey, Director of Environmental Engineering in the MOH: "The Medical Health Officer has full responsibility for all matters dealing with the quality of drinking water in this province."
In 1978 the Ministry of Health stated, in its submission to the draft Guidelines for Watershed Management of Crown Lands Used as Community Water Supply, that its goal in the protection of drinking water supplies was "conserving in their best condition waters which have not been adversely affected, and to upgrade adversely affected water to its previous raw quality," and further that it was "trying to maintain the water in its natural, unabused state." In this the MOH was supported by the 1980/84 Ministry of Environment Guidelines for Watershed Management Used as Community Water Supplies.5 The objectives for water quality (Table 4.1, p.24) amounted to zero tolerance for deleterious substances entering the stream as the result of human activity in Category I watersheds (less than 6 square miles or 15 square kilometres in area) as well as in the larger Category II watersheds when these were deemed sensitive and critical.
By the early 1980s the MOH had been nudged out of the picture and relieved of its direct preventive and restorative powers over watersheds. At the annual general meeting of the Associated Boards of Health in 1985, defeat was acknowledged in the second "whereas" of Resolution No. 18, stating that "the multiple use of watershed areas for resource extraction, recreational use and possible public ownership, etc. is an acknowledged fact." And so MOH gave up the fight to be the guardian of safe water in B.C., capitulating to the stronger resource-extraction departments whose misleading slogan is "Multiple Use."
Since the '80s, the protection provided for "safe water" has decreased not increased in British Columbia. So far as safe water is concerned, "multiple use" of watersheds is a hoax unless redefined as primary use for water and secondary uses only insofar as they do not decrease the quality and quantity of the water. If drinking water is to be safeguarded in the province, the former responsibilities of the Ministry of Health must be restored by legislation. Further, in the final analysis decisions on how to manage watersheds must have as a first priority the needs and desires of local communities who should be meaningfully involved in the decision-making process.
Water-borne diseases usually result from faecal contamination of the water supply. Excluding humans and cattle from source water-sheds is an obvious safeguard. Wildlife species too are suspect, so no amount of watershed protection can guarantee totally safe water. According to MOH personnel, "In fact there is some concern that watershed protection leads to a false sense of security. The outbreaks in Valemount, Revelstoke and Victoria occurred despite relatively well protected watersheds" (* see below). Further, at the time of the Revelstoke outbreak, "There was a great deal of belief in Revelstoke that a protected watershed provided all the protection from waterborne illness that was needed."3
* With reference to the above, and before the importance of watershed protection is minimized, several key questions need answering: (1) How well protected is a "relatively well protected" watershed? What is the standard for such a judgement? (2) If a small watershed is completely protected by a mature or old-growth coniferous forest, what are the odds that waterborne diseases will not be a problem?
Answers to these questions are not known because insufficient attention has been given to research on the effects of human enterprises within water-source areas. Thus the MOH has stated: "One of the primary difficulties we have faced in providing assistance to agencies managing watersheds is the limited amount of solid evidence showing the effects of different activities in watersheds." Further, cryptosporidiosis and beaver-fever "have significant implications on the need to effectively manage watersheds to minimize contamination of source water and have created an increased need for a better understanding of exactly how different watershed management practices affect water quality."3 Clearly the launching of a comprehensive research program on watershed protection in the interests of the health of B.C. residents is overdue.
Chlorine and chlorine compounds are the usual disinfectants used in waterworks to combat contamination of the incoming source water. Chloramine, from chlorine and ammonia, is a longer lasting disinfectant than chlorine and is commonly used in long-pipe systems just because of its residual effects.
In clear incoming water, and in water clarified by filtration, Giardia (beaver-fever) can be controlled by chlorination although it is more resistant to chlorine than bacteria. Cryptosporidium is very resistant to chlorination and even filtration plants can fail and allow the organism to get into community water supplies. The MOH reports: "We may see more Cryptosporidium outbreaks in B.C. if we can't manage watersheds to minimize the risk of faecal contamination of source waters."3 Cryptosporidium, and other disease organisms, can be removed from drinking water after filtration by the more expensive treatment with ozone.
If the incoming water is not clear or is incompletely filtered then the effectiveness of chlorination or ozonation is reduced. The MOH reported that Kamloops has provided some evidence that turbidity (cloudiness) in tap water may correlate with increased illness in the community.3 Turbidity is caused by surface erosion somewhere in the watershed. It is usually combatted (as in Vancouver) by increasing the dosage of the disinfectants in the water. Unfortunately bacterial diseases, as well as the protozoa Giardia and Cryptosporidium, tend to evolve into chlorine-resistant forms, so that in the future more sophisticated (and more expensive) treatment within waterwork systems will likely be required to reduce the risks of disease outbreaks.
Chlorine is a very active disinfectant. It is cheap and the technology to get it into the water pipes is simple. This explains its widespread use instead of safer but more expensive disinfectants such as ultra-violet light and ozone.
Chlorine kills most bacteria in the water pipe system. When chlorinated water is used as a drink straight from the tap, it seems reasonable to suppose that it continues to disinfect the digestive tract, perhaps destroying useful internal bacteria, enzymes, hormones, and vitamins. Such direct effects of chlorinated water in the human gut have not yet been researched. But the indirect effects, when chlorine combines with carbon compounds in water, have been identified in many scientific studies as the cause of serious health problems.
Several decades ago it was discovered that chlorine reacts with bacteria and other bits of organic matter in water to create hundreds of toxic substances. In fact when any of the four halogens--fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine--are combined with carbon from organic matter they produce dangerous compounds such as PCBs, DDTs, chlorofluorocarbons, chlorobenzene, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl bromide. The chief contaminants of chlorinated drinking water are the trihalomethanes, also called organo-chlorides, one of which is chloroform. As discovered by tracing PCBs and DDTs in animals and humans, organo-chlorides are stored in the body's fatty organs and tissues where, though ingested in small doses, they bioaccumulate over the years or "biomagnify." They are implicated in various human diseases.
A study of about 5000 people in Ontario, reported in 1995, showed that long-time users of chlorinated water have an increased risk of bladder and colon cancer. (A health tip: Diallyl sulfide, found in garlic, inhibits the development of colon cancer in laboratory animals). "Between 10 percent and 13 percent of all bladder and colon cancers in Ontario may be attributable to long-term exposure to chlorinated surface water."6 Additional research in the USA found an association between domestic use of chlorinated water and rectal cancer.7 A California study found a relationship between miscarriages and consumption of five or more glasses of chlorinated tap water per day.8 An Italian study indicated smaller than normal size in babies of mothers drinking chlorinated water during their pregnancies.9 Suspected links with asthma, heart anomalies, premature aging, and other forms of cancer (oesophagus, breast, larynx, kidney, liver, pancreas, stomach) have also been reported.10
Health Canada no longer recommends boiling chlorinated water to reduce potential toxins. Users of chlorinated water can reduce their exposure to potential carcinogens by aerating the tap water in a blender, by storing it in the refrigerator for 24 hours, or by running it through domestic water-treatment devices containing filtering systems such as activated carbon. Unfortunately such treatment is not feasible for the quantities of water used in bathing and showering where the products of chlorination enter the body via the skin and lungs.11 A ten-minute shower in chlorinated water or a ten-minute swin in a cholorinated pool may be the equivalent of consuming several glasses of chlorinated water. (Health Tip: Wear a wet-suit and don't inhale while bathing or showering.)
Ozonation of the water is an attractive alternative to chlorination. The ozone molecule is an unstable combination of three oxygen atoms; its destruction of organic matter produces mostly harmless carbon dioxide and water. Because of its reactivity, ozone does not last long in the water system (low residual disinfection compared to chloramine) and therefore its effectiveness is reduced in long pipe networks. Ozonation works best in small community waterworks where the distribution network from treatment plant to household is relatively short. Cities, divided into smaller communal units, could also take advantage of ozonation. The treatment is more expensive than chlorination but, over the long run and considering the health risks likely from chlorination, it has much to recommend it. Many European cities and some in the USA disinfect their domestic water supply by ozonation.
When all else fails, when the source watersheds are not protected, when the water is contaminated, when filtration and disinfectants have raised alarms about carcinogens, when flat-tasting boiled water is the recommended drink, when ozonation or treatment with ultraviolet radiation is deemed "too expensive," then everyone can buy bottled water. At present a litre of bottled water costs two to three times as much as a litre of gasoline (price it in your local store). This is a growth industry, an attractive investment for those who strip the mountain forests.
Unfortunately the B.C. Ministry of Health does not monitor bottled water, because it is not supposed to come out of the tap. Although those licensed to sell bottled water must meet certain federal health standards in the equipment used, the quality control of the water product is minimal. "As bottled water is not routinely monitored for Giardia and Cryptosporidium, its suitability as an alternative to boiled tap water is unknown."4
When buying bottled water, carefully check the credentials of the provider. Make sure the seal on the cap has not been broken and the bottle filled from the nearest tap. Nobody knows exactly what is in bottled water. It may be as dangerous as untreated water from unprotected watersheds. Further, most bottled water is in plastic, perhaps the kind that emits the female-mimicking hormones.
Women, do we need more fake estrogens in the environment? Men, can you hear your voices rising?
REMEMBER: Costs are low when undisturbed Nature does the filtering, purifying, and slow releasing. Water quality problems and water-borne diseases may not be totally eliminated in water drawn from watersheds protected by old coniferous ("mature" and "overmature") forests but they are substantially lessened compared to areas where water sources are unprotected watersheds.