Water Quality and Quantity Concerns

by Stephan Martineau & Miriam Mason Martineau

The water flows within the EACT watershed are extremely sensitive to human disturbance. An example within this watershed are Goloff, Sawan, Anderson and Chou Creeks. They are mainly fed by 13 draws, that are situated directly above private land, within a proposed cut block (according to SFP's latest five year development plans) and run underground or occasionally (during peak flow) as surface streams across the proposed logging road (branch 100+1-0+400 to 1+1300). The draws are uniformly spaced every 20-30 meters, with 15-30 meters in width and an average of 3-4 meters in depth.

Altogether, the 4 creeks become the water supply for at least 14 families. Because they are all small creeks and therefore much more susceptible to disturbance, we are very concerned not only about a drop in the quality of water, but also about the quantity and timing of flow. Disturbance to these naturally unstable creeks and springs could result in the quantity of water being reduced considerably or the flow stopping altogether.

Road building and logging often increase water turbidity (sedimentation), which makes the removal of organisms more difficult and can also create other health risks. It also heightens the chances of water systems being damaged. The creek channels in this watershed are steep and narrow, resulting in a cumulative effect of any sedimentation. This can potentially create blowouts and land slides at lower elevations (on private property).

Increased turbidity also increases the need for costly water treatment options. The increased silt and sedimentation from industrial activity can effectively clog a creek's natural percolation, resulting in less aquifer recharge as waters run more rapidly. The timing is then altered t6high flows in the spring season, followed by severely decreased fl9ws during the summer months due to lower levels of retained water.

Anderson Creek arises from at least 4-5 water sources that travel underground at times and reappear from seepage channels. When recognizable as a creek, it is always above ground. The larger area that Anderson covers, as well as the more numerous draws, ensure, among other reasons, a reliable flow all year round. It feeds 10 households. At the upper end of the slope, just below the proposed road and within the proposed cut block, Anderson is made up of small trickles, that slowly gather to form one main channel (Anderson Creek), halfway through Lot #8947. The creek continues to gather in quantity until it reaches the valley bottom. As the draws of Anderson Creek are especially steep and narrow, they accumulate and transport any sedimentation downhill, unloading the sediment onto benches (on private property). Any disturbance would thus be noticed further downstream, where water license holders make a living farming and operating a gravel pit.

A clearcut (involving earth and trees being moved and possibly ending up on top of the water flow) can alter the chemical interaction in the water, which is the drinking water for numerous households. Roads and clearcuts result in large amounts of surface water runoff, due to the poor drainage of compacted and sometimes burnt soil, and also because the forest canopy is no longer there to intercept a downpour. Roads act as transportation corridors for humans and animals, which often leave their droppings along the road. The surface water runoff washes this fecal matter unfiltered into the ditches, culverts and eventually into the sources of domestic drinking water. Logging could result in serious pollution to the untouched headwaters from the effects of dripping oil, hydraulic leeks, exhaust fumes from trucks, bulldozers and chainsaws and from other human activities.

Up to this point, we, the water users, have insufficient information as regards to types of fuels, oils and lubricants SFP would be planning to use. It has come to our attention that SFP intends to use canola-based, biodegradable chainsaw oil if they would work in our watershed.What studies have been made concerning the health effects of this type of oil when swallowed by humans? We also lack information concerning details of toilet facilities during any proposed development in this watershed and how the use of such facilities will be enforced Has the technical review team considered such questions and/or the possibility of submitting workers to stool and urine tests? The probability of becoming ill from drinking water depends on the quality of the raw water. Human access, increased sediment in the water (turbidity) and alterations in the natural filtration systems increase the risk of disease being introduced into a watershed. Increased sedimentation makes subsequent treatment less effective and more risky.

When natural filtration and high quality raw water have been disturbed, the water must be treated. Many forms of treatment are extremely costly. To avoid such costs, large cities, such as Vancouver and Seattle, rely on preserving the high quality of their raw water and chlorination. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, maintains that chlorination does not remove all harmful organisms. Chlorine also reacts with organic material in the sediment (increased human access = increased turbidity/sedimentation) producing organochiorides which are proven carcinogens. The rate of bladder cancer is significantly higher where drinking water is chlorinated.

We, the residents of the EACT Watershed, therefore strongly oppose chlorination as an option. Without filtration raw water quality takes on the primary preventative barrier to infections and diseases. Above mentioned cities have extremely stringent methods to keep humans out of the watersheds. The EACT watershed is still untouched. Nature provides filtration for free. The manmade version for a city the size of Nelson would cost at least $10 million to build and thousands of dollars a year to maintain. The natural forest floor acts as a sponge, effectively filtering water through its upper decomposing organic layers and allowing little surface runoff.

The natural filtration occurring in the creeks and springs allows hundreds of families in the Slocan Valley t6 live a healthy life, untouched by strong chemicals such as chlorine, whose negative side effects are becoming more and more known. It is quite inconceivable for water users to accept that the small amount of timber that would be accessed by entering this watershed can justify putting the health, safety, peace of mind and financial resources of the residents at risk.