Carrigain well

[David Metsky]

Common sense would seem to dictate that if the water were truly hazardous, the well would be sealed shut.

Or, it would be marked non-potable.

 

[SAR-EMT40]

Common sense would seem to dictate that if the water were truly hazardous, the well would be sealed shut.

I am afraid that is "city-think". Since it would require a Herculean effort to get a welding unit up to that spot to weld it shut, I suspect that the powers that be considered signage to be enough of a deterrent in the backcountry. There are also no warnings or railings near the edges of the cliffs in the backcountry. They assume that your natural fear and intelligence will keep you from going over the cliff either intentionally or accidentally. This doesn’t always work either but it is the system that is in use in the backcountry. Personally I like it. I go into the backcountry to get away from the nanny state, to be my own master, if only for a few hours or days.

Just my $.02,
Keith

 

[dr_wu002]

What a shame to lose the well usage. Perhaps the Forest Service could clean out the well and then hire a security guard service to make sure that nobody poops in it again. It's a shame that the world has come to this: requiring an armed security post at a back-country well.

-Dr. Wu

 

[--M.]

It's really an excellent experiment, isn't it? It's isolated from every day life; it represents a sandbox of our own making; it's driven by lowest common denominator / weakest-link theory; it uses suggestion instead of force; it dangles a real benefit against an unnecessary insult.

I say it reflects human behavior at its most honest, don't you think?

I too was irritated by what I saw there, and I pretty much pack a whole day's water with me these days.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Isn't it generally considered better to filter/treat water from a moving source rather than a stationary one? While I'm kind of put off that the "well" was used as a latrine, it seems to me that humankind might be too lazy to be sure they are 200' or more from a water source at all times.

So far, I have managed to carry enough water on every trip. I ran out on Tom, Field and Willey, but on the way down, after Avalon, so I wasn't really in any trouble (and I knew I was running out...) I don't own a filter yet. I suppose I should buy an iodine treatment kit for emergency use...

I can see planning ahead for Owl's Head and Isolation and maybe a few others with known reliable running water, but otherwise I just carry. Yes, it's not light, but it's reliable.

Tim

 

[SAR-EMT40]

Isn't it generally considered better to filter/treat water from a moving source rather than a stationary one? While I'm kind of put off that the "well" was used as a latrine, it seems to me that humankind might be too lazy to be sure they are 200' or more from a water source at all times.

So far, I have managed to carry enough water on every trip. I ran out on Tom, Field and Willey, but on the way down, after Avalon, so I wasn't really in any trouble (and I knew I was running out...) I don't own a filter yet. I suppose I should buy an iodine treatment kit for emergency use...

I can see planning ahead for Owl's Head and Isolation and maybe a few others with known reliable running water, but otherwise I just carry. Yes, it's not light, but it's reliable.

Tim

Correct Tim. In general, it is always a much better idea to have water from a moving source than a stagnant source if possible. That doesn't mean of course that there isn't a rotting elk carcass 20 feet upstream but usually moving water is better than not. "The solution to pollution is dilution." The more dilute you can make any problem organism the better off that you are. Even with filtration and chemical treatment. Thousands of gallons of water rushing by a turd is less likely to be a problem then a turd percolating in one hundred gallons of water. Sorry to be so graphic but I think its a pretty good visual.

I always carry my filter and use it when camping. I have backup tablets "just in case" when hiking but if I know I'll need to get more water during the hike I'll bring my filter.

Keith

 

[albee]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't non-potable mean it requires treatment before drinking? Experienced backcountry travellers know that the safest drinking water has been filtered, boiled, and chemically treated. Some people will take their chances with just filtering water, some will just zap it wih their Steri-pen. (I'm not saying either of these techniques are sufficient or failsafe.) There is a jug in the well to assist access to this water - that does little to discourage people from using it as a water source. At worst, I would guess this site is as contaminated as a swamp with animal feces in it... in the end it is up to the drinker to determine their comfort level in their purification method.

That being said, is it really necessary to insist on questioning her boyfriend's common sense? How would a post like that benefit readers of this thread?

 

[SAR-EMT40]

non-potable -Water that is unsafe or unpalatable to drink because it contains pollutants, contaminants, minerals, or infective agents.

Without knowing what to treat the water for, how can you render it safe? As I mentioned, you cannot render safe mercury or lead or arsenic contaminants with iodine. Lead in particular was used in old piping and is pretty widespread in older pipe systems. There are also certain bugs that will not be rendered safe with iodine even after considerable contact time.

The only reason I am spending my time with this thread is because while 99 out of 100 people would never attempt to drink from a source listed as non-potable there is that one person that I hope will read this and realize that it probably isn't a good idea. That iodine isn't a cure for every possibility that could be found in groundwater in open cisterns. I am not intending to insult anyone and certainly wish no one harm. I can understand that some people might think that their filter or chemical treatment can solve problems that it cannot. For those people I hope to just shine a little more light on the subject.

regards,
Keith

 

[DougPaul]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't non-potable mean it requires treatment before drinking?

Def "potable": fit to drink http://www.thefreedictionary.com/potable

Thus non-potable would mean not fit to drink for any reason.

If the reason that it is not fit to drink is biological pathogens, then filtering (for bacteria, protozoans, and cysts) and iodine (for viruses) or boiling should make it potable*. (Backcountry water treatment techniques are often tested on city sewage...) If the reason is chemical contaminants then the above treatments would likely be ineffective.

In the case of the Carrigain well, if you want to drink it you have to guess what the contamination might be, apply whatever treatment you think is appropriate (and have available), and hope there are no problems. If it were life or death, I'd probably treat and drink (after all, the problems from biological contamination don't usually show up before 24 or more hours), but given the choice, I'd look for a better source.

* Other treatments may or may not work--IMO this isn't the place to debate them.

Doug

 

[albee]

Great posts, Doug and Keith! Now we are getting into some useful information.

Without knowing what to treat the water for, how can you render it safe? As I mentioned, you cannot render safe mercury or lead or arsenic contaminants with iodine.

In the specific case of the Carrigain well, how might these pollutants get into it? I was under the impression that mercury and arsenic were more commonly industrial pollutants and are unlikely to be found in a covered well, high on a mountainside. (Of course, I could be wrong...) The well probably dates to around 1910, so I wouldn't expect that lead was used in the pipes at that time.

Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate drinking water out of a fetid, stagnant pool. I just think you're going overboard in saying that this was a case of "city-think" and a lack of common sense. Of course that water is non-potable, but in this case I don't think it is non-treatable. You have both done a good job at identifying the proper thought process for identifying backcountry water sources - thank you - now let's consider how that relates to the well on Carrigain. (Without calling people names in the process.)

 

[Tom Rankin]

As Lawn Sale once wrote (huge paraphrase here): 'to be completely safe, filter and treat'.

If you do both, you can be fairly sure (but still no guarantees) that the water is drinkable.

 

[DougPaul]

In the specific case of the Carrigain well, how might these pollutants get into it? I was under the impression that mercury and arsenic were more commonly industrial pollutants and are unlikely to be found in a covered well, high on a mountainside. (Of course, I could be wrong...)

Chemical pollutants can leach out of rocks and soils. Acid rain (largely nitric and sulfuric acid, IIRC) both deposits acids in surface water and can react with rocks to release chemicals (IIRC, including mercury). Mercury is also placed in the atmosphere by burning. (One of the reasons that the DAKs have problems with acidified ponds is that there is little limestone in the rocks and soils to react with and neutralize the acids.)

There are springs in the desert southwest that have high concentrations of arsenic. Water from a spring with lots of stuff growing in it may be safer than water from a clear spring...

Well water in some (many?) parts of Bangladesh have high concentrations of arsenic due to certain sub-surface rock layers--it is a major health problem there.

Many streams in Colorado are highly acidified due to mine run-off. Man didn't add the acids to the area, he just created new water-flow paths so that acids that had been "locked up" are now being leached out of the rock. Digging the Carrigain well could have "unlocked" some chemicals in the rock.

"Natural" water is not necessarily potable...

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

As Lawn Sale once wrote (huge paraphrase here): 'to be completely safe, filter and treat'.

If you do both, you can be fairly sure (but still no guarantees) that the water is drinkable.

I presume that he was referring to biologically contaminated water. For dissolved non-volatile chemicals you might have to distill the water. For volatile contaminants, it can be even harder.

Doug

 

[SAR-EMT40]

I just think you're going overboard in saying that this was a case of "city-think" and a lack of common sense. Of course that water is non-potable, but in this case I don't think it is non-treatable.

As far as the "city-think" phrase goes I think we will have to agree to disagree on that. I do consider that "city-think". That the government will go way, way out of its way to zero fault protect something.

As far as what you might need to protect yourself from in the backcountry as far as water sources. We are lucky in this country that in most areas our water has some fairly benign things that can usually be easily filtered or treated chemically or by boiling. Most books on backcountry travel including the “White Forest Mountain Guide” will mention the need to filter or treat all water found in the backcountry. The assumption, I believe is that mostly these relatively benign items will be found out there and normal treatment will suffice. But, when the FS goes out of its way to label a backcountry water source as non-potable I assume that they feel normal treatment might not work and possibly what is in there will not succumb to standard treatment. Certainly if someone else feels different I have no problem with them testing their theory. That I might consider it slightly foolhardy is based solely on my humble opinion and should not matter one wit to others.

I really don’t want this to get out of hand and would be more than willing to take this to PM if you wish. I believe that those few that might have been on the razors edge on what to do with a labeled non-potable water source have enough to think about and those who are of the contrary opinion won’t have their minds swayed with any more information.

With respect albee,
Keith

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Not to throw more fuel on the fire here, but why is this well labeled non-potable, while other sources are not labeled? One could argue that posting a similar warning at all trail heads would make sense (as labeling every source of water would be, quite obviously, impossible). This one is probably so labeled because it looks very much like a well (well, I haven't been there -- anyone have a photo they can post?) which might imply the water is safe.

How about those spring houses on Waumbek? That water runs, at least. One other place comes to mind - a rain barrel at the Cabot cabin which says something similar to non-potable - I forget exactly what, something like "this is rainwater collected off the roof, treat it as such".

Tim

 

[sapblatt]

I think you nailed it - it looks like, and is a well...so the assumption by some may be that it is potable...

 

[Ed Poyer]

and the well was built by the same folks who posted the sign...

yes, on the face of it, many folks might be more inclined to assume well water to be potable.

The FS may have posted the sign because, as the well for the old fire wardens cabin, the FS (probably) built it in the first place. The sign may be intended to protect the FS as well as the hikers.

Some have mentioned carrying sufficient water for the day. This peak is also visited by backpackers on their way through the pemi...

Also, I think an important point was made regarding that a sign stating "non-potable" implying that it would require more than your typical (single) treatment method.

Ed

 

[dr_wu002]

How about those spring houses on Waumbek? That water runs, at least. One other place comes to mind - a rain barrel at the Cabot cabin which says something similar to non-potable - I forget exactly what, something like "this is rainwater collected off the roof, treat it as such".

Tim

Maybe because weirdos aren't defecating in those sources. Maybe due to its close proximity to The Captain, Carrigain attracts all the loonies.

-Dr. Wu

 

[--M.]

Some have mentioned carrying sufficient water for the day. This peak is also visited by backpackers on their way through the pemi...

Yeah, that was me.

But to tell you the truth, if I were backpacking -- and therefore carried a filter and bottles instead of a big bag-o-water -- I'd probably still not drink from this well, even though the only reason is because I'd heard people had abused it this way. If it were 1920, and I didn't think too much about water-borne illness, I'd love the idea of having such a wealth of precious water in so needful a place.

That's what makes it a good experiment: what could be so helpful is instead repulsive. Bit of a shame.

That said, I make other plans for hydration and move on to the unbelievable views a hundred feet further.

 

[MichaelJ]

I think bikehikeskifish hit it on the nail: labeling it "non-potable" is going to imply to many if not most that it's got the same potability as a brook, stream, pond ... and thus is drinkable with typical hiker water treatment techniques applied.

Up on the Bigelows, a couple of box springs, a wooden box over a spring that looks pretty much like the Carrigain well, *are* the documented water source. If you'd been there, then came to Carrigain, and hadn't heard the poop stories, I think you'd be inclined to pop out your filter and drink away.