Carrigain well

[David Metsky]

My impression of "non-potable" has always been that you couldn't treat it with iodine or backpackers filters and make it potable; it was basically water that was not for consumption. All water in the Whites should be treated (even if I don't always follow that rule); but there have been a few places labeled non-potable (Kinsman Pond used to be) where treating just isn't enough.

That's always been my impression, anyways. I assume that there must be water sources that are undrinkable by means available to hikers -- how do you label them if potable and non-potable are your only choices?

 

[dr_wu002]

My impression of "non-potable" has always been that you couldn't treat it with iodine or backpackers filters and make it potable; it was basically water that was not for consumption. All water in the Whites should be treated (even if I don't always follow that rule); but there have been a few places labeled non-potable (Kinsman Pond used to be) where treating just isn't enough.

That's always been my impression, anyways. I assume that there must be water sources that are undrinkable by means available to hikers -- how do you label them if potable and non-potable are your only choices?

I'm a little confused... the sink in the bathrooms at Lincoln Woods says something like, "Water is non-potable." I mean, I wouldn't drink it but does it mean that I am washing my hands with pee-water? Where the hell are they pumping the water from? I mean, I would assume that they're pumping it from the Pemi (and not some extremely dubious source) and are just warning people that you can't drink it straight from the tap. So to me, there's confusion regarding the term "non-potable."

I mean, I can understand washing yer hands with water that you wouldn't want to drink untreated, maybe. But I wouldn't want to wash my hands in water that is so hideous that iodine tablets and a filter couldn't even put a dent in cleaning. You're probably better off urinating on your own hands at that point -- at least that's sterile.

-Dr. Wu

 

[albee]

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... ...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.

Aren't you supposed to treat *any* brook, stream, or pond as if someone or something pooped in it?

How do you label them if potable and non-potable are your only choices?

If there was a serious issue with the source, I think they would put an explicit warning on it. Do you think that the casual hiker is going to have a deep philosophical debate with themselves over whether a non-potable symbol means not drinkable or never treatable? As with everything in the backcounty - it is use at your own risk.

 

[una_dogger]

I wish Lawnsale would answer this question! I think its got more to do with the fact that its a well (engineered structure) and that the public has access to it.

Dredging up memories from my days as a Public Health Inspector, I *think* non potable means its not ready for drinking "raw" but certainly could be made drinkable by means of filtration/iodine/other backcountry techniques.

But, if people are rumored to pee in the well.........uh...I'd pass. Plus if its an open well, little animals could fall in there and not be able to get out, that sort of thing.

When I was a volunteer on the DC AT Trail Commission, we'd test the wells along the NY AT for bacteria annually and tag them non potable if they failed, but that certainly doesn't mean the water wasn't fit for treatment by backcountry techniques.

 

[skiguy]

Aren't you supposed to treat *any* brook, stream, or pond as if someone or something pooped in it?

I agree definitely.

If there was a serious issue with the source, I think they would put an explicit warning on it. Do you think that the casual hiker is going to have a deep philosophical debate with themselves over whether a non-potable symbol means not drinkable or never treatable? As with everything in the backcounty - it is use at your own risk.

I would'nt count on something being explicitly labled especially after a big rain/wind storm. Who knows...maybe somebody used the sign for firewood.Also being a casual hiker I have deep philosophical debates all the time wether my or my neighbor's house has water that's drinkable let alone some hole in the ground that was dug back in 19 whatever it is

 

[una_dogger]

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

Actually, many volatiles are removed by simply letting the water warm up or by aggitation(chloro/fluoro carbons) and others are removed by carbon filtration (mtbe, benzenes). I think you might be considering the semivolatiles, those are the tough sticky ones that adhere to soil and are also more likely to remain in solution (polychlorinated biphenyls one example)

 

[MichaelJ]

Aren't you supposed to treat *any* brook, stream, or pond as if someone or something pooped in it?

Yes, but ... there's still a big difference, as noted earlier in this thread, about the volume of water. A stagnant 27 cu. ft. box of water with the equivalent of a Baby Ruth candy bar in it is going to have a lot more potential to cause illness than a running brook with something dead upstream. Especially when you bring in secondary growth and effects.

I agree with Wu and disagree with Dave on their interpretations of "non-potable".

 

[DougPaul]

Actually, many volatiles are removed by simply letting the water warm up or by aggitation(chloro/fluoro carbons) and others are removed by carbon filtration (mtbe, benzenes). I think you might be considering the semivolatiles, those are the tough sticky ones that adhere to soil and are also more likely to remain in solution (polychlorinated biphenyls one example)

Yes, I am aware of such. (At least in a general sense--I haven't specifically researched it.) Heating the water to just below boiling for a while before connecting the condenser will reduce the volatiles with a lower boiling point and terminating before all of the water is boiled off will reduce the volatiles with a higher boiling point. Multiple distillations will do even better.

My basic point was that treating water with chemical contaminants can be harder (or much harder) than treating water with biological pathogens.

As stated in my first post, IMO, this is not the place (thread) to debate treatment methods.

Doug

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

Potable water is simply water that has been tested and found safe for consumption.

Non-potable water either hasn't been tested or was tested and found unsafe for consumption.

I don't know the details, but there are specific regulations regarding the labeling of man-made water sources potable or non-potable. Most likely the water in the Carrigain well simply hasn't been tested. Testing is required at least annually. Dug wells, such as the one on Carrigain have been banned in some states, if not all, from being labeled potable due to the difficulty in keeping the water safe for consumption.

...and besides, it's doubtful the Forest Service is going to send someone up to obtain a sample of the well water, send it in for testing, then treat the well as necessary. They're simply too busy scraping blazes and removing cairns.

A few Drinking Water Facts.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I haven't been there (saving it for #48, but that's a different thread ).

It is an actual well, where ground water seeps into a storage area, as opposed to a cistern (The Gull Reef cistern is dry -- champagne party in the lobby!) where it collects, runs off, or is stored?

And because it is a well, there is some implication that it is safe to drink? Having a scoop on a rope reinforces that implication, does it not? Covering it with a top that closes to keep out critters and things from falling in further suggests it could be potable.

And to counter those implications, the FS put up the sign.

I can't draw the conclusion that the sign is there as a result of human bathroom behavior. I wouldn't have known that had I not read it here.

Tim

 

[Steve-o]

I could be off-topic here but,
what blows my mind is, If you asked the question about how reliable a water source was, and people said, " dead rabbits & poo ". Why would you not carry extra water or, treat from a reliable source along the way?
Why take a chance?

 

[una_dogger]

I could be off-topic here but,
what blows my mind is, If you asked the question about how reliable a water source was, and people said, " dead rabbits & poo ". Why would you not carry extra water or, treat from a reliable source along the way?
Why take a chance?

Good point!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The 27th ed WMG says "...old fire warden's cabin where there is a well (water unsafe to drink without treatment)."

which implies it is safe with treatment.

Tim

 

[evilhanz]

(well, I haven't been there -- anyone have a photo they can post?)

Carrigain well cover: http://www.amongtheclouds.com/images/carrigainwell.jpg
Looking in the well:http://www.amongtheclouds.com/images/carrigainwellinside.jpg

 

[dug]

Carrigain well cover: http://www.amongtheclouds.com/images/carrigainwell.jpg
Looking in the well:http://www.amongtheclouds.com/images/carrigainwellinside.jpg

Why do I have an overwhelming urge to yell "Put the lotion in the basket!!!" when looking at that second pic?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Thanks for the photos.

Clearly it's a well, not a cistern. It does strongly suggest you can drink from it, and therefore the additional warning about treatment seems warranted.

If nothing else, who knows what was on anyone's hands when they touched the rope, or jug, which is clearly in contact with the water supply.

Tim

 

[DougPaul]

The 27th ed WMG says "...old fire warden's cabin where there is a well (water unsafe to drink without treatment)."

which implies it is safe with treatment.

But it doesn't say what treatment is required...

Doug

 

[albee]

The WMG also doesn't tell you what shoes to wear....

 

[dr_wu002]

But it doesn't say what treatment is required...

Doug

Based on what I assume is the high percentage of people on this site taking water from the woods, treating and consuming it without getting violently ill, it seems that the treatment is whatever level you feel comfortable with.

I think this is all (as always) getting blown way out of proportion. How many of us have really gotten sick from drinking the water while hiking? Just scoop, treat and drink. If you don't feel comfortable, don't do it or bring Poland Spring or something in a bottle.

If the Forest Service really doesn't want people drinking from the well on Carrigain, they should build a privy over it.

-Dr. Wu

 

[skiguy]

IMO if hiking the Signal Ridge Trail ,Desolation Trail, and Carrigan Notch Trail in what ever combination there is plenty of water down low to tank up on that is in much better potential shape than the WELL in discussion. With a bit of research and anticipation it is quite easy to rule out the WELL as a non-entity. I do see if you were in that area and off on some mad bushwack that you may not have the same opportunities to tank up; but I would rather be safe than sorry.