If your water supply is downstream of rangeland (public-land) you should be aware of the likelihood that the stream water is contaminated. If you are confident that your well is sufficiently distant from stream flows so that filtration fully removes fecal coliforms and other associated pathogens as well as general coliforms, you might chose to confirm that with water testing.
If your water tests positive
for e-coli/fecal coliforms you might assume that the contamination is as a result of the range-cows milling about in the upstream
riparian areas. That would be a reasonable assumption according to an abundance of studies linking water contamination with cattle
access to streams.
If you were aware that the Range Act purports to “Protect and enhance water quality” you might contact Range Branch
with your concerns. You might be surprised to hear from Range Branch that the contamination “if it exists” is likely due to other
sources; wildlife, birds, recreational users etc. If you have seen heavy impact upstream by cows and little evidence of the
other sources, you might question Range Branch’s assessment and also ask why the range area has no water sources or troughs to provide
off-stream watering. You might be surprised to be told that Range Branch, although responsible for generating and overseeing Range
Plans that supposedly protect and enhance water quality, actually do no water testing and that “it is difficult” for ranchers to maintain
water sources and troughs as hunters and other vandals damage them.
You might then decide to start a water testing program on
your stream to see if there is some connection between cows and contamination. You might also get some friends to do an informal survey
on a number of different range-tenures and you might find that most watering troughs (where they exist at all) are non-functional
and in no case did you find any evidence of willful damage. You might be surprised to see that these troughs were non-functional due
to rotted supports, washouts (due to poor initial placement right in stream-bed) siltation, trampled intakes where rotted fencing
had once protected the intake. You might be more surprised that these troughs (where they exist) were largely financed by public-funds
in past years.
When your water testing results were in you might be surprised to find that for the three months prior to the
arrival of cows there are zero or near zero fecal coliform counts. After cows arrive you might find levels of e-coli of 800 to 900
colonies per 100ml.
By now not so easily surprised, you might conclude from
your contacts with Range Branch that, rather than representing and protecting public-lands and resources they are effectively acting
as apologists for the ranchers.
If you were then aware that Range Plans and Range activities are overseen by the Forest & Range
Evaluation Program which purports to:
“providing stewardship of forests based on an ethic of respect for the land”
“conserving the resource values identified under
Forest & Range Practices Act and regulations, namely biodiversity, cultural heritage , soil, water, wildlife……….”
You might
therefore have expected that FREP might have done some water testing somewhere to see if the Range Plans and range practices were
accomplishing the stated goals.
You might again be surprised to find that they do no water testing but that they might supply you with
a study that indicates that cows are likely well down the list as a cause of contamination in your stream. If you read that study,
( study was financed by cattle producers) you might find it irrelevant to your local conditions, and conclude that your own test results
show the real cause.
You might then want to join with us to demand that Range Plans and practices protect public resources, water,
water quality, riparian zones, sensitive grasslands and habitat, where they are now being degraded by current practices.
We expect
to post other articles examining the abuses of public lands from range-cow overload, the give-away of these public resources, the
efforts of the ranching sector to obtain greater control over these public lands, and the cost to the public of maintaining the present
range-tenure system.
