NEW RATIONALE – SAME OLD LOGGING
Once again logging interests are attempting to gain control of the Greater Victoria Water
District. This time the attempt to start up logging operations comes in the form of “logging to
control pests, disease and fire.” This rationale to justify logging in our watershed is not based
on facts and contradicts what we do know of forest ecology.
Understanding the relationship between natural forest systems and quality water is of paramount
importance in deciding how our watershed lands are to be managed. Please read this paper,
pass it on to a neighbour, and, as a stakeholder, make your opinion known to your public
representative who will decide on your behalf how your watershed lands will be managed.
See article "Scapegoats".
You Can Stop It
The Greater Victoria Water District (GVWD) is 13,900 hectares, including the Sooke and Goldstream watersheds. This natural catchment area for drinking water is owned by, and supplies water to, Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay, and Esquimalt. It also supplies water to other communities of Greater Victoria. (See map below).
Niagara Creek – On GVWD (off-catchment) 1992. Photo by Jim Gillespie
Judge Creek – Second largest tributary to Sooke Lake. 1991 Photo by Mehdi Najari
In 1949 the Greater Victoria Water District was established with the following mandate:
“The preservation and enhancement of water quality shall have priority over all management policies and programs. No human activities shall occur or be allowed to occur within the Greater Victoria Water Supply Area which may compromise, endanger or prevent the collection, storage and perpetual supply of water which meets the highest possible standards required for domestic consumption.”
Despite this mandate, for the past 40 years the watersheds have also been treated as a source of timber, in disregard of the impacts logging has on the natural functions a watershed performs in preserving water quality.
Until the algae bloom of 1988 – when drinking water that smelled and treated “fishy” alerted consumers to the practices in our water shed – the GVWD conducted no monitoring of the effects of logging. Only after a surge of public protest did the GVWD begin to address the issue of logging’s impact on water quality. Attempting to set up a monitoring program at this late stage, while it is essential for good watershed management in the future, will offer nothing in the way of comparisons with previous years as there is no historical data to use as a baseline.
‘Before and after’ studies conducted elsewhere have given an indication of the profound effects that any intensive land use – including logging and road building – can have on water quality. At the same time, it has become known that old-growth forests provide water of the highest quality. That quality could be comprised to the extent that the natural system is disturbed.
Why the GVWD did not monitor the effects of their logging operations over the last 40 years is a source of grave concern. This lack of monitoring has allowed logging interests to continue cutting, using the rationale that there is no data to prove their activities are affecting water quality. This backwards approach to watershed management must not be allowed to prevail in an area as precious as our watershed lands.
The present attempt to continue with logging operations in the endangered ecosystem of our watershed lands under the guise of improving forest health through managing for pests, disease and fire is nothing more than a smoke-screen. Changing the language used for logging the watersheds to make it more acceptable to the public is not the answer. A natural watershed is the producer of quality water. The more we tamper with this delicate balance the greater the impact we have.
