Comments on: Spring fling http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/2009/04/30/spring-fling/ Sun, 20 May 2012 09:29:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Phil http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/2009/04/30/spring-fling/comment-page-1/#comment-34 Phil Sat, 23 May 2009 01:24:24 +0000 http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/?p=94#comment-34 David, that's an excellent point. It appears from the Adirondack Park state-land map that King Phillip's spring is in the Dix Mountain Wilderness. My guess is that the spring predated the Park's land classifications, and nobody made a fuss about keeping it. Such anomalies are bound to crop up when Wilderness Areas abut public roads. David, that’s an excellent point. It appears from the Adirondack Park state-land map that King Phillip’s spring is in the Dix Mountain Wilderness. My guess is that the spring predated the Park’s land classifications, and nobody made a fuss about keeping it. Such anomalies are bound to crop up when Wilderness Areas abut public roads.

]]> By: David http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/2009/04/30/spring-fling/comment-page-1/#comment-31 David Tue, 19 May 2009 18:36:50 +0000 http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/?p=94#comment-31 Where does the fact that this is in a wilderness area and the structure is non-confomring under the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan fit into all this? Where does the fact that this is in a wilderness area and the structure is non-confomring under the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan fit into all this?

]]> By: Spring again | http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/2009/04/30/spring-fling/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Spring again | Mon, 18 May 2009 16:55:43 +0000 http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/?p=94#comment-28 [...] my original post on this subject, I reported that the state Department of Environmental Conservation removed the pipe [...] [...] my original post on this subject, I reported that the state Department of Environmental Conservation removed the pipe [...]

]]> By: Pete Hickey http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/2009/04/30/spring-fling/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Pete Hickey Sat, 16 May 2009 22:59:52 +0000 http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/?p=94#comment-25 It's a lot safer for the bureaucracy to closer the spring than to run the risk (however small) of someone suing them because they got sick.... Why run the risk of anything when there is no risk in closing it. It’s a lot safer for the bureaucracy to closer the spring than to run the risk (however small) of someone suing them because they got sick….

Why run the risk of anything when there is no risk in closing it.

]]> By: Ray Curran http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/2009/04/30/spring-fling/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Ray Curran Fri, 08 May 2009 01:26:09 +0000 http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/?p=94#comment-12 Phil: Very Unfortunate. This spring has provided me with many a refreshing drink on hot days in August with no ill effects. I also used it (as others have) as a source for home beer brewing water. I'll see it tomorrow and Mourn the loss. I wonder if there are other ways to correct the situation e.g. by removing all surface water sources to the spring box. Time to think creatively. Phil:
Very Unfortunate. This spring has provided me with many a refreshing drink on hot days in August with no ill effects. I also used it (as others have) as a source for home beer brewing water. I’ll see it tomorrow and Mourn the loss. I wonder if there are other ways to correct the situation e.g. by removing all surface water sources to the spring box. Time to think creatively.

]]> By: Lee Keet http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/2009/04/30/spring-fling/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Lee Keet Thu, 07 May 2009 17:33:51 +0000 http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/?p=94#comment-10 Phil, I believe better testing of all waters for discrete coliform counts and adoption of standards better than the current go/no-go levels would solve the problem. If we had such standards, and the spring failed the more granular coliform tests, then it should, of course, be closed. We apply very crude standards, for example, to beach closings, with a huge range of troublesome counts before the water is declared polluted. This is unfair to everyone, as there is a presumption of safety when the beaches (spring) are not closed, probably untrue in both cases. Whether more information and transparency would be enough is uncertain, and while I would make my own decisions if the data were available, many would not. Therefore I think the only solution is better standards and more granular testing. Phil, I believe better testing of all waters for discrete coliform counts and adoption of standards better than the current go/no-go levels would solve the problem.

If we had such standards, and the spring failed the more granular coliform tests, then it should, of course, be closed. We apply very crude standards, for example, to beach closings, with a huge range of troublesome counts before the water is declared polluted. This is unfair to everyone, as there is a presumption of safety when the beaches (spring) are not closed, probably untrue in both cases.

Whether more information and transparency would be enough is uncertain, and while I would make my own decisions if the data were available, many would not. Therefore I think the only solution is better standards and more granular testing.

]]>