Newark Watershed Commission dissolved

[basspilot]

Anyone with any more insight as to the impact it might have accessing the reservoirs for fishing? Below is a link to the article on NJ.com.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...olves_lea.html

[NorthJerzyG]

Considering the sheds permit sales bring in revenue I'm assuming they'll keep it up and running while reorganizing the rest of the commissions personnel. Gotta say, if they shut it down completely, ill be organizing a protest, lol.............

[basspilot]

I'm well versed in homeland defense and though I agree about not closing it entirely do you honestly believe the revenue brought in from permits outways the potential for an attack on the water system? I prefer to think that they'll leave the fishernen alone but time will tell.

[acabtp]

Originally Posted by basspilot

do you honestly believe the revenue brought in from permits outways the potential for an attack on the water system?

yes, absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, the permit revenue outweighs the potential of an attack on the water system because the potential for an attack on the water system at the reservoir lakes approaches zero.

the water in drinking supply reservoirs is tested and constantly monitored at the intake of the pumping plant where it is filtered, sanitized, and retested before it is sent down the aqueduct. at the other end of the aqueduct in the destination city, it is tested and monitored again before distribution. it would be incredibly difficult to get a poison into the system without it being noticed.

further, with the particular case of the newark reservoirs, the most downstream reservoir with fishing access is oak ridge reservoir. from there, the water has to go through charlottesburg and macopin reservoirs before entering the water supply system. so it would take huge quantities of contaminants (like tanker trucks) going into oak ridge, and then several days or weeks for anything to filter downstream (at which point it would be diluted to a billionth or trillionth of the original concentration).

here's a quick read that demonstrates the problem of scale that an attack on the water supply would require http://www.giwersworld.org/911/poison-water.phtml

it sounds scary, but it is just not something that is practical for any terrorist entity to effectivley do. so it would be a complete crock of **** if they closed the reservoirs down in the name of 'security'.

[basspilot]

I don't disagree that it is unlikely but the potential is there. Also I guess we could use the wanaque as an example in terms of liability. One of the reasons the wanaque restricts bost traffic is because one it is privately operated so to speak and the liability if there was such an attack. I hate to say it but if the new commission decides to do so I can easily see them eliminating the permit program. Regardless of how many they sell a year it is minimal in the overall operating budget for the watershed program. What I can see happening is how United water operates with strictly shore fishing.

[basspilot]

Also no disrespect to the article you posted, but a blog or article without refrences from an accredited source is not reliable. That article is purely oppinion with no factual information. The potential for an attack is quite small, but so was the attack on the world trade with a large passenger jet used as a means of WMD. Again I don't want to start an argument on here I just wanted to raise awareness of the change, and the possibility of an alteration to their permitting process.

[acabtp]

you are missing the point. you don't need to know the exact quantity of the poison required to understand the scale of the operation. it would take orders of magnitude more contaminant than would be practical to transport. literally tanker trucks or C-130 sized transport planes fully loaded with poison crashing into oak ridge reservoir. even then there would be a infinitesimally small chance of it working, due to the monitoring of the water supply.

this is one of those things that sounds really scary, and that they use to take your tax dollars and freedoms away - in the name of making us safer - but the reasoning is fatuous because the odds of it happening are so incredibly small. from a practical sense, one should be more worried about being hit by lightning (right andy?) as it is literally more likely.

to paraphrase, i just wanted to raise awareness, that if they change their permitting process in the name of adding security to the water supply, it is bullshit.

[acabtp]

your point about the liability concerns that privatization could bring is a good one though. our country is in serious need of tort reform; IMO, it is one of our biggest problems. everything from the out of control cost of healthcare to the way our schools are mismanaged relates back to our sue-happy society.

[jrock]

I would think that allowing people that would be visiting the reservoirs for the purpose of fishing, hunting, or hiking would report any suspicious activities, which would mean more eyes watching, which would equate to more secure reservoirs. The people who would think of doing something to harm the water supply wouldnt stop because the no trasspasing signs, in my opinion. I think somewhere down the pipe someone is recieving federal funds to secure these reservoirs which is passed down to individuals by way of jobs. So the scare tactic is just a ploy to label these reservoirs as a security risk for these reasons. I can garantee i can go today and walk around the reservoirs without being detected. Just another way of stealing our tax dollars. I hope i didnt affend anyone here just my humble opinion.

[acabtp]

jrock nails it