What is your favorite route to the summit?

[FIGHT ON]

illegal, trespassing....and do you know who 'owns' this land

It is legal to use Pacific Crest Trail, which goes through the Snow
Creek area, to reach the peak. Crossing Desert Water Agency property to
reach the peak is not permitted. Desert Water Agency owns one square
mile of property and it is permanently closed to hiking as it is a
source of public water supply.

If hiker(s) are spotted, they will be asked to leave by our resident
caretaker. If the hiker(s) are uncooperative, the Sheriff's Department
is called.

Mike Bergan
Desert Water Agency

[desertskyclimber]

in the eyes of the Creator, that land and water from which it comes is hardly under any ownership...if so, then how is it that the indians before hand never claimed such rights? see where this is going. stupid can only be fixed when one becomes enlightened of thy Truth...

[halhiker]

in the eyes of the Creator, that land and water from which it comes is hardly under any ownership...if so, then how is it that the indians before hand never claimed such rights? see where this is going. stupid can only be fixed when one becomes enlightened of thy Truth...

We've already had this discussion and agreed to disagree. Although with you, I tend to agree.

[AlanK]

It is legal to use Pacific Crest Trail, which goes through the Snow Creek area, to reach the peak. Crossing Desert Water Agency property to reach the peak is not permitted. [b][u]Desert Water Agency owns one square mile of property and it is permanently closed to hiking as it is a source of public water supply.

If hiker(s) are spotted, they will be asked to leave by our resident caretaker. If the hiker(s) are uncooperative, the Sheriff's Department is called.

Mike Bergan
Desert Water Agency

I am not arguing the legality or correctness of what Mr. Bergan is saying. I do wonder how much sense it makes. There are lots of places that are part of the public water supply that do not keep everyone out. For example, fishing in flat bottomed boats is allowed in New York City reservoirs in Westchester County (where I used to live). I don't see a lot of harm if a few hikers were allowed to use the Snow Creek route. Hell, they're doing it anyway and we don't hear of any negative consequences to the water supply.

[FIGHT ON]

It is legal to use Pacific Crest Trail, which goes through the Snow Creek area, to reach the peak. Crossing Desert Water Agency property to reach the peak is not permitted. [b][u]Desert Water Agency owns one square mile of property and it is permanently closed to hiking as it is a source of public water supply.

If hiker(s) are spotted, they will be asked to leave by our resident caretaker. If the hiker(s) are uncooperative, the Sheriff's Department is called.

Mike Bergan
Desert Water Agency

I am not arguing the legality or correctness of what Mr. Bergan is saying. I do wonder how much sense it makes. There are lots of places that are part of the public water supply that do not keep everyone out. For example, fishing in flat bottomed boats is allowed in New York City reservoirs in Westchester County (where I used to live). I don't see a lot of harm if a few hikers were allowed to use the Snow Creek route. Hell, they're doing it anyway and we don't hear of any negative consequences to the water supply.

Gotta ask Mike Bergan or someone else in the DWA. I don't know. On 12-31-08 I sent another email to him asking for clarification on where exactly the closed area limit boundaries are, if it is illegal to be south of that area, the ideas behind the closed area etc. The Truth. I doubt I will get the real truth but I personally have to go through at least asking.
I am trying to see if there is a way to hike Snow Creek w/o violating any laws. If I can I would be excited to share that.
Maybe they closed off a mile because the ground filters out enough that far away. and you can poop and pee all you want beyond that point. Maybe they just want to block off the entrance because the ground doesn't filter, even the from the top. Let's find out!

[Perry]

I think the real reason is something else. Chino Canyon and Tahquitz Canyon are also closed. Tahquitz Canyon used to be open to the public and there were a lot of parties back there. The Palm Springs area has a lot of restrictive laws, some of which I don't think are constitutional. For example, you cannot have a tattoo shop within the city limits.

Like Alan mentioned, water reservoirs around the nation have people fishing in boats without motors.

If the "reason" is to avoid testing expenses, that's just silly because in any "closed" area a malicious person could deliberately contaminate the water supply by various means. If they really save money by not running some tests, that's just irresponsible unless those specific tests are not important anyways.

Regarding Fight On's comment on filtering/dilution distance, almost all climbers take the ridge between Falls Creek and Snow Creek, rather than starting in the canyons.

Fight On, I think you can legally start in the village of West Palm Springs, climb Windy Ridge, then traverse Falls Creek Canyon and climb up to the isthmus. I don't know the safest way to cross that canyon. Be careful!

[phydeux]

Though not absolutely sure, I'll almost bet ya' the reason for the closure of Snow Creek's direct climbing line is 1986's Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water & Toxics Enforcement Act. There has been further regulations enacted to 'save us from ourselves, the latest being 2002's Proposition 50, which required further watershed access restrictions to protect drinking water sources from terrorist acts. Most of these regulations were part of propositions voted into law by California voters.

I took a quick look on the State's website but couldn't find anything specific, so here's a summary. These propositions required the State to develop and publish a list of toxic chemicals (those causing cancer and reproductive toxicity), and business to notify the public of which of these 'toxics' they used; best example I can think of is those generic toxics and reproductive warning signs you see at the entrances to retail businesses like paint stores and garden centers.

The term 'business' was interpreted to include public businesses like water agencies that supplied the public with water. Like many other agencies, the DWA is probably trying to cover their rear by restricting access. Its similar to restricting public access to water reservoirs, either completely or to some limited extent, such as motorized boats to prevent toxic chemicals in the exhaust from contaminating the water.

Actually, I'm not surprised you got an evasive answer from the DWA. From past experience working with water and sewer agencies, most of them have Public Info personnel who do a pretty poor job of keeping agency information 'transparent'. They almost blatantly BS their way around a topic, so the public gets disgrunted and pissed off because they don't understand why the policies, procedures, and restrictions are what they are. But just remember, if you were in California when these things were on the ballot, odds are (+50%) you probably voted them since they sounded sooo good.

Political Rant Warning . . . .

Not to get too politically preachy, but next election you should look closely at the ballot propositions and try to decipher which ones are feel-good, save-the-world, "its-for-the-kids," "its-good-for-families" stuff that's only put there by special interests. See which ones require the State to issue more bonds (more debt that has to be paid off with more tax $$$$s), or apportions specific general fund $$$$ for a new program. That's part of what's gotten California into the financial mess its in today and given it a reputation as a nanny state.

. . . . we now return you to your climbing and hiking misadventures; Snow Creek, C2C, or whatever.

[FIGHT ON]

Though not absolutely sure, I'll almost bet ya' the reason for the closure of Snow Creek's direct climbing line is 1986's Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water & Toxics Enforcement Act. There has been further regulations enacted to 'save us from ourselves, the latest being 2002's Proposition 50, which required further watershed access restrictions to protect drinking water sources from terrorist acts. Most of these regulations were part of propositions voted into law by California voters.

I took a quick look on the State's website but couldn't find anything specific, so here's a summary. These propositions required the State to develop and publish a list of toxic chemicals (those causing cancer and reproductive toxicity), and business to notify the public of which of these 'toxics' they used; best example I can think of is those generic toxics and reproductive warning signs you see at the entrances to retail businesses like paint stores and garden centers.

The term 'business' was interpreted to include public businesses like water agencies that supplied the public with water. Like many other agencies, the DWA is probably trying to cover their rear by restricting access. Its similar to restricting public access to water reservoirs, either completely or to some limited extent, such as motorized boats to prevent toxic chemicals in the exhaust from contaminating the water.

Actually, I'm not surprised you got an evasive answer from the DWA. From past experience working with water and sewer agencies, most of them have Public Info personnel who do a pretty poor job of keeping agency information 'transparent'. They almost blatantly BS their way around a topic, so the public gets disgrunted and pissed off because they don't understand why the policies, procedures, and restrictions are what they are. But just remember, if you were in California when these things were on the ballot, odds are (+50%) you probably voted them since they sounded sooo good.

Political Rant Warning . . . .

Not to get too politically preachy, but next election you should look closely at the ballot propositions and try to decipher which ones are feel-good, save-the-world, "its-for-the-kids," "its-good-for-families" stuff that's only put there by special interests. See which ones require the State to issue more bonds (more debt that has to be paid off with more tax $$$$s), or apportions specific general fund $$$$ for a new program. That's part of what's gotten California into the financial mess its in today and given it a reputation as a nanny state.

. . . . we now return you to your climbing and hiking misadventures; Snow Creek, C2C, or whatever.

Well this is one of the reasons I am asking them. Nobody really knows the truth, including me. Seems like the best way to find out.
I wanna know.
I may not know all the correct questions to ask but eventually I will.
Maybe you can ask Mike.
email em desertwater@dwa.org

[Perry]

Sounds more political than practical.

[zippetydude]

I understand the curiosity, but in a practical sense, I think the closure is probably seldom a problem.

When I've seen people starting the Snow Creek route, it's been at 5:00 a.m. as I'm starting up the PCT. No one is out there monitoring every square inch of desert. In fact, if the consequence is nothing more than being asked to turn around by a caretaker, you can merely redirect that day's adventure to the PCT or drive over to Skyline, then try the route some other day, with very little chance of running into anyone to turn you around.

When I spoke to one of the water district people a few years ago, he said they were merely trying to keep hordes of people from flocking to the area and leaving trash (like used disposable diapers) in and around the water source. If that was the truth, then it would explain why they don't seem to maintain any patrol or barrier (like a fence) around the area. They probably don't mind at all if a responsible hiker makes his way through the area, as there is nothing left behind to cause problems. Of course, they can't advertise such a policy, but good people often try to make life better for everyone by handling things in a reasonable way.

Just my guess.

z