[pct-l] Water Report vs Water Plan

[postholer]

This year was a 2nd consecutive extreme dry year which created a very 
unique opportunity. It allowed me to collect locations of thousands 
natural water sources that were flowing for northbound thru hikers.

So how can we benefit from this?

The water report (pctwater.com) is not well updated even during peak 
hiker season and lacks the vast majority of water sources. The water 
report relies on someone actually standing at the source and then 
reporting it. While many hikers may see or use a source it goes 
unreported. Further, the water report only covers a relatively small 
part of the trail. Places like northern California, Oregon, Washington 
and even most of the natural sources in SoCal are not even mentioned.

The Water Plan takes a completely different approach:

If a natural water source existed during a 2nd consecutive extreme dry 
year (like this year) it will almost certainly (but not a certainty) be 
available during a wetter year or single dry year for the northbound 
thru-hiker.

It's that simple. All that was required was for someone to document 
these natural sources at exactly this time, a 2nd consecutive dry year. 
A huge opportunity has been realized. A water plan for natural sources 
requires no visual confirmation or subsequent reporting which makes it 
extremely relevant during any year.

Over the winter I'll be compiling the water plan. The basic layout, 
subject to change, will look like this:

Location name, Trail mile, Day of dry year observed, Source type, Flow, 
Quality

Your input, criticisms, suggestions, etc. will be very welcomed.

-postholer

-- 
www.postholer.com