PUBLIC ATTITUDES IN MASSACHUSETTS TOWARD THE RECREATIONAL USE OF DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS

VOL. 16, NO. 2 WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION APRIL 19S0

PUBLIC ATTITUDES IN MASSACHUSETTS TOWARD THE RECREATIONAL USE OF DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS’

Walter H. Bumgardner, Lawrence R. Klar, Jr.. and Aldo Gliiriti2

ABSTRACT: There is considerable controversy in the Northeast surrounding the extent to which public drinking water reservoirs should be used for recreational purposes. This paper reports the results of two integrated studies of (1) recreation users of Quabbin Reservation, the largest inland water source in New England and (2) the general public of Massachusetts. Data were obtained by conducting on-site interviews of Quabbin users and through state-wide telephone interviews of the general public; both studies focused on assessing attitudes toward the recreational use of drinking water reservoirs in Massachusetts.

Unlike the findings of a 1969 study conducted by Baumann, results showed that the majority of Massachusetts residents do not favor recreation-prohibiting laws for most activities. Most favored at least moderate use of reservoirs for recreational purposes. In addition, over- all views were not as restrictive as present legislation would suggest. Finally, these findings suggest that current recreation-prohibiting laws should be reassessed in light of public opinion which favors the use of these valuable resources. (KEY TERMS: attitudes; outdoor recreation; recreation planning; reservoirs.)

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

Participation in water-based recreation is continuing to increase at a rapid rate in the United States. A report of the Senate Committee o n Interior and Insular Affairs (1974) stated that swimming is growing in popularity so fast that by 1980 more people will be going swimming than will be participating in any other form of outdoor recreation activity. Fishing was projected t o increase by 28 percent between 1965 and 1980. while the number of boaters is expected t o increase by 50 percent over the same period and to triple by the year 2000.

The escalating demand for water-based recreation opportunities in the Northeast has heightened controversy over whether and t o what extent domestic water supply reservoirs should be used for recreation.

I t began in the mid-19th century when northeastern states passed legislation prohibiting swimming in public water supply reservoirs (Baumann, 1969). Corbett (1970) collected data indicating that recreation activities were completely prohibited at 41 percent of all municipal watersheds in the Northeast, while some recreational activities were permitted at the remaining 59 percent.

This controversy is not new.

Some of the controversy arises from water managers’ be- liefs that recreation involving water contact would pollute reservoirs to an extent that would prevent the maintenance of drinking water standards through existing purification practices. Concerns for public health requirenients, liability, potential cost increases for water treatment. and niaintenancc problems have led many purveyors to take a strong stand against reservoir recreation. I n fact. ten yeai-s ago Baiini;inn suggested that the public’s negative attitude toward the use of reservoirs for recreation resulted primarily from the positions advanced by water managers and public health officials. The literature, however, contains few surveys which assess public opinion related t o the recreational use of reservoirs.

Several studies have concluded that recreation does not sig- nificantly degrade water quality. For example, the North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study Coordinating Com- mittee (1972) concluded from six case studies that, “little o r no deterioration in bacterial water quality occurs at the water supply intake when recreation is permitted in or around public water supplies. In those cases where some rise in indicator organism did occur it was localized within the high recreational use areas.” After reviewing numerous case studies, the lihode Island Planning Council (1 974) concluded that, “the most overwhelming and credible information on the subject of recreational impact on water quality leads one to the conclusion that if there is an impact it is slight, and it can in no way be considered a major source of pollution in water supplies.”

That the problem needs further attention was made clear in the nationwide outdoor recreation plan formulated by the Department of the Interior. In responding t o the increasing demand for outdoor recreation, Interior recommended that:

Restrictions on recreation use of municipal water supply reservoirs and watersheds should be reviewed and modi- fied in accordance with their capacity and suitability for providing recreation opportunities. Potential recreation benefits should be weighed against the cost of additional treatment facilities or measures (US. Department of the Interior, 1973).

‘Paper No. 79073 of the Water Resources Bulletii~. Discussions are open until December 1, 1980. 2Respectively, Associate Professor, Department of Recreation, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401 ; and Assistant

Professor and Director, Leisure Studies and Resources Program; and Graduate Assistant, Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01 003.

279

Bumgardner. Klar, and Ghiin

Finally, in a recently completed study of Massachusetts’ Quabbin Reservoir, a watershed central t o the focus of this study, Howe (1977) stated that, “there appears t o be a discre- pancy in the perception of water treatment practices and technology between Massachusetts and other areas.” He concluded that Quabbin and other watersheds are valuable resources t o the Commonwealth and their use should be maxi- mized.

QUABBIN RESERVOIR

The Swift River Act (1927) resulted in the creation of a storage reserve, Quabbin Reservoir, through the impoundment of the Swift River in the Connecticut River Basin. Two large earth dams and t w o underground aquaducts were built in a valley formerly containing four small towns and 40 square miles of scenic countryside. The dams were completed in 1939 and the reservoir, which is administered by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), was first filled in 1946.

Almost all of the communities served by the MDC before Quabbin was completed were in the Boston area, including Boston itself. Today many of the communities are located quite far from Boston, including cities and towns in the western portion of the state. Thus, Quabbin is far from a “typical” reservoir. It is an extremely important state-wide resource, serving a great number of Massachusetts residents; state-wide opinions relating t o its use are especially important.

RPOSE OF THE STUDY

The current laws and policies governing the recreational use of Quabbin Reservation and other public drinking water reservoirs in Massachusetts may be more conservative than the views held by the general public throughout the state. While certain activities are likely to be less favored than others due to concerns related t o water quality and environmental preserva- tion, many outdoor recreation activities which are presently not permitted may be viewed as appropriate and even desirable a t such reservoirs.

The intent of this study is not to utilize public views as “expert” opinions related t o carrying capacity and water quality; it is t o understand the extent to which recreation opportunities should, in the public view, be provided through the use of public drinking water reservoirs in Massachusetts.

The data reported in this paper were collected as part of a dual study designed t o investigate and compare opinions held by the Massachusetts public at large and on-site users of Quabbin Reservoir on the extent t o which domestic water supply reservoirs should be used for recreation. Five ideas were explored through the use of survey questionnaires. We wished to determine if:

1. A majority of respondents would believe that public drinking water reservoirs should be used for outdoor recreation activities.

2. On-site users would be iiiore favorable toward the presence of recreation at public drinking wdter reservoirs than the public at large.

3 . A majority of respondents would. from a selected list of recreational activities. favor the presence of most activities a t public drinking water reservoirs. 4. On-site users and members of the public at large would

similarly rank recreational activities in terms o f their ”:ippro- priateness“ at public drinking water reservoirs.

5 . The presence of selected outdoor recreation activities at public drinking water reservoirs would not be perceived as ;I

threat t o water quality by a majority of those sainpled.

ON-SITE USER STUDY

An on-site user survey was conducted a t Quabbin Reserva- tion, the water supply source for metropolitan Boston and other communities in Massachusetts. Between June and September 1977,980 interviews were conducted with Quabbin visitors engaged in a variety of recreation activities.

Seven college.students were trained to conduct the on-sile interviews at Quabbin Reservation. The interviewers sys- tematically rotated locations so that any individual differences in interviewing style would be evenly distributed; a11 interviewers obtained data from on-site users engaged in all types o f recreation activities.

The sample was not randomly obtained; interviewers were instructed to obtain as many interviews as possible and to base their approaches on the availability of subjects. Given the large number o f interviews and the fact that interviewers con- sciously sought to approach individuals of all types, findings are believed to accurately reflect the view of on-site users. Participant interest was very high; the turn-down rate was less than 10 percent.

STATE-WIDE SURVEY

Opinions held by the general public were collected through a telephone survey that was representative of all telephone households in Massachusetts. Areas of the state were stratified by county groupings into six regions. The number of completed interviews was in proportion t o each region’s share of households in the state.

Telephone numbers were randomly selected from current telephone directories by a professional sampling firm. To im- plement a random-digit dialing system which would assure the inclusion of unlisted numbers, a computer program replaced the last two digits of each listing with two randomly selected digits. Interviews were obtained by eleven trained interviewers from February t o June 1978. A total of 961 usable telephone interviews weie obtained.

280

Public Attitudes in Massachusetts Toward the Recreational Use of Domestic Water SuppI!- Reservoirs

SURVEY ITEMS

The following question was asked of respondents in both

Thinking in general terms of the State ofMassachusetts, in your opinion to what extent should drinking water reservoirs be used for recreational purposes? (a) extensively, (b) moderately, (c) very little, (d) not at all, (e) undecided.

The following question was asked of on-site subjects:

For each of the following activities (Table 3) please indicate which alternatives you would favor: (a) not allowing the activity a t Quabbin Reservation, (b) setting aside certain areas where this activity may be done and no other, and (c) allowing the activity to be done any- where on Quabbin Reservation. (For reporting purposes, responses t o (b) and (c) were combined since the location of activities is not the central issue of this

study groups:

paper.) The following question was asked of respondents in the

Do you feel that the following activities (Table 2) should be allowed at drinking water reservoirs in Mas- sachusetts? Please indicate yes, no, or no opinion. (If the answer was no, interviewers asked the reason, and related the response to (a) water quality, (b) the general environment, (c) a dislike of the activity, or (d) a category of “other”) (Table 4).

state-wide survey:

Results The first area of exploration focused upon whether a

majority of respondents would think that public drinking water reservoirs should be used for outdoor recreation. As Table 1 illustrates, the largest percentage of respondents in both the on-site and state-wide surveys thought that reservoirs should be used moderately. Less than 15 percent of the state- wide respondents and less than 3 percent of the on-site subjects answered that reservoirs should not be used at all. In fact, less than one-fourth of each group indicated that recreational use should be “very little” as is the current situation in Massachusetts.

TABLE 1. Extent to Which Public Drinking Water Reservoirs Should be Used for Recreation.

State-Wide On-Site Survey Responses Survey Responses

N* Percent N** Percent

Extensively 49 6.0 48 5.2 Moderately 440 54.3 628 67.9 Very Little 20 I 24.8 229 24.7 Not At All 121 14.9 20 2.2 TOTAL 81 1 100.0 925 100.0

*1 50missing observations or undecided * * 5 5 missing observations or undecided.

The second point. wluch suggested that on-site users would respond more favorably toward the presence of recreation a t public drinking water reservoirs than the public at large. was also supported by the results. More than 60 percent of the respondents in both groups thought that use should be inoderate t o extensive: however. on-site responses in these categories exceeded those of the state-wide by 13 percent. I n addition, on-site users were considerably more likely to support moderate levels of recreation and less likely to rule out such activities entirely (Table 1).

The third area under study was determining if ;I iiiajority 0 1 respondents would respond favorably to permitting most activities from a selected list to take place at public drinking wiitct reservoirs. In the state-wide survey. respondents were asked to choose from a list of 27 activities those which they thouglit should not be allowed (Table 2). When respondenls indicated that an activity should not be allowed. they were asked 10 give their reasons which interviewers categorized into one ol’ tlic following areas: ( I ) water quality. ( 2 ) general environnient, ( 3 ) dislike of tlie activity. o t (4) other (Tahlc 4).

The question was phrased differently hi- on-sile subjects. Respondents were asked to indicate wliether they favoted ( I ) prohibiting the activity a t the reservation. ( 3 ) perniilling tlie activity only in designated ai-eas o f tlic reservation, o r (3) permitting the activity everywhere on the reservation (Table 3 ) .

The presence of all but six activities was I‘avorctl by ;I

majority of state-wide respondents. The majority did no1 favor permitting snowmobiling, motorcycling, hunting, swini- nung. niotorboating, and water skijng. A slight m;ijority favored fishing from boats. A larger majority (60 percent o r more) favored pernutting the 15 remaining activities (Table 2).

A similar ranking emerged among on-site users; the activities not favored by a majority of the respondents were identical. It should be pointed out , however, t h a t opposition to snowmobiling among state-wide respondents was in the form of a plurality as was the case with swimming among on-site users of Quabbin. Opinions on these activities were almost evenly divided. . The fourth purpose o f the study was to determine ifon-site users and members of the public at lai-ge would arrive at similar rankings of recreational activities in terms o f their “appropriateness” at public drinking water reservoirs. The results reveal that while the two groups were in general agreement on the activities cited above, their opinions on permitting a few others were divergent. For example,snowmobiling was favored by almost half the state-wide respondents but only one-third of the on-site users. Swimming also elicited different responses. Approximately one in three in the state-wide sample favored swimming compared t o almost half the on-site users.

The results also reveal that while the opinions of the two groups differed OD whether certain activities should be permitted at reservoirs, they basically agreed on the rankings. However, even though the rankings assigned by the two groups varied very little, the strength of the responses were not neces- sarily duplicated. For example, state-wide respondents were noticeably less favorable than the on-site users toward permitting all activities except cross-country skiing, horseback

281

Bumpardner, Klar. and Chirin

TABLE 2. Opinions of State-Wide Respondents: Desirability of Allowinp Selected Recreational Activities at Domestic Water Supply Reservoirs.

Recreational No Opinion! Activity N* Allow Percent Prohibit Percent No Answer Percent

Photography Nature Study Sightseeing Hiking Bicycling Snowshoeing Cross-country Skiing Picnicking Downhill Skiing Horseback Riding Fishing From Shore Ice Fishing Sailing Camping Canoeing Fishing From Eoats

Snowmobiling Motorcycling Hunting Swimming Motorboating Water Skiing

91 8 91 8 921 921 922 91 8 921 9 20 91 8 9 20 91 9 91 9 920 924 9 20 91 9

91 9 91 9 91 9 919 920 91 8

ACTIVITIES FAVORED BY MAJORITY

873 95.1 31 86 9 94.7 34 854 92.7 51 833 90.5 65 81 5 88.4 82 796 86.7 93 776 84.2 88 712 77.4 182 695 75.7 165 650 70.6 21 7 635 69.1 24 1 6 26 68.1 24 I 553 60.1 3 29 554 60.0 330 547 59.5 3 3 7 467 50.8 104

ACTIVITIES NOT I'AVORI,D BY MAJORITY

437 47.6 4 26 351 38.2 5 23 337 36.7 533 277 30.1 592 147 16.0 744 117 12.7 76 3

3.4 3.7 5.5 7.1 8.9

10 1 9 6

19.8 18.0 23.6 26.2 26.2 35.8 35.7 36.6 44.0

46.3 56.9 58 .0 64.4 80.9 83.1

I4 I5 16 7 7

25 29 5 7 26 5 8 5 -7 43 S 2 38 4 0 -3 6 4 8

-_

5 6 45 49 5 0 29 38

I .5 I .6 I .7 2 .-I 2.7 .3 .2 6 . 2 2.8 6 . 3 5.s 4.7 5.7 4. I 4.3 3 . 0 5.2

6 I 4.C) 5.3 5.5 3.1 4.2

-

*Missing responses not included.

TABLE 3. On-Site Attitudes Toward Allowing Selected Recrcation Activities at Quabbin licscrvation.

Recreational Allow Prohibit Activity N* Activity Percent Activity Percent N o Opinion Percent

ACTIVITIES FAVORED B Y MAJORITY

Photography 973 958 98.5 9 0.9 6 (J.6 Nature Study 972 953 98.1 13 1.3 6 0.6 Hiking 975 929 95.3 38 3.9 8 0.8 Sightseeing 97 3 9 26 95.2 42 4.3 5 0.5 Fishing From Shore 975 916 93.9 41 4.2 18 1.8 Picnicking 973 906 93.1 63 6.5 4 0.4 Bicycling 975 86 8 89.1 75 7.7 32 3.3 Snowshoeing 974 842 86.4 109 11.2 23 2.4 Cross-country Skiing 975 763 78.3 164 16.8 4 8 4.9 Canoeing 973 74 8 76.9 189 19.4 36 3.7 Ice Fishing 973 7 25 74.6 219 22.5 29 3.0 Fishing From Motorboats 974 7 26 74.5 228 23.4 20 2.1

Horseback Riding 974 647 66.4 298 30.6 29 3 .o Tent Camping 974 597 61.3 356 36.6 21 2.2

Swimming 974 476 48.8 4 85 49.8 13 1.3 Motorcycling 974 3 84 39.5 5 80 59.5 10 1 .o Snowmobiling 973 322 33.1 6 29 64.6 22 2.3 Motorboating 97 2 27 7 28.5 682 70.2 13 1.3 Hunting 97 6 26 2 26.9 698 71.5 16 1.6 Water Skiing 96 3 198 20.6 75 1 78.0 14 1.5

Sailing 973 678 69.7 277 28.5 18 1.8

ACTIVITIES NOT FAVORED BY MAJORITY

*Missing responses not included.

282

Public Attitudes in Massachusetts Toward the Recreational Use of Domestic Water Supply Reservoirs

riding, snowmobiling, and hunting. Support for cross-country skiing and horseback riding was high within both groups des- pite difference in response strengths.

Finally, with the exception of three activities, the presence of selected recreation activities a t drinking water reservoirs was not perceived as a threat to water quality by a majority of those sampled (Table 4). The three exceptions were swimming, motorboating, and water skiing. Hunting, snowmobiling, and motorcycling also ranked low, but not due to water related reasons.

This does not mean that objections t o activities had little to d o with water quality; quite the contrary. Water quality was the dominant concern in almost every category. In other words, when objections were raised, it was a concern for water quality which emerged as the primary issue.

The point is, that a majority of all respondents did not ob- ject t o most activities for any reason, but when objections were raised, water quality was the key concern. For example, of those objecting t o photography, more than 76 percent objected on the basis of water quality; but this represents only 29 individuals of the 38 who objected and, in fact, 95.1 percent of the total sample supported the presence o f that activity.

DISCUSSION

Although the existing laws prohibit many recreational uses of public drinking water reservoirs in Massachusetts, the data collected in this study reveal that considerable support for

such use exists throughout the state. Even activities involving indirect water contact. such as d i n g and canoeing were viewed favorably by most respondents. These findings suggest that perceptions held by water managers about the general public’s attitude toward the recreational use of drinking water reservoirs are largely inaccurate.

Public opinion revealed in this study can be sunmarized as follows:

1. A majority of respondents felt that at least limited recreational use of public drinking water reservoirs is appropriate; more than 60 percent of the general public and alinost three-fourths of the on-site users responded that use should be moderate or greater. Support for specific recreation activities was generally stronger among on-site users.

2. Only six activities were not viewed favorably by a majority of state-wide respondents. These were snowmobiling. motorcycling. hunting, swimming, motorboating. and water skiing. These same activities were also not favored by :I

majority of on-site Quabbin users. Attitudes related to swimming, however, were almost evenly divided among Quabbin users.

3. Activities receiving the strongest support were generally passive in nature such as photography. nature study. and siglit- seeing; however, snowshoeing, skiing, horseback riding, and ice-fishing also received the support of approximately 70 percent of both study groups. More than 60 percent in each group also favored canoeing and sailing.

TABLE 4. Reasons State-Wide Respondents Objected to Recreation Activitics at Domestic Water Supply Reservoirs Ranked by Concerns for Water Quality.*

Water General Dislike Activity Quality Percent Environment Percent Activity Percent Other Percent Totdl

Water Skiing 677 86.7 45 5.8 22 2.8 37 4.7 781

Swimming 553 89.2 31 5.0 7 1 .I 29 4.7 6 20 Fishing From Boats 358 84.8 30 7.1 11 2.6 23 5.5 422 Canoeing 273 78.7 36 10.4 16 4.6 22 6.3 34 I

Fishing From Shore 195 76.5 37 14.5 8 3.1 15 5.9 255

Motorboating 655 88.0 44 5.9 19 2.6 26 3.5 744

Sailing 26 5 78.6 34 10.1 9 2.7 29 8.6 337

Boat Fishing 178 70.6 26 10.3 22 8.7 26 10.3 252 Camping 119 35.6 194 58.1 4 1.2 17 5.1 334 Horseback Riding 87 38.3 96 42.3 16 7.1 28 12.3 227 Motorcycling 80 14.9 25 3 47.0 159 29.5 46 18.6 538 Snowmobiling 78 17.6 219 49.5 108 24.4 37 8.4 442

Hunting 56 10.2 6 8 12.4 345 62.7 81 14.7 550 Picnicking 69 36.9 107 57.2 0 0.0 1 1 5.9 187

Bicycling 47 52.8 25 28.1 4 4.5 13 14.6 89 Snowshoeing 45 45.9 23 23.5 14 14.3 16 16.3 98 Downhill Skiing 4 8 20.9 69 37.9 19 10.4 56 30.8 182

Sightseeing 29 55.8 17 32.7 0 0.0 6 11.5 52

Hiking 34 51.5 25 37.9 1 1.5 6 9.1 66 Cross-country Skiing 39 36.1 35 3 2.4 8 7.4 26 24.1 1 08

Nature Study 29 69.0 6 14.3 1 2.4 6 14.3 42 Photography 29 76.3 4 10.5 1 2.6 4 10.5 38

*Includes multiple responses within each activity area.

183

Bumgardner, Klar, and Ghirin

4. Although on-site users were generally found to be more supportive of recreation at reservoirs than the general public, both groups ranked the appropriateness of activities very similarly.

5. Among state-wide respondents, water quality most frequently emerged as the primary factor influencing negative attitudes toward permitting selected recreational activities at reservoirs; however, water quality emerged as an issue by a majority of all respondents in only three activity areas - swimming, motorboating, and water skiing. Thus, most activities were not perceived as a threat to water quality by the majority among the public at large.

6. The earlier findings of Baumann (1969) which showed Massachusetts residents to hold extremely negative views toward the presence of recreation activities at public drinking water reservoirs were not supported in this study. Differences in findings may center around the fact that Baumann’s sample was too small to accurately gauge public opinions or his findings were accurate, but views over the past ten years have be- come less conservative.

7. The findings of this study support Howe’s recommenda- tion “. . . that the water laws in Massachusetts be subjected to close scrutiny; and that the relaxation or amendment of these recreation-prohibiting laws be taken under advisement” (Howe, 1977).

As the desire for more recreational opportunities grows in Massachusetts, public pressure will probably mount for in- creased usage of reservoirs and their surrounding watersheds. It thus becomes necessary to address pragmatic issues influencing the recreational use of public drinking water reservoirs, such as economic costs of maintaining water quality, protection of the general environment, and reservoir management requirements. These issues should be approached on the basis of sound planning and decision-making in a manner that will meet current needs but also ensure that the quality of life for future generations is assured.

ACKNOWLEDGhlENTS

The work upon wluch this publication is based \cis supported in parts by funds provided by the Office of \\‘titer Rescurcli and Teclino- logy WRA 107-MASS.: U. S. Depxtnient of the Interior. \Vashinston, D.C.: as authorized by the \Vater Research and Developnicnt Act of 1978, and by the Massachusetts Apicultural Experiment Station. Northeastern Regional Project NE-100. Project N o . MAS00379.

LITERATURE CITED

Baumann, D. D.. 1969. The Recreational Use of Doiiiestic Water Sup- ply Reservoirs: Perception and Choice. The Departnicnt of Geo- graphy, The University of Chicago. Chicago, Illinois.

The Management of 1;orcstcd Watcrslicds for Domestic Water Supply. Proceedings of the Conference on Multiple Use of Southern Forests, Georgia Forest Rescarcli Council. Pine Mountain, Georgia.

Howe, Gerald, W.. 1977. Opportunity Costs Associated With Quabbin Reservoir as a Single Use Watershed. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Massachusetts. Amlierst, Mnsslichusctts, p. 45.

North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study Coordinating Coniinit- tee, 1972. Use of Water Supply Reservoirs for Recreation. North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study, Appcndis V. Health As- pects, U. s. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C., p. 29.

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Progrmi, 1974. The Potential Values and Problems in Using Water Supply Rcscrvoirs and Watersheds for Recreational Purposes, Providence, Rliode Island, Tcclinical Paper Number 47, p. 27.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1973. Outdoor Recreation: A Legacy for America. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 40.

U. S. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 1974. Thc Recreation Imperative - A Draft of thc Nationwidc Outdoor Re- creation Plan Prepared by the Department of the Interior. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Corbett, E. S., 1970.

284

Documents

PUBLIC ATTITUDES IN MASSACHUSETTS TOWARD THE RECREATIONAL USE OF DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS