Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Solar Toilets /Wag Bags

If you would like Inyo NF management to take a fresh look at reinstalling toilets at Outpost Camp and Trail Camp now is the time to get a little involved. If you're frustrated with seeing these bags full of human waste littering the trail.

How things got to this point is a long and interesting story. To summarize, there have been toilets of some kind on Mt Whitney for 50 years, starting with pit toilets and progressing to solar powered toilets. Unfortunately, they never got the design quite right, and the Rangers were burdened with maintaining a crappy system that was no better than a pit toilet. In about 2002 the toilets got so bad they launched a project to replace them. That involved drafting an Environmental Assessment, published in 2004 in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures to make sure public comments were considered. The EA was very well done and they looked into 5 alternatives including the mandatory "do nothing." The preferred alternative was to replace the toilets. Alternative 5 was to implement a Packout Program..

There are 3 ways to complete the environmental review process for a project of this nature. 1) an EXEMPTION if its a "typical" noncontroversial routine project such as repaving a road. 2) prepare an ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) that describes all reasonable alternatives and potential impacts of each alternative and describes in detail the "preferred alternative." A 30-day comment period is required to accept public input. Public input is the main reason for all of this in the first place to make sure every citizen and agency who might be affected gets a chance to influence the decision. If the decision has no significant impacts, then a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) is prepared. There is another chance for public review at this point. The last step is to publish a decision document to let everyone know what decision has been made, why it was made, and how the public comments were considered. or 3.) If there ARE significant impacts, then an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT is required. The 2004 EA for replacing the toilets can viewed .




If you would like to get the process going again, please print, sign, and mail a letter to the Forest Supervisor. [Because they didn't publish a Decision Document, there is no open period in which to appeal the decision. Also, you technically need to have submitted comments back in 2004 in order to file an appeal.

I've been in contact with the new Forest Supervisor and new District Ranger at Inyo. Well I've only climbed Whitney 3 times, most recently with my 15 yr old daughter. We saw a lot of wag bags littering the trail and my daughter was disgusted. I might hike Whitney one more time with my son, but otherwise, I have no interest in this. I just want to get this back on track, regardless of where it ends up. Your help is sincerely appreciated.

If you're wondering, gee, are solar powered toilets really feasible, please read this report from the Rocky Mountain NP Park Engineer entitled, "Performance Evaluation of Backcountry Soar Toilets," 2010. They have a 28-yr history at similar elevation and similar heavy use on Longs Peak in Colorado. Performance Report of Backcountry Toilets, Rocky Mtn NP

Please send in a copy of the appeal letter to Ed Armenta at Inyo. Thanks.


I made some changes to this post that may or may not make climbhigh happy , but tried to just have the post state the conditions without bias on either side. I would also like climb high to state his name and license numbers if they are used as a condition of expert influence. Thanks Doug

A few constructive words of advise: DO NOT simply print out that form letter, sign it, and send it in. If the NFS gets a lot of those it'll appear as 'spam' and tossed in a pile with the other similar letters. I used to work for a local city and it was not uncommon for us to get bombarded with form letters from a specific interest group when a controversial issue came up before the council. Our opinion of these form letters, and the opinion of the council members, was "if you can't take the time to write your own opinion letter, you really don't care too much about the issue."

As an alternative, use the form letter as a guide and write a letter/email in your own words. Start off with you overall position (such as in favor of reinstalling the solar toilets along the Whitney Trail), then add a bullet pointed reasons why you support favor the "new loos". Give a short explanation for each reason, too. And DO NOT get derogatory or inflammatory, or include threats of any kind.

Excellent advice, Phydueux. A custom letter always has more meaning, especially with personal examples. If you draft a letter, be polite and factually correct. Remember, the new management did not make these decisions.

*However, if you submitted comments during the 30-day period in 2004, then DO send in the appeal letter with a cover letter describing your comments, or better yet attach your comments if you still have a copy.

I glued my letter to the outside of a wag bag and dropped off at the ranger station
the bags dont work, it was and is a stupid idea

Great idea! We see discarded wag bags all over the place. Maybe the NFS desk jockeys should see a few (unused) wag bags of their own. Getting piles of wag bags would help them see the waste and visualize how stupid this approach is.

I have a few spare wag bags if anybody needs them.

I must be blind, but on my annual trips to Whitney the past few years I have seen perhaps two discarded wag bags. Although two are two too many, this hardly constitutes a problem of monumental proportions to my way of thinking. Am I missing something, or are others exagerating the extent of the problem? By the way, on the few occassions I've had to use them I thought they worked pretty well.

Doug,
I don't understand why this topic generates so much intensity. I guess people feel very strongly on both sides of this issue. Two long and popular threads on this topic have been deleted in the past and now my post has been edited and links removed. No way I'm giving out my license numbers to a group of people with this much animosity. My professional record is spotless and I'd like it to stay that way. Inyo management has all my contact information. I'm not hiding anything from anyone who has a need to know. I'm a registered Structural and Civil engineer, General Building Contractor, and certified Project Management Professional. I manage a design group performing seismic analyses of dams and I also have my own business designing buildings. If you think any statement I've made is not technically correct, let me know. I'll be happy to explain or correct any detail.

[I made my own edits to clarify and correct a typo.]

I do a lot of Grand Canyon hiking, and there are a few solar toliets down the trail. Packing out your stuff and having stuff containers at the trail head is pretty gross.

I apologize in advance if this becomes a bit of a rant...

I am not in favor of re-establishing solar toilets on Whitney. The same people that will not/do not use wag bags responsibly, will not/do not use solar toilets responsibly. I have seen it before on Whitney. The toilet on the summit was often a p**py mess both inside and out. Items not meant for the toilet bowl were often deposited inside...feminine items, candy wrappers, just to name a few. And the toilet itself was certainly not a natural beauty to behold at 14,500 feet.

Yes, our own p**p is not pleasant, but I am pro wag-bag...

Get an REI odorless ziploc to hold your used waggumus baggumus (that's Latin for wag bag =) ).
It makes the carry out so much more pleasant.

I too remember the Solar Toilets, ugg. The surrounding area was a major muffin field complete with soiled paper flags. And the smell..oh the smell.

C'mon, its only poo and its yours. If you don't wanna carry it out, don't carry it in. (see - fleet)

Sidenote: I think permits should be date/time stamped (or similar # system) and wag bags stamped with the same #. If your used wags are found on the trail, you get a charge. Its like the normal permit system - you are responsible for the people on your permit - so you're also responsible for the poo on your permit.

Stand by your poooooooooo
(to the tune of "Stand by your man")

I would agree with 31ruecambon.

The site of toilets in the mountain seems ridiculous and unsightly. Visited cleaned public toilets recently? All are a mess. A lot of people are messy and don't give a damn about who will be next in the facility. It's sad but a reality.
The same people will leave their wag bags in the wild, or will temper any solution the forest service puts out there.
Public toilets mean somebody has to clean up and sometimes empty the waste. That means other people will have to deal with your stuff. Sounds convenient but are you willing to pay for the service?

I think the wag bag solution is very environmentally friendly and sustainable, each hiker being responsible for his/her actions.

I would suggest the Forest Service to have a serial number imprinted on each bag and keep a record of hiker/wag bag relationship. I would also require each hiker to print his/her name on the bag.

What the FS could do is designate a couple places along the trail (near the campgrounds) where hikers could temporary drop their bags while they continue hiking to the summit. They would then get it back on their way down.
Or they could have a wag bag trash bin that they could retrieve with a copter once a week.

Just suggestions.

A point of clarification seems to be in order based on these posts. The preferred Alternative #1 in the Environmental Assessment was to replace toilets at Trail Camp and Outpost came. There was never any intention or recommendation to replace the pit toilet at the summit. The recommendation in the appeal letter was to install a new toilet at Outpost Camp on a trial basis, maintained by a private contractor. Wag bags would be used above Outpost Camp or wherever you want to use them.

Unfortunately, the links to these documents have been deleted so it's hard to have an informed discussion.

I thought the old toilet structures were pretty well done. The problem was the guts of the toilet system. That particular design failed everywhere it was used and I'm pretty sure every one of them has been replaced.