Two months ago we reported that the lower reservoir was being drawn down to make room for a new intake. That was wrong, and this piece explains exactly how the error happened, because readers deserve the machinery, not just the mea culpa.
The chain of mistakes
The claim came from one well-placed source who was certain and, it turned out, mistaken. We did not confirm it with a second, and the detail was plausible enough that our own skepticism took the day off.
- We treated confidence as if it were evidence.
- We let a good quote outweigh a missing document.
- We published on a slow week, when the story felt safe.
The actual reason for the low water was seasonal maintenance on a valve, dull and undramatic, which is precisely the kind of truth a confident rumor tends to bury.
We have changed one thing in response: any claim about public infrastructure now needs a document or a second independent source before it runs. Slow journalism is supposed to mean fewer errors, not merely slower ones.
Related: more Second Thoughts · the numbers in the Weekly Ledger
Further reading: What a reservoir is
