Talk:Colorado River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colorado River article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Headline text

I rewrote part of the intro of the article, which seemed to imply that the Colorado is dry in northern Mexico because of natural evaporation, which is false. Prior to its use as a water source, the Delta was a lush marshland. Also the statement that it drains the region between the Rockies and the Sierras is broadly misleading, since its drainage is skewed much more to the western slope of the Rockies, with few of its tributaries penetrating near the Sierra (which is the Great Basin). -- Decumanus 21:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

I would suggest that this page is moved to either Colorado River or Colorado River (Gulf of California). "Colorado River (U.S.)" makes no sense because: 1) It flows not only through the USA, but also through Mexico. 2) It is not the only river with that name in the US, there is also the Colorado River (Texas).

Replacing the disambig page at Colorado River might be OK because this is the biggest of all of the rivers with this name. If we don't want to do this, I think the best way to distinguish rivers is by their destination -- a river may cross several countries, but it always has only one body of water into which it empties. Comments? -- Chl 16:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

I would prefer destination style "Colorado River (Gulf of California)" , even if it is the biggest there might come wrong links otherwise. Disambig at Colorado River is nice. Maybe disambig should show which is the biggest/most important of these Rivers. Importance might differ, question: who out of 5 billion would know that the C.River in US is the biggest. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The links to Colorado River almost all mean the one that flows through the Grand Canyon, so I agree with moving this article to that title and moving the disambiguation material to a new page, "Colorado River (disambiguation)". The other two article titles are OK. This article, if placed at "Colorado River", would begin with the "other uses" notice to direct readers to the dab page. JamesMLane 05:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support Colorado River (for this river) and Colorado River (disambiguation). –Hajor 19:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, majority opinion is: move Colorado River to Colorado River (disambiguation) and move Colorado River (US) to Colorado River. I have done the first move, need an admin to do the second. Thanks! --Chl 17:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gale Norton and Colorado River

[1] May be this article should mention briefly the Colorado River Interstate Compact. I visited it expecting some encyclopedic article about the whole compact

Discussion about the title of this article and its recent change can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Changing article titles from XXXXX (US) to XXXXX (United States). Feel free to contribute. -- hike395 16:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado River and its native fishes

I keep deleting the last 2 paragraphs from the engineering section because they are a political discourse on the status of a species recovery program that has nothing to do with the engineering of the Colorado River and is more opinion than information. Apparently, people worried about vandalism keep putting the paragraphs back in. I would suggest that those people actually read the paragraphs before replacing them. They may be used as intersting commentary in an article dealing with the Endangered Species Act and the costs of such programs, but they have no place here.

I agree that the information on native fishes has nothing to do with engineering; however, the topic of wildlife seems relevant to the subject of the article. Added a new wildlife section and linked to a separate article on the recovery program, which can cover the details of that program and the controversy surrounding it. This is my first "real" edit (usually do minor grammar/formatting edits) so please correct me if needed. Jfredrickson 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

See the wikipedia article on the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The program IS controversial because of the removal and killing of sportfish that are perhaps unfairly being given part of the blame for the demise of native fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.155.22 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "At full flow" ?

Someone removed the statement that "at full flow" the Yukon is larger. The Yukon is larger on average, but what does "full flow" really mean? Perhaps the comparison sentence could be made more precise. -- R27182818 15:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wildlife

The assertion that the fish recovery program is controversial seems itself controversial. :) I reworded it and added a citation-needed tag. If no one comes up with a citation within a few weeks, I'll assume none is readily available and will remove the statement on controversy. Feedback on this plan is welcome. --R27182818 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the wikipedia page on the Upper colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The program has some controversy surrounding it because they are killing the river's sportfish, which are blamed, perhaps unfairly, for contributing to the demise of the native fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.223.224 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Volume and The Green River

I deleted the part that said the Green River has a larger flow. I live on these rivers and that is NOT the case. Check the USGS site. This time of year the upper Colorado has an average flow of approx. 10,000 cfs and the Green 8,600. This trend is true year round, even though the flows are higher or lower. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/current/?type=flow ==peckvet55==

[edit] 22,000 cfs. No, 42,600 cfs

The figure on USGS on the average flow being 22,000 cfs IS TRUE. However this is since the early 1900s, when large amounts of water started to be diverted from the river for irrigation and municipal use. The Colorado historically had a much larger flow before it was diverted for human use. This is true with many other rivers, such as the Rio Grande and China's Huang He (Yellow) River. I am a hydrologist and the 42,600 cfs comes from historical data before diversions. --peckvet55

Hi peckvet, the cite (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/ofr87-242/) for the 22kcfs figure includes the following passage:
...rivers and their characteristics vary in space and time in response to climatic changes and to man's activities . The causes include ... changes in precipitation and temperature ... erosion and deposition ... diversions of water ... and the construction of public works .... For example, combinations of these effects ... have reduced the average flow of the Colorado River near its mouth from about 22,000 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) for the period 1903-34...
i.e., the 22kcfs is itself historical. Can you provide a citation for your 42.6kcfs figure? Thanks! --R27182818 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 42,600 cfs figure is what I learned in college and also what a tour guide at Hoover Dam told me. Until I can find a source for that though, go ahead and edit it back

As far as the Green being larger than the Upper Colorado, that is not true according to USGS. Here is the link. Note that the mean flow of the Colorado River near Cisco (before the Green empties into it) is larger:

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/current/?type=flow

[edit] New information

[edit] What about the mexican/US water sharing on Colorado?

Which is the proportion of water sharing of each country? How much of the water is left for Mexico? Does US compensate the ecological dammage on Colorado delta? (It's well known that the massive water use on US is leaving the Colorado delta dry, and several fish species are on the brink of extinction).

[edit] Flow

The Green River page asserts that it has the larger flow at its confluence with the Colorado, and is the parent river of the river system.

So which is it? The USGS flow data shows the upper Colorado has the greater flow, so did the Green historically have a greater flow (perhaps before the construction of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir)?

The Upper Colorado River always had a higher flow than the Green. Also, Flaming Gorge is a hydroelectric and storage dam, not a diversion dam, so it doesn't lower the flow of the Green River. Spring runoff flows are less however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.224.199 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green, Grand, name changing

The section on the renaming of the Grand River to Colorado had a misplaced reference. I just moved it to the end of the sentences actually described in the source. I also added a fact tag for this claim, which I had not heard before and am skeptical about: The USGS had begun a process of simplifying the nomenclature of the nation's rivers. The convention was that the longer of two rivers that converge would carry the name of the greater river system,... If nothing else, that claim is not mentioned in the source referenced, even though the footnote used to be just after it. The only sentence in the source cited that relates is: The Green River is the longer tributary reach of river, but not the one contributing the greatest volume, and traditionally the longest tributary is regarded as a river's headwaters. Nothing about the USGS or any process of renaming rivers. Pfly (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional info, from the book Names on the Land by George R. Stewart -- first the state of Colorado passed an act renaming the Grand River as the Colorado River. The validity of the law was uncertain and the federal body that supposedly had the final say, the United States Board on Geographic Names (the BGN, part of the USGS), declined to take action. It is true that the BGN had a policy stating that in disputed cases of river tributary names, the longer tributary should be considered the main one. But this was not something being done in general, rather just one of many guidelines the BGN used when deciding how to resolve specific name conflicts -- and in any case the BGN didn't say anything one way or the other about the Grand/Colorado. By not taking action the BGN essentially gave its approval to the old name of Grand, not Colorado. So the state of Colorado took it to Congress, where the renaming was made federal law. It was not clear whether Congress actually had the power to make such a law, and no one has the power to enforce such a thing -- people will call rivers what they please. But in this case the renaming has taken hold. I'll see if I can reword the paragraph to make this clear. Pfly (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is still pretty unclear in the article. So did Wyoming and Utah (and perhaps the USGS) want the Green to be remaned the Colorado or did they just not want the State of Colorado to have a "monopoly" on association with the river? And why did congress end up passing the law —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishJew (talk • contribs) 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)