Talk:Glen Canyon Dam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Rivers
 This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Why was the dam constructed?

There is no real reference as to the purpose of the dam. There is only a mention of hydroelectric power, but no mention of why this was needed. Most of the article concentrates on the controversy and negative repercussions of the damming, which is not a bad thing (I think it is quite a good thing to include in this article), however, more needs to be included as to the reason the dam was built and its history/uses. (Note: If I've erred in posting this someway, please correct me, this is my first contribution/post to the Wikipedia.)- Tuxley, Dec. 5, 2005, 5:31 AM EST

[edit] Needs text

This needs text, not just collection of images. I have only vague memories of reading Edward Abbey, and don't think that's a good basis for my writing this.Vicki Rosenzweig 16:39, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] "Radical" environmentalists?

What's so "radical" about the Sierra Club? The wikipedia's own article about that group doesn't characterize them in that manner. There's no reason to paint them with the same broad brush as Earth First! or to revert the deletion of that word.

I agree that "radical" is unjustified. So is the removal of all the pro-draining external links. Such a blatantly POV edit makes me suspicious of the same anon's unsourced assertions about the ecological aspects. I will remove them unless a citation is provided. The link about Lake Powell fishing information is in the Lake Powell article and doesn't belong here. JamesMLane 00:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Experimental Flows

I believe that the reference to experimental flows in 2005 is incorrect, the last experiment was in 2004. Also, the reference to excess silt being flushed into Lake Mead is odd given that all sediment introduced into the mainstem below GCD will eventually be washed into Lake Mead, and the quanitity of sediment in the system is a fraction of what occured prior to the completion of the Dam. If this article is going to reference the post-dam environmental efforts, it should start with a link to the Grand Canyon Adaptive Management Program - http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/index.html - and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center - http://www.gcmrc.gov/gcmrc.htm

[edit] Metric system

This page is for display worldwide, and more than half the world uses the metric system. Anyone on that?

it's in the US, and US articles use the US system just like American English vs. British English. -Violask81976 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental impact

Wouldn't it be proper to add a section in the environmental section describing the amount of greenhouse gases that are not pumped into the atmosphere as a result of the electricity produced by the dam rather than through a fossil burning power plant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.43.10 (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems that's already discussed in Hydroelectricity, which IMO is a better place since it's a general thing about dams and not specific to Glen Canyon. See also Environmental impacts of dams. --R27182818 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with R2718818. JamesMLane t c 21:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
O.K., I see what you mean and agree. After reviewing the hydroelectric article and the Lake Powell article, it strikes me that the Lake Powell article contains a great deal of information about Glen Canyon Dam that should be better located in this article. Essentially, the entire history section in the Lake Powell article should be moved here. Also, the discussion in the intro section to the Glen Canyon Dam article contains a lot of information about Glen Canyon and the feelings of those trying to protect it. Shouldn't those portions be moved to a new section entitled "controversies" or something like that. Perhaps they would be better located in the environmental impact section. After all, summarizing a little known novel published in 1975 in the intro section seems a little strange to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.43.10 (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, one possibility is to merge the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell articles entirely. There is also a standalone Glen Canyon article, though I haven't looked at it much. Or, the controversy could be summarized in its own article. Anything that seems to minimize the visibility of the controversy would be hotly contested by many people who watch this article, myself included, but I do agree that the distribution of material between this article and Lake Powell isn't ideal.
I personally think the intro is pretty good, though it could use some editing for length. Monkey Wrench Gang may be unfamiliar to you, but it's not a "little known novel", and the dam was the last of the big dams. It's the subject of passionate loathing by many people, myself included. For those reasons, I think its controversial nature is a very important part of its story.
(P.S. please follow talk page conventions -- sign and indent your comments, etc.) --R27182818 (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado River Storage Project

I removed the following text from the article:

which provides more storage capacity than all other storage features of the Colorado River Storage Project combined.[1]

While technically true, I think this statement is misleading. The CRSP includes only dams on the upper Colorado River, and Glen Canyon is the last dam in the project. In particular, Hoover Dam is not part of the CRSP, and Lake Mead holds more water than Lake Powell. Links:

--R27182818 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The information about the dam's inclusion within the CSRP, and the purpose of the CSRP, is properly part of its history. I've moved the reference there, restored the citation that you deleted, and quoted directly from the cited website to give the Bureau of Reclamation's take. I agree with you that the specific point that Lake Powell stores more water than the rest of the CSRP is immaterial and need not be included. Just in case someone else comes upon this fact in some other source and comes here for clarification, however, the quotation I've added imparts the key point you mention, that the CSRP applies only to the upper basin. JamesMLane t c 18:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)