Talk:Lake Powell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Lakes
 Lake Powell is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.
WikiProject Lakes
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as B-importance on the importance scale.
Utah Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Utah, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Utah.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
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).

I think something should be included on the controversy over the naming of 'Lake Powell'. Powell was an ardent naturalist that would probably have been upset over environmental destruction caused by the dam and lake. It seems ironic that the man who first explored the river and admired its power should have his name lent to this massive lake. Tkessler 19:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like a good addition but we have to make it NPOV. Was there an actual controversy when the reservoir was named? Did people raise this point and argue that some other name should be selected? We should describe that controversy. Failing that, we'd need to refer to some notable spokesperson for the view you mention, that Powell would have opposed the environmental destruction. JamesMLane 23:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A quick goggle search suggests that there is definitely some controversy over the issue (The Coaltion to Rename Lake Powell being one example). I'll do some research and add in a bit if no one has objections (or they can do it themself if they have a good source). Tkessler 02:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
The only controversy was made up by extreme environmental groups. The U.S. Board of Geographic Names rejected their naming request - end of story. scorup

Contents

[edit] Surface area

Shouldn't 102.88 square miles equal 266.46 square kilometers, not 1627 as is currently listed? [[1]] --Aaron 67.182.211.191 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, for my opinion Aaron is right. So - what's wrong in the facts ??? --84.138.80.249 22:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Volume

Volume of Lake Powell: I think this - 26.5 km³ (21,505,000 acre.feet) - isn't right, because i know from many sources of ~33,3 km³. --84.138.80.249 14:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Each figure might be correct, depending on the date. The volume of water in the reservoir fluctuates seasonally, and over the last few years there's been an overall downward trend. JamesMLane 17:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn't the maximum (~33,3 km³) to be mentioned in the facts ??? --84.138.80.249 22:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
That would be fine as long as it's labeled that way. When I see an unqualified reference to "volume" I assume it's the actual volume. If 33.3 is the volume when it's full (which it may never be again), that could be included but labeled "capacity". JamesMLane 02:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Powell

I need to get the total square miles of Lake Powell. I have research the web and can't find the square miles, which is needed for a research project.

Can anyone provide me with this info. Thanks in advance for your immediate assistance

Dana - dana@txgca.org Dec 29, 2005

Note my comment in the section above: The volume varies. As a result, the same is true of the surface area. The more water the reservoir is holding, the larger the area it covers.
According to this site, the area covered went from 250 square miles to 131 square miles during the recent prolonged drought.
Our article gives the area as 266 square miles, which is what the reservoir would cover if it were full. [2] We use that figure for the sake of simplicity. We can't be revising the article twice a day as the water level rises and falls. If you need to know the actual area covered as of some current date, you might try contacting Living Rivers or the Glen Canyon Institute. Both are knowledgeable organizations whose websites are linked in the article. Nevertheless, you can make your life easier if, for your purposes, the maximum surface area covered will do. JamesMLane 04:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Powell reservoir information web page

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/profile?s=PWL&type=res

The capacity, according to this page is 24,322,000 acre feet.

This page also gives monthly mean volumes, as well as a link to monthly volume data.

[edit] Effects of Drought, Future of Lake, Water Levels, Etc.

I think this article could use a section on the future of the lake, and its current status. Just quickly glancing at the water-level link [3], it is presently at 47% of capacity. I live in Arizona and as long as I can remember we have been experiencing a drought. It would also appear that the rate of usage exceeds that rate at which the lake is refilled by rivers upstream. !jim 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, nevermind, that info is in the history section. !jim 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute

There is/was lots of loaded language and unverified statements like "monumental mistake", "infested", "exorbitant", "delight", and 'tourists are going elsewhere'. The tone of parts of the article is very much that of an opinion rather than an encyclopedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.32.73.64 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. The previous state was pretty NPOV in the opposite direction, IMO, so I don't think a simple revert is appropriate. Thanks for starting the work! --R27182818 15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. This article clearly argues that Lake Powell is Bad, especially in statements like " and Glen Canyon began to die". Bdjensen 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute and improvement

Does anyone object to removing the neutrality tag?

Re-reading the article, this seems reasonable to me. --R27182818 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think this article should have a section on the recent drought. I've heard (and I'll find sources) that Lake Powell may never fill up again. I could expand the last paragraph in the "History" section into another section, possibly titled "Recent Drought." Thoughts? Russell Abbott (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Note that snowpack this winter is very high and the lake may fill up this year (no source, sorry). But the long-term prospects are still grim.
There also needs to be a Controversy section. Many folks (including myself) have a passionate loathing for this particular reservoir and this fact and the reasons behind it are not captures. --R27182818 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There's more discussion of the controversy in the Glen Canyon Dam article, where it seems more appropriate. (I just checked that article and noticed that someone along the way deleted the Dave Brower quotation about the dam. The passionate loathing you describe is matched by passionate adoration from the dam's supporters, and they've pushed their POV in that article.) The best setup is to have the controversy fully and fairly covered in Glen Canyon Dam, with a brief mention and wikilink here. JamesMLane t c 18:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)