Talk:List of rivers of California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List	This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale.

I think nearly all important streams have been added to the list, especially those called rivers. I don't think that small streams should be added unless there is something significant about them. They would clog the list and are not notable enough for articles. -- Kjkolb 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's reasonable. What's our definition of "small stream"? -Will Beback 08:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm using the scientific definition of "stream", a flowing waterbody of indeterminate size. I should have said "non-notable" instead of "small". I don't know if there is a way to objectively determine a stream's importance, like the rate of water flow in cubic feet per second. Streams in dry areas are more likely to be notable than streams in wet areas of the same size. When I added a bunch of streams to the list, I chose ones that have large flows or are a significant source of drinking/irrigation water. Also, I have many hydrological maps of California that I used to identify notable streams. There are probably still streams that are locally significant water sources that are not on the list, but I think most of the streams with large flows and those that provide large amounts of water for human use are already on the list. The list covers many of the streams that are flood risks or have flooded in the past, but many are not listed. Some of them, especially in Southern and Eastern California, are essentially ditches that only have water in them during major storms. The Los Angeles area is so urbanized that even these are significant flood hazards. We could use the size of the stream's flow, human water usage and historical/potential flooding to determine whether it should be included. Of course, a stream could be added for other reasons. -- Kjkolb 11:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good approach. Perhaps the concept we should strive for is "notable waterways". -Will Beback 22:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few more around the San Francisco Bay, because there were already articles for them. Most of them are negligible in absolute terms, but well known because they flow through densely populated areas - and are microcosms of the conservation and management issues that affect all rivers; furthermore, chunks of the dense population are highly vocal on river matters. So even little creeks thereabouts can be notable. seglea 09:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

agree stongly with Seglea. ive created about 10 stream articles recently and some of the "small" ones have a fascinating wealth of information; and, around the sf bay, they are often both densely inhabited and have some notable ecology Anlace 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

I've made articles on a lot of them, but it is getting harder to find information on the remaining streams because they are all tributaries and a lot of them have names in common with many other streams. If anyone has a source with information on the tributaries of these streams, please let me know. I would also like information on Alameda Creek and the Eastside Bypass themselves. Useful information includes their origin and terminus (having the elevations of these is nice), length, volume of flow, watershed size, watershed land use, watershed location, watershed ownership, environmental problems and dams and reservoirs on the stream. Thanks, Kjkolb 10:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Alameda Creek
• Eastside bypass
• Sacramento River

[edit] Ordering of list

This list would be a lot more useful if the rivers were arranged geographically (like some other lists of rivers, e.g. List of rivers of England and Wales) - north to south would fit with the existing categorisation. The complementary category page has them in alphabetical order, so there would be some gain and no loss. Anyone got a reliable atlas and willing to undertake it? Doing it would also help identify any missing streams. seglea 05:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have started this process. OK for the north coast group. San Francisco Bay done for the main streams, and the main tributaries of the Sacramento, but I can't sort out the San Joaquin group and some of the subtributaries of the Sacramento, for want of a suitable atlas. seglea 08:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

done my best with the Central and South sections, but needs checking with an atlas, I've done it from towns named in the articles. seglea 09:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to sort the rivers in the Sierras from north to south, because they form a continuous sequence of river valleys. (By the way, I was happy with the previous sorting -- alphabetically within each grouping.) -- Jasper 21:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets try to stay with the north to south where possible and use alpha only when its totally confusing or as a last resort. The north to south works well for the coastal streams, and around the sf bay just a clockwise or counterclockwise turn Anlace 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sloughs aren't streams

I don't think that sloughs should be included on a list of rivers. They are inlets, more like a bay or estuary than a river or creek. Tmangray (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have included the Eureka Slough and the Freshwater Slough as they drain the Freshwater Creek, one of 4 or 5 major streams draining the watershed east of the Eureka Plain into Humboldt Bay. Freshwater Creek is a major stream and an historic source of water for the City of Eureka and its environs. Any editor can look back and see that I once had a much more detailed list that has since been moved to a list of Tributaries in the Humboldt Bay article. I like that the point has been brought up because many (but not all) sloughs are primarily tidal control and are not appropriate for this article. The work of the many editors is ALWAYS better than the individual. This fact never ceases to amaze me in the work herein. Thank you. Norcalal 16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)...addition also by Norcalal 16:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC). Previous attempt to edit my own comment was thwarted by a bot. Trying again... Norcalal 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a separate list of sloughs? Tmangray (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)