Talk:Salton Sea/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Stub no more

Looks great!!! Big improvement. I looked at the stub a while back but was too overwhelmed (and too green) to try and tackle it. However, given the nice organization that now exists, I'd like to add some bits and pieces here and there, where they'd fit in. In particular, I hope to flesh out the "future plans" stuff, i.e., Salton Sea Authority's plans, IID's as well, since I will have access to them. (And intend to see them all posted online, if they aren't already.) Also, there's no Wikipedia article for the QSA, which will be a big factor in Salton Sea water levels lowering over the next 5-10 years. I'd like to flesh out some of that too (as a link). I'm working on all this stuff for my work (for a public agency) anyhow. So, my Wikipedia edits are kind of like "homework" I do after hours. Would welcome any suggestions, feedback, etc. Thanks! (Oh, and I plan to add a ton of Salton Sea related pix to Wiki Media / Creative Commons. Will add images to article if/where appropriate. Feel free to browse the pix!) Cynthisa (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced the Salton Sea stub with a greatly increased discussion of it's formation, overall history, and some of the environmental and political issues.

However, it still needs work: the history is brief and I intermingle history and politics when they should probably be separate.

Since the Salton Sea (and what to do with it) can be a sensitive issue for people in those parts, I've tried not to offend, but it will likely take a few revisions to get a good NPOV.

Kaszeta 20:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Super, that's a lot more useful that the junk I left here those many months ago. I hope you'll add a photo or two, and ideally details of the settlements that (if memory serves) surround the sea. Also, I don't know if there are any rivers that naturally flow into the salton sea (I guess there aren't), but any artificial inflows should be added to List of rivers of the Americas by coastline's "inland basins" section. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Local communities added and linked to, most of which are just census data stubs and should be fleshed out at some point, with links back to the Sea. Local river basin has been described, and some of the overall information on desalination efforts was added. Partial Metric conversion, too, to save someone the effort later (Aside: how do metric countries measure irrigation water---i.e. what's the closest metric equivalent to acre-feet? I've never thought of that before). -- Kaszeta 13:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I BELIVE THAT THE THPEOPLE SHOULD SAVE ITIS NATIOAL LANDMARK SHE BE PRESERVED FOR AS LONG TO KEEP IT GOING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.78.114 (talk • contribs)

Did you know there is a documentry about it? [1] --207.189.233.158 00:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Gord

An anon had deleted the Disasters category link. Let it be clear that that tag is there because the lake was formed by a dike breach, a disaster by any definition; it is not a judgement about whether the resultant lake is a Good Thing or not, a matter about which we should maintain NPOV of course. seglea 06:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ecological Hazards of Salton Sea

Actually, the geography of the region does form an inland sea and a "Salton Sea" has existed many times before the prior century's incarnation. It's not "unnatural." Cynthisa (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Salton Sea is unnatural... people should stop trying to save it. It's not a Good Thing. It is an abomination and it must go. It will evaporate soon enough if people just leave it alone. It does not belong. --Node 21:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess drying the sea up would disperse too much salt and other stuff all around that territory. Although it would be natural, of course, to let the sea evaporate by itself. 212.92.145.60 15:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to talk about such things, this is merely a place to discuss the article (oh and we can't add that the sea should or shouldn't disappear as that is a matter of opinion).Father Time89 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article goes straight into a section that discusses how to 'save' the Salton Sea, without mentioning how it is endangered, or what saving it might consist of. This is perhaps not noticeable to people who've been maintaining the article for a while.

---Nick Schuyler begin--- I thought this was a very politically biased article; Wasn't this basin closed for the most part due to its danger to recreational humans, waterfowl, and fish? Isn't the Salinity level as high as the equally unsupportive Dead Sea? ---Nick Schuyler end---

Tilapia are the survivors but they look all dead in the photo

so like there is a photo of dead tilapia fish but the article says the tilapia are the ones that survive the best. Is it getting too salty for them too? or are those other less tolerant fishes dead there?

The article does say that due to the increasing salinity, "only the tilapia will survive", yet a later paragraph states that, due to selenium levels, parasites and algae, die-offs are common of all fish species but "mostly tilapia". This does seem to be a serious contradiction. If the die-offs are "mostly tilapia" how can "only the tilapia...survive"? I think the section needs a rewrite for either clarity or accuracy. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Toxic metals and chemicals are different than salinity. The salinity is killing the other fish, but the pollutants are killing the tilapia. Hope this clears things up. Shannon ^talk _contribs 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There are actually three kinds of hazards that can kill fish in the Salton Sea. Salinity, toxic pollutions and fertilizer pollution. Salinity can be selective of which species can tolerate the salt or not. Pollutions with toxic substances such as selenium or what have you will probably be equally tough on all species, but perhaps with a small amount of selective bias, dependng on the nature of these substances. Fertilizer pollution is usually not hazardous in itself, but often cause eutrophication with algae blooms and subsequent loss of oxygen, rising bacterial levels etc when the algae decompose. This is a massive killer and will also be equally tough on all species, but with a slight advantage to species that can live in oxygen deprived conditions. Don't know if Tilapia is one such species?

All this said in an effort to sum up some of the complexity in an ordered way, something I feel lacks in the article. Room for improvement. RhinoMind (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sea-level Canal??

The idea of a sea-level canal for Salton Sea strikes me as dubious. A sea-level canal connects two bodies of water, both of which are at, um, sea level. For example, the Suez canal. But the Salton Sea is *below* sea level, so it doesn't qualify. In other words, there is no way Salton Sea could be at one end of a sea-level canal. Water would simply rush down the canal from the ocean into Salton Sea. I would like to see a reference to proposals for such a canal and study them for validity. Otherwise, I propose that the topic should include a disclaimer about the workability or be omitted entirely. Jedwards05 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

the sealevel canal means it STARTS at sealevel - it was NEVER the idea to flood the Salton sea basin, just to enter fresh sea water to stop the evoporation of the water. ----

If you create a canal connecting the Salton Sea to the ocean, wouldn't the conceptual problem (that the Salton Sea is below sea level) go away rather rapidly? —131.107.0.75 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be obvious that a Sea Level canal is not practical. This concept has been offered by those who wish to to belay the practical concept of canals to bring water into the basin and export water out of the basin. Import/export by pipeline is also impractical because of the high energy requirements. A small consulting firm offered the State of California a practical plan for import/export which was never given serious consideration by the Advisory Committee. DWR prepared another pipeline import/export plan and condemned it as too much money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.196.131.78 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically you could have a "sea-level" canal that just had a few locks along it, though you would definitely need at least one! If not, eventually the entire area would flood with sea water. Piping is an option, although you'd need to ensure there was less than 200 ft of head loss along the pipeline (and given that distance, good luck). Otherwise you'd need some pumping stations. Either way, the article looks very POV imo, as it seems to "push" the idea of a sealevel canal.167.7.17.3 (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"current surface of the Salton Sea at 226 ft (69 m) below sea level" Either a canal or a pipeline would have to allow for a rise/fall of over 200 feet. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

it's intended to raise the Salton Sea up to sea level, people!!! Most likely a canal from the Colorado Delta!!! Shannon ^talk _contribs 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't raising the Salton Sea to sea level make the Salton Sea incredibly huge?? Ridiculously so? BUt then again, if the sea levels are going to rise world wide.........what the heck?? Why not.66.87.1.213 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Calexico and Indio would become port cities. Cities like El Centro would cease to exist. You could theoretically have ocean going ships docking in Indio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.212.121 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Between the rise in the water level of the Salton Sea, and the canal from the Pacific Ocean to it, between one thousand and two thousand square kilometres of land would be under water. Salton Sea salinity could increase, or decrease, depending upon how the canal is built. A broad (1 000+ metres), deep (250+ metres) canal would decrease salinity. A shallow (25 metres), narrow (10 metres) canal would increase salinity. The broad canal would be more expensive to build, but offers several benefits that other solutions don't offer.p (talk)

Pipelines can carry water up to 35 feet over rises before cavitation. With the sea so far below sea level, a pipeline - ditch arrangement could carry water from the Pacific to the Salton through a siphon-resevoir-siphon arrangement, and restore water levels. 48 inch pipelines with the ends submerged in lakes or ditches are the way to go. It wouldn't be a navigable waterway, but it would keep the Salton Sea water level up. I think you have to differentiate between the desires to navigate up the Salton to reach ports near LA, and the desire to keep the shoreline from receding and exposing alkali flats.{108.24.111.82 (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)}

Creation Section

The section involving the creation of the salton sea repeats the story of how the Salton sea was created, I propose we combine relevant information from the two repeats and cut back on the repeated informationFather Time89 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for getting rid of redundant redundancies. Bugguyak (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at the creation section and there are no citations to any of the factual statements. I am new to Wikipedia, but the major Articles I have seen have at least one cite for each statement, including a short quote from the referenced work. It takes some work, but it is the best way, I think, to postion the Article for "Good" or someday "Featured" status.Wikipedia:Good article criteria Even assuming that status is not a goal, references would give the reader reasons to believe what an Article says. Also, if text has been copied from a source, there could be copyright problems absent any attribution.Stwiso (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, that's my fault, I'll correct it. Shannon ^talk _contribs 21:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll add these when I have the time: [2] [3] [4] Shannon ^talk _contribs 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

trivia

Although trivia or pop culture sections are a burden to articles, I don't think it is inappropriate to note popular culture citations in Talk for possible inclusion in the article if notable. The Monster That Challenged the World was a 1957 sci-fi movie set in and around the Salton Sea (for a lot of Americans outside California, it was the first they knew about the Salton Sea). Naaman Brown (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Airspace information?

While the information about the airspace above Salton Sea is good information, does it really belong in the summary/introduction? It seems a bit specialized to pilots. I wouldn't mind the information somewhere down in the article, but not in the intro... Davejenk1ns (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Every piece of dirt or water has airspace over it, and this airspace is not so unique to deserve space in the lead. Moved and tagged as citation needed. --S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Torres-Martinez Wetlands

It would be great to see some information on the wetland project that Debi Livesay is directing on the Torres-Martinez land on the north end of the lake at the mouth of the White River. Any input? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.96.74 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Tilapia

This article says "It is believed that once the salinity surpasses 4.4% w/v, only the tilapia will survive", but the linked article tilapia says these fish "inhabit a variety of fresh water habitats" but does not seem to mention any saltwater varieties. 86.181.173.67 (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To 107.205.57.78

Why did you undo my 2/3/14 change? I grew up in the metric world, I assume in contrast to you, and I'm telling you again: dam3 is a highly unusual unit. km3 would be the unit to use here. Why didn't you just leave it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.112.220.132 (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The article uses a combination of metric & non-metric measurements. Sometimes metric is first and sometimes not. Please refer to WP:UNITS and then decide/come to an agreement. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This was not the point. I was talking about the metric part only. And there, dam3 is a unit in theory only, but I have never seen it used in practice. In situations like these, km3 is used. Kindly leave it that way, unless you really have a convincing counter-argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.112.220.132 (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You two need to come to some sort of agreement. If you search "dam3" in Wikipedia, you get 92 places where it is used. (See: [5].) But Dam3 redirects to Cubic metre. (And a cubic meter is certainly different than a cubic kilometer (km3).) So what is the proper usage and what is the reliable source that explains it? (Also, I suggest you folks register as WP editors. We want people with the interest and expertise to work on these articles. Registration would help all of us. Thanks.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me suggest you *google* for it. Among the first pages returned, there is not one single text using it - only theoretical explanations about what it means (and it might go on like that on the pages that follow). - If you refer to other WP articles, then they were probably written by americans - thus people not really familiar with the SI, just as here seems to be the case. Still thanks for the effort, but kindly remain open for advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.228.89 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The decametre (dam) is a perfectly valid unit and dam³ (cubic decametre) is valid as a unit of volume. As one acre foot converts to 1.2 decametres the volume units are similar in size, which is likely why that conversion was used. However, the cubic decametre and its abbreviation dam³ is unlikely to be meaningful to most readers and a conversion to either km³ or m³ would cause less confusion. The dam³ bit shows up in the Remediation efforts section also and consistency would be good. But then ... how many readers are familiar with acre foot? (though easy to visualise ... for those who can relate to acre)
Anyway, rather than edit warring -- build consensus here for whichever unit to use. Vsmith (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The volume parameter for {{Infobox body of water}} refers to cubic metres & cubic kilometres. Decametre is not used. Frankly I was confused when I saw dam³ come up. I thought it dealt with something related to dams. Best to stick with km³. – S. Rich (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Done - dam be gone. Go with more familiar terminology. Vsmith (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Very good article overall, but I want to point out that, years after this discussion, there is still no consistency in the units - partly imperial first, partly metric first. I would kindly suggest the actual clean-up work be done by somebody less prone to making a good article bad through good intentions. Gonesoft (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

history

There could be more about how the 1960s era of high-end aquatic tourism came to an abrupt end with the early 1970s floods, and how since then the needs of the Salton Sea have generally come out on the losing side of most water policy disputes (i.e. third in line behind the needs of farmers and San Diego area municipalities)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Salton Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Salton Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110611004450/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2006/3/2006_3_38.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2006/3/2006_3_38.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)