Talk:All-American Canal/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Map Wouldn't Hurt Either

I just heard on the news that Mexico is disputing who gets the water from the canal. A three-court panel is reviewing it. Since I missed part of the story, and there is no map of the canal, I can't tell if this was what I actually heard or if I missed something important. 68.48.174.136 14:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(Added an external link to Imperial Irrigation District map of the canal, including the lining project. 7/17/2007)

Uncited and dubious addition

An anonymous editor has added this bit:

"It caries a greater volume of water than many of North America's largest rivers, and since it's construction little or no water reaches the Gulf Of California from the Colorado River."

First, this is uncited. Second, the Colorado river itself is not a large river (by average volume), if memory serves, hence its canal isn't likely to be bigger.

Please do some research, and add cites if you want part of this in the article. The second assertion might be true. Reverted for now. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The average flow of the Colorado River is 22,000 cfs, and while that's much smaller than the Mississippi and Columbia the figure of 22,000 cfs still puts it in the top 20 or so largest rivers in North America. It's larger than rivers such as the Hudson, Potomac, Sacramento, Delaware, Apalachicola, Allegheny, Monongehela, and other rivers with reputations as "large" rivers. I suppose large is a subjective term. While it may have a fraction of the volume of the very largest rivers it is still far larger than most rivers in the United States. The figure of 22,000 cfs also came into play long after the river had already begun to be tapped as a water source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.199.75 (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. We'd still need a reference for the avg flow through the canal, preferably one that makes the comparison to other rivers' flow. Otherwise we're edging into WP:Original research, which isn't allowed here.

If you're thinking about becoming a regular contributor here, I'd recommend signing up for an account, and reading the Wikipedia:Tutorial on editing. Anonymous contributors tend to get less respect here, rightly or no, since, in general, so many of their edits aren't helpful.

Anyway, hope you join the ranks here. It's an interesting and worthwhile hobby, I think. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a hook for this article is great, especially comparing it to another river. I looked at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation site on the Canal and it says the max flow is 15,155 cfs which is a lot less than what the intro says. If you do the math; 3.1 million acre-feet of water annually from the Canal comes out to 4,279 cfs annually (135,036,000,000 cubic feet X 31,556,926 seconds). If we used the max flow and this source, the max flow would be greater than the Salween and Savannah Rivers. So, I am not sure what would be a good idea. Any ideas?

I also wanted to include something about the U.S.-Mexico dispute in the article, the Imperial Dam article mentions it a little but not enough. That would add to the articles hook as well.--NortyNort (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)