Talk:Colorado River/Archive 1

Archive 1

Headline text

I rewrote part of the intro of the article, which seemed to imply that the Colorado is dry in northern Mexico because of natural evaporation, which is false. Prior to its use as a water source, the Delta was a lush marshland. Also the statement that it drains the region between the Rockies and the Sierras is broadly misleading, since its drainage is skewed much more to the western slope of the Rockies, with few of its tributaries penetrating near the Sierra (which is the Great Basin). -- Decumanus 21:13, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Page title

I would suggest that this page is moved to either Colorado River or Colorado River (Gulf of California). "Colorado River (U.S.)" makes no sense because: 1) It flows not only through the USA, but also through Mexico. 2) It is not the only river with that name in the US, there is also the Colorado River (Texas).

Replacing the disambig page at Colorado River might be OK because this is the biggest of all of the rivers with this name. If we don't want to do this, I think the best way to distinguish rivers is by their destination -- a river may cross several countries, but it always has only one body of water into which it empties. Comments? -- Chl 16:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

I would prefer destination style "Colorado River (Gulf of California)" , even if it is the biggest there might come wrong links otherwise. Disambig at Colorado River is nice. Maybe disambig should show which is the biggest/most important of these Rivers. Importance might differ, question: who out of 5 billion would know that the C.River in US is the biggest. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The links to Colorado River almost all mean the one that flows through the Grand Canyon, so I agree with moving this article to that title and moving the disambiguation material to a new page, "Colorado River (disambiguation)". The other two article titles are OK. This article, if placed at "Colorado River", would begin with the "other uses" notice to direct readers to the dab page. JamesMLane 05:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support Colorado River (for this river) and Colorado River (disambiguation). –Hajor 19:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, majority opinion is: move Colorado River to Colorado River (disambiguation) and move Colorado River (US) to Colorado River. I have done the first move, need an admin to do the second. Thanks! --Chl 17:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gale Norton and Colorado River

[1] May be this article should mention briefly the Colorado River Interstate Compact. I visited it expecting some encyclopedic article about the whole compact

---

Discussion about the title of this article and its recent change can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Changing article titles from XXXXX (US) to XXXXX (United States). Feel free to contribute. -- hike395 16:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Colorado River and its native fishes

I keep deleting the last 2 paragraphs from the engineering section because they are a political discourse on the status of a species recovery program that has nothing to do with the engineering of the Colorado River and is more opinion than information. Apparently, people worried about vandalism keep putting the paragraphs back in. I would suggest that those people actually read the paragraphs before replacing them. They may be used as intersting commentary in an article dealing with the Endangered Species Act and the costs of such programs, but they have no place here.

I agree that the information on native fishes has nothing to do with engineering; however, the topic of wildlife seems relevant to the subject of the article. Added a new wildlife section and linked to a separate article on the recovery program, which can cover the details of that program and the controversy surrounding it. This is my first "real" edit (usually do minor grammar/formatting edits) so please correct me if needed. Jfredrickson 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

See the wikipedia article on the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The program IS controversial because of the removal and killing of sportfish that are perhaps unfairly being given part of the blame for the demise of native fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.155.22 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"At full flow" ?

Someone removed the statement that "at full flow" the Yukon is larger. The Yukon is larger on average, but what does "full flow" really mean? Perhaps the comparison sentence could be made more precise. -- R27182818 15:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife

The assertion that the fish recovery program is controversial seems itself controversial. :) I reworded it and added a citation-needed tag. If no one comes up with a citation within a few weeks, I'll assume none is readily available and will remove the statement on controversy. Feedback on this plan is welcome. --R27182818 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the wikipedia page on the Upper colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The program has some controversy surrounding it because they are killing the river's sportfish, which are blamed, perhaps unfairly, for contributing to the demise of the native fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.223.224 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

22,000 cfs. No, 42,600 cfs

The figure on USGS on the average flow being 22,000 cfs IS TRUE. However this is since the early 1900s, when large amounts of water started to be diverted from the river for irrigation and municipal use. The Colorado historically had a much larger flow before it was diverted for human use. This is true with many other rivers, such as the Rio Grande and China's Huang He (Yellow) River. I am a hydrologist and the 42,600 cfs comes from historical data before diversions. --peckvet55

Hi peckvet, the cite (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/ofr87-242/) for the 22kcfs figure includes the following passage:

...rivers and their characteristics vary in space and time in response to climatic changes and to man's activities . The causes include ... changes in precipitation and temperature ... erosion and deposition ... diversions of water ... and the construction of public works .... For example, combinations of these effects ... have reduced the average flow of the Colorado River near its mouth from about 22,000 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) for the period 1903-34...

i.e., the 22kcfs is itself historical. Can you provide a citation for your 42.6kcfs figure? Thanks! --R27182818 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The 42,600 cfs figure is what I learned in college and also what a tour guide at Hoover Dam told me. Until I can find a source for that though, go ahead and edit it back

As far as the Green being larger than the Upper Colorado, that is not true according to USGS. Here is the link. Note that the mean flow of the Colorado River near Cisco (before the Green empties into it) is larger:

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/current/?type=flow

New information

• Colorado River streamflow history reveals megadrought before 1490 Someone may like to add this to the page. angela26 05:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Flow

The Green River page asserts that it has the larger flow at its confluence with the Colorado, and is the parent river of the river system.

So which is it? The USGS flow data shows the upper Colorado has the greater flow, so did the Green historically have a greater flow (perhaps before the construction of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir)?

The Upper Colorado River always had a higher flow than the Green. Also, Flaming Gorge is a hydroelectric and storage dam, not a diversion dam, so it doesn't lower the flow of the Green River. Spring runoff flows are less however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.224.199 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Green, Grand, name changing

The section on the renaming of the Grand River to Colorado had a misplaced reference. I just moved it to the end of the sentences actually described in the source. I also added a fact tag for this claim, which I had not heard before and am skeptical about: The USGS had begun a process of simplifying the nomenclature of the nation's rivers. The convention was that the longer of two rivers that converge would carry the name of the greater river system,... If nothing else, that claim is not mentioned in the source referenced, even though the footnote used to be just after it. The only sentence in the source cited that relates is: The Green River is the longer tributary reach of river, but not the one contributing the greatest volume, and traditionally the longest tributary is regarded as a river's headwaters. Nothing about the USGS or any process of renaming rivers. Pfly (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional info, from the book Names on the Land by George R. Stewart -- first the state of Colorado passed an act renaming the Grand River as the Colorado River. The validity of the law was uncertain and the federal body that supposedly had the final say, the United States Board on Geographic Names (the BGN, part of the USGS), declined to take action. It is true that the BGN had a policy stating that in disputed cases of river tributary names, the longer tributary should be considered the main one. But this was not something being done in general, rather just one of many guidelines the BGN used when deciding how to resolve specific name conflicts -- and in any case the BGN didn't say anything one way or the other about the Grand/Colorado. By not taking action the BGN essentially gave its approval to the old name of Grand, not Colorado. So the state of Colorado took it to Congress, where the renaming was made federal law. It was not clear whether Congress actually had the power to make such a law, and no one has the power to enforce such a thing -- people will call rivers what they please. But in this case the renaming has taken hold. I'll see if I can reword the paragraph to make this clear. Pfly (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is still pretty unclear in the article. So did Wyoming and Utah (and perhaps the USGS) want the Green to be remaned the Colorado or did they just not want the State of Colorado to have a "monopoly" on association with the river? And why did congress end up passing the law —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishJew (talk • contribs) 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am still researching the early history of the "Grand River". Historically there are two conventions regarding naming of rivers. When Lewis and Clark explored the Missouri, they had no knowledge of how long or wide the drainage basins were, so they named the rivers according to the amount of flow. As long as they could determine which had the greater flow, that was considered the Missouri and the other was given a different name. When they reached the Jefferson, Madison, and Gallitin Rivers, however, they could not clearly determine which had the greatest flow and therefore named Three Forks as the source of the Missouri and gave each branch its name. The confluence of the Green and Grand Rivers, however, was not visited before the rivers were named. The names Green River, Spanish River, and Seedskeedee worked their way down from Wyoming, while the name of Colorado worked its way up from the Gulf of California. At first, "Colorado" was applied only to that portion of the river below its junction with the San Juan (then called the Nabajoo or Nabajoa). That portion of the river from there to the next major junction (with the Dolores) was for a time called the Zaguananas. Gradually that name was dropped and "Colorado" reached as far as the Dolores. Above that point the Dolores and the Rafael were the major branches. It was clear to the trappers that the waters of the Green came out of the unknown regions in or as the Colorado, but exactly how the Green, the Dolores, the Rafael, and the lower Colorado/Zaguananas were connected was not known. Some conlcuded that the Rafael was the Green, others realized it was not and gave it the name Grand. Some then concluded that the Green and Dolores Rivers joined and that the Grand River was a tributary of the Green. Finally Powell charted the correct details.

In the debate over whether the Grand should have been renamed the Colorado, the two conventions were in opposition to each other. The Green had the longer trace, the Grand had the greater volume. If the habit of naming a river up to two relatively equal tributaries had held, then the Grand River would have remained Grand River. But politics overruled not only common practice but the usage of history. Except for a brief reference by Escalante, the Grand/Rafael River had never been referred to as the Colorado; but the Green River often had been, not just by such as Jedediah Smith (who called them both, according to his spelling, the Seeds Keeder) but also by map makers. RDavS (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the previous two paragraphs don't belong on this discussion page, but at this point I'll leave them there as a part of discussion on what to include in the article. I also wonder about mentioning possible ways in which the name "Grand River" came to be used. I don't yet have conclusive information on who first gave it the name, but wonder if it resulted from a confusion with the name of the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande above Alamosa, CO, is aligned approximately east to west. The Colorado from Cisco, UT, to Cameo, CO, is also aligned approximately east to west. The cartographers of the time were not eyewitnesses of the land they mapped in this region, but gathered their information second or third hand from the trappers. The maps indicate that most believed the Rio Grande's source was at a higher latitude than it is. It is possible a trapper who knew the upper reaches of the Rio Grande referred to it correctly as the Rio Grande. Yet most of the maps referred to the Rio Grande according to its other shortened name: Rio del Norte. When cartographers learned of a tributary of the Colorado aligned east and west, but did not realize that "Rio Grande" was short for "Rio Grande del Norte", they may have concluded that "Rio Grande" and "Rio del Norte" were different rivers and applied the former name to this newly learned tributary. Perhaps, however, that's too much speculation for the main article.RDavS (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo NOT from Marble Canyon

Hi all, I have renamed the photo caption for the river level photo from Grand Canyon. This photo is mislabled and is not from the Upper Grand Canyon-Marble Canyon reach. The photo is a downstream view of Cove Canyon taken from about 174 Mile. If you'd like I can replace the photo with one from Marble Canyon. Tom Martin, author, Guide to the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Lee's Ferry to South Cove and Day Hikes From The River, A Guide to 100 Hikes From Camps on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. Tom@vishnutemplepress.com Grandcanyontom (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Volume and The Green River

I deleted the part that said the Green River has a larger flow. I live on these rivers and that is NOT the case. Check the USGS site. This time of year the upper Colorado has an average flow of approx. 10,000 cfs and the Green 8,600. This trend is true year round, even though the flows are higher or lower. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/current/?type=flow ==peckvet55==

What about the mexican/US water sharing on Colorado?

Which is the proportion of water sharing of each country? How much of the water is left for Mexico? Does US compensate the ecological dammage on Colorado delta? (It's well known that the massive water use on US is leaving the Colorado delta dry, and several fish species are on the brink of extinction).

2000 feet wide? Where?

Hi all, hope you don't mind a little tweaking here too. "Just south of the town of Page, Arizona, the river forms the dramatic Horseshoe Bend, then at Lees Ferry is joined by another tributary, the warm, shallow, muddy Paria River, and begins its course through Marble Canyon. Here, the Colorado ranges from 300 to 2000 feet in width (90 to 610 m) and 9 to 130 feet in depth (3 to 40 m)."

Where is the river 2000 feet wide? How about 700 feet max at Middle Nankoweap, river mile 53.4. Runner-up would be just above the Paria Riffle about 0.25 mile.

And 300 feet wide minimum? How about 175 feet in the Supai gorge, around 13.5 mile.Grandcanyontom (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never been to the Grand Canyon so I know nothing about width there. I do know the Colorado is 2000 feet wide or more in many places along the CA/AZ border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.152.207 (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually its minimum width is at its source in La Poudre Pass, where it is 1 foot wide. I have a photo somewhere of me standing with one of my feet on each side of it.U52983 (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The maximum width is about 10 miles in Lake Mead. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lakes or pools behind dams don't count for width. Most of the areas I have seen of the lower Colorado, around Laughlin, are easily 400 - 500 yards wide. Some places below the Parker strip are close to a half mile but I would say the average width of the lower river is probably about 1100 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.122.31 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Omissions of discussion of ecological damage caused by diversion of this river

The topic of the ecological damage caused by the use of about 80% of this river upstream, radically altering the ecosystems at the delta near the mouth of the river, has been extensively studied. But it's barely touched upon in this article! I would like to request this article be expanded to discuss this, esp. regarding the ecosystems near the river's delta. Cazort (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Section removed for discussion

I've cut the following from the article. It is sourced to a masters thesis from 1982. It may be the "opinion of some geologists...", but we need reliable sources for it.

Prehistory

It is the opinion of some geologists that before the Gulf of California came into being some 7-8 million years ago, the Colorado River initially had its outlet somewhere along what is now the California coast. They believe that the massive Monterey Submarine Canyon under Monterey Bay along with the associated undersea sedimentary fan may be remnants of the Colorado's ancient outlet.<ref>[http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA115717 The Impact of Tectonic Activity in the Development of Monterey Submarine Canyon<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The canyon has moved north to its current location by the action of the San Andreas Fault and would have been approximately where Santa Barbara is located when both the San Andreas Fault and the Gulf of California came into being.

Please provide a better source if it is to go back into the article. Vsmith (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good move, this article needs a geology section, but that wasn't a very promising start. Kmusser (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I recall seeing an article related to this in Science magazine sometime in the last 15 years, but havent' been able to find it. A key term to watch for: zircons. Google this and "ancestral colorado river" and several promising hits come up, but most are behind paywalls. If anyone is interested, grab a list of citations and go to your local university library to browse them. Contact me if you need assistance figuring them out. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Spanish mile?

I've been unable to find an article that describes jsut what a "Spanish mile" is. Anyone? babbage (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Discharge

The infobox claims a discharge of 22,000 cfs, and the text clarifies that this was the mean flow between 1903 and 1934. The source cited is this USGS page. The source does back this up, but shouldn't discharge info, especially in the infobox, reflect flow rates up to the present day, not just 1903-1934? The infobox is misleading by not mentioning the value given is historic not current. In fact, the USGS page says the current discharge (at least in 1990 when the text was written) is "less than 15,000 cfs". Pfly (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Twenty two thousand CFS is about right. The flows below Parker and Davis Dams are generally 20,000 - 26,000 cfs during the day or higher in hotter months due to power generation. During night and at other times of the year they can dip below 14,000 cfs. Monitor the USGS discharge site, and you will find the flow to be generally over that this time of year. Flows don't often top 15,000 cfs below Palo Verde Dam and 4000 cfs is a high flow for the river near Yuma, however the majority of the river has been diverted into the All American and Gila Gravity Canals by the time the river reaches Yuma. What remains at Yuma is generally used by Mexico at Morelos Dam, usually around 2000 cfs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.116.24 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I collecting a bunch of discharge data from the various USGS gauges and wrote up a discharge section. The text is still rough and repetitively worded. I'll try to improve it if I get the chance. If nothing else it could benefit from mentioning the river mile of the gauges. In order to demonstrate the effect of dams and diversions on discharge I picked six gauges and provided mean, max, and min discharge stats. The six gauges are below Glen Canyon Dam (at Lees Ferry), below Hoover Dam, below Davis Dam, below Parker Dam, below Laguna Dam, and the last still operating gauge at the "northerly international boundary", above Morelos Dam. The last gauge's report does not seem to include a mean annual discharge value, even though it has been operating since 1950. I couldn't find a mean annual value for this gauge, so just mentioned the mean for 2008-2009. Also, I'm moving the current passage about discharge here for now:

Total flows of the river range from {{convert|113|m3/s|abbr=on|lk=on}} in droughts to {{convert|28000|m3/s|abbr=on}} in severe floods. With the construction of massive power dams on the lower course of the river, flows of over {{convert|2000|m3/s|abbr=on}} are unusual. The mean flow of the river was {{convert|620|m3/s|abbr=on}} during the period between 1903-34. From 1951-80, the average flow was less than {{convert|110|m3/s|abbr=on}}.<ref name=largest/> Historically the flow was much higher before water usage began in the basin.

If I have time I'll try to reincorporate some of this back, but most of it is unsourced as far as I can tell, other than the two sentences about 1903-34 and 1951-80. Feel free to put some or all of this passage back into the article--with sources if possible. Finally, I'm not quite sure which gauge to use for the infobox. I'll try to rewrite the infobox as a geobox, and figure out how to best do the discharge stats (again, time permitting). Perhaps the infobox discharge should have a footnote in addition to a source citation, with the footnote describing which gauge is being used and why. Pfly (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well, I've done most of what I set out above. More work needed, to be sure. For the infobox I used the Lees Ferry gauge. Even though it is about halfway along the river it appears to have the highest mean (and max) discharge. It also appears to be the oldest gauge--somewhat equivalent to the Columbia River gauge at The Dalles, I reckon. What a strange river this is--most rivers have their max discharge at or at least near the mouth. Here we find the peak discharge, mean and max, at about the halfway point downriver. Pfly (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Heya Shannon, I see we're editing at the same time :-) .. I wonder though how you converted acre-feet per year to cfs--you fixed my numbers (2661 to 2527 and 1194 to 1133). I merely used Google's unit conversion feature, which may or may not be the best way. Still, I double checked: For 1928000 acre-feet per year it says 2661.33907 cfs, and for 865000 acre-feet per year it says 1194.01364 cfs. Pfly (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain why. I find a river's discharge with those "how many acre-feet a year" figures, since "average discharge" figures like 2000 cfs, for example, are really hard to come by. So to find the cfs discharge from 1,000,000 acre feet a year, for example, is 1000000/763 or ~ 1,311 cfs. For the figures you put, 1928000/2661 and 865000/1194 would become 725 not 763. I don't know whic is correct though; I got that number by multiplaying (AF*40320)÷365÷24÷60÷60 or some kind of formula like that; AF*40320 gives the yearly discharge in cubic feet, then divide that by all that into seconds, or something, can't really remember of how I got the number, but I'd been using that since mid-2009 or so… Shannon^talk _contribs 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, feel free to edit the numbers--one of them is repeated in the section's first paragraph. I felt inclined to change the two at the end back so the first one matched, but am not entirely sure Google's calculator is ideal. I think there's a web applet thingie for these kind of conversions, if I can remember where. Pfly (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's one. Pfly (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess you were right – the conversion number is 724.5, not 763. I'll remember that, but I've edited so many river articles that fixing seems unlikely :p Shannon^talk _contribs 21:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the time of year the Colorado is normally near it's 22,000 cfs average from Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam due to power generation demand during warmer times of the year. During the day during winter the flows can drop to half that much. So your mean annual figures of the flow beneath the various dams seems about right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.116.24 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that discharge changes these days are often due to power demands instead of natural processes, like seasonal high and low water. The Columbia River is similar in this way. I expected the Colorado's discharge between Hoover and the big diversions to be a bit higher. Also, wow, they sure divert a lot down near the All-American Canal! The flow rates plummet in that area. More surprising was that the discharge at the very long operating gauge at Lee's Ferry shows the highest long term mean annual discharge. Makes me wonder whether part of it is due to the gauge's long life, factoring in a longer, less regulated era. Also, it seemed like the Lee's Ferry gauge was akin to the Columbia River's gauge at The Dalles--the oldest continually operating gauge, much used as a benchmark. I'm not sure how, but I got that impression when looking into it. The Dalles gauge is often cited for Columbia flow rates, even though it is several hundred miles above the mouth, as well as major tributaries. The Lee's Ferry gauge is even farther up the Colorado, but perhaps it was an ideal location back in the day? Pfly (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to repost the 22,000 cfs figure as that is the natural discharge of the river. Wiki has the discharge of the Rio Grande as 5650, and that is the natural flow, as there is no stretch of the Rio Grande that even comes close to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.116.24 (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In the infobox/geobox you mean? The discharge section mentions the 22,000 cfs figure and gives context for it. It seems to me that the geobox discharge number should reflect a long term average up to the present day (and the Lees Ferry gage goes back to 1895--pretty long). I can see why using a "natural" flow might make sense, but the river hasn't been natural for something like 75 years. Plus, most US rivers are no longer natural in this sense. For many lesser rivers it would be difficult to get a decent natural discharge statistic, if at all. Since it is hard to provide detailed context about the values in the geobox it seems best to use numbers that mean something today. For me, and others I assume, the discharge value shown in a river geobox is assumed to be generally accurate for the river today. For rivers whose discharge has changed radically over time it makes sense to have a section of text describing the earlier natural flow and subsequent changes. Doesn't that make sense? The discharge section on this page starts right off with the 22,000 cfs figure. As for the Rio Grande, I'd argue the same points. As far as I can tell the 5,650 cfs figure is unsourced--it's the natural, pre-modification flow? That illustrates my concern on this--I just assumed it was relatively current, especially since the page doesn't seem to say anything else about it. I recently spent a little time trying to figure out recent/current discharge stuff for the Rio Grande, especially near the mouth. I was quickly lost in the complex history of dams, diversions, and so on. There are several large floodways near the mouth as well. From what I could tell, it looked like during floods the river's water might be sent into the floodways in such volumes that their discharges into the Gulf are higher than the main river itself! The fact that the lower half or so of the river is international just made it harder. And I'm unfamiliar with the river's modifications, so it was all new info to me--it was all too much for me to figure out, at least for now. All I was able to do was add something about the mouth being closed by a sandbar some years back, but then opened by a flood. But yes, the Rio Grande page needs work. If nothing else, making it clear that the 5,650 cfs number is historic/natural would be useful. Pfly (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Altitude of Lake Mead

  The article states that Lake Mead is 1200 feet above sea level. This was true as late as June 2000 but the level has been steadily decreasing and is currently (Aug.2010)at 1086.91 Ft. The last time it was this low at the end of August was 1936 when it was first being filled. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/hourly/mead-elv.htm

This in itself seems noteworthy since the Lake Mead reservoir is the largest in the U.S. BrianAlex (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Reason The Colorado Doesn't Consistantly Reach It's Mouth

Some people keep putting municipal diversions as a major reason the Colorado River is severely dewatered. This is not the case. Irrigation makes up 90% of all water diversions in the Colorado River basin. Also, the river is not noticeably dewatered until downstream of the Yuma area, which is where the All American Canal, the largest irrigation canal in the world, and the Gila Gravity Canal, still a huge canal, are diverted at Imperial Dam for irrigation purposes. Municipal water use and evaporation do have an effect, but it's a small one. So I clarified this and also listed those as smaller reasons to satisfy all parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Names in various languages

Hi, I speak four languages... I love languages... the language of this article is English. Is it really necessary to translate "Colorado River" into so many different tongues in the very first sentence? Maybe this info would be better in some other part of the article. The parenthesis and pronunciation guides are nice, but don't add anything to the intro.--Lacarids (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

ACME Mapper as a reference

It seems we have eleven reference tags which point to the ACME Mapper website. The ACME website gives the option of viewing USGS topo maps, but doesn't go to the map view supporting the referenced feature - the user has to search. It seems a better approach is needed, at minimum each ref to ACME should take the user to the specific map view referenced. It seems a better approach would be to reference the USGS Quadrangle used specifically for each ref use with perhaps a link to ACME mapper's view for that location at whatever resolution needed to show the named feature. That requires more work and requires each as a stand alone ref rather than a "ref name=" grouping. Currently the user is required to do the work and I'm skeptical about the current useage of ACME mapper satisfying WP:RS requirements. Vsmith (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I know how to make each ACME ref point to the specified region, using some syntax copied from the Geohack page. Right now I'll try to go and make the existing citation go straight to the topo maps, if that's possible, but only as a stopgap measure. Eventually I will consider switching over to Topoquest or going with some even more complicated solution... Shann_ºn 02:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This Re - Write Sucks

This redo of the article really, really sucks. It is filled with erroneous information (ie municipal diversions being a major reason for depletion of river flow) and unproven assertions (ie climate change being a big reason for depletion of the river. The historical flow of the Colorado is 22,000 cfs and that should be listed as the discharge, rather than man altered flows. There is a big environmentalist slant to this entire article. It is NOT NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To start off, I'm actually an avid supporter of dams and hydropower. You say unproven? Give me one fact that isn't cited. (and consider reading WP:NPA) Additionally, the Lee's Ferry gaged flow – 17850 cfs – has been part of the article for a very, very long time. Furthermore on discharge, the historical flow is more of 20,800 cfs and not 22,000 cfs (we're not talking 1895-1935, we're talking the natural average). The reason for the river's depletion is indeed because of climate change, since the areas climate has changed significantly since the treatys were first written in the 1920's and the depletion is caused by the river being over allocated. Finally (I just noticed) there is not one spot in the article where "municipal" is not mentioned alongside "irrigation" or "agricultural" diversions. Shann_ºn 03:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This rewrite is quite problematic. It starts out well, but the Course section trashed a lot of hard work and research by those who came before. It displays an ignorance of how the river actually flows, and which features that it flows past or through are significant. A lot of important information has been thrown away. The many of us who contributed before have more intimate knowledge of the river, especially its upper reaches. For instance, I have traveled its entire length in Colorado, from LaPoudre Pass to the Utah line, either by road, rail, on foot, or on watercraft - and I am probably not the only previous contributor who has done so. I would prefer to revert this entire drastic rewrite and discuss any proposed changes here first, but I will await further comment before doing that.RogerD (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The rewrite of the course is sourced. The previous version had no sources for that section and was likely WP:OR based on Wikipedia user's "intimate knowledge of the river...". Now if there are specific examples of concern, please feel free to bring it here for discussion - or fix it using reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I know a lot of the Colorado too, it's not like I live in Canada and I've never even stood on its banks before. Revert the goddamn section if you want, but the thing is that it was way too long compared to the rest of the article (whether the previous, good version or the current version). I've seen instances where course descriptions that are too long have been relegated to separate pages, like Course of the Willamette River, or Course of the Klamath River, etc. I'm especially irritated at how I'm a strong supporter of the dams and the Bureau of Reclamation and this whole thing still came out with an "environmentalist slant", at least according to the IP above, who cannot watch his mouth... whoever wrote Wikipedia:IPs are human too may want to rethink that page... The Colorado has been my favorite river since who knows when, but I'll try to avoid editing such a controversial topic again; I apologize for b.s.'ing such an important topic, and lacking the talent to do this right Shann_ºn 01:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Aw, don't let the griefers get to you, Shannon--you're an invaluable editor, please keep up the good work! Pfly (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. You've done some great river articles. Always comprehensive and difficult. I've seen you work hard. Don't let the politics get to you! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, but I think some of them have got a point... I do feel a bit guilty removing important information I can't cite. Shann_ºn 01:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I could see a Course of the Colorado River--it has a pretty interesting course... Pfly (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that too, just to copy the old course description onto a separate page - though then that would have just about one reference for the entire article... Shann_ºn 04:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A separate Course of the Colorado River page, made from the huge amount of deleted material, would be an interesting alternative to reverting it. One of the most attractive aspects of a separate page would be the opportunity for further work on it to include more detail, without fearing making the main article even longer. You have also found some good photographs which would be great at appropriate places on a separate Course page, in addition to the ones that were there in the previous version of the main page.

However, including lots of references in a new Course page would be easy, done the way you have done some of them - by simply referring in many cases to a generic USGS topo map site, without even specifying which topo map or coordinates. Doing that, and then saying the previous version of Course had no references, does not add actual sources. All that proves is that USGS maps of this location exist somewhere. The previous version did not violate WP:OR, which states that material must be "attributable, even if not attributed". For instance, stating that the Colorado River meets the Eagle River at Dotsero, Colorado falls in the same category as WP:OR's example of Paris being the capital of France - it is very widely attributable from a number of sources.

After we create a separate Course page, it would probably be appropriate to further reduce the Course section in the main article to be even more of an overview, listing only main highlights such as principal canyons (Glenwood, Grand), tributaries (Gunnison, Green, Gila), and reservoirs (Powell, Mead). This would better integrate a new Course page into the main page.

I do not doubt that you know something about, and you care about, the Colorado River, but I get the feeling that your knowledge is more about its lower course than its upper course. You did not include much information about the upper river, such as in the Recreation section. You also have some clear errors involving the river's upper reaches. Going forward, you can expect the usual number of edits to commence soon, especially concerning the Upper Colorado with which others are more familiar.

I see now one of the things you have done is to move, rather than delete, some material from the Course section into other sections. (Example: Mention of Grand Ditch was moved from Course to River development.) It appears that you have "rotated" the whole page from being organized geographically to be more organized by subject. Whether that is a good or bad idea (it's probably good), you could have headed off some of the unease among other editors about deleted material by explaining this on the Talk page. In fact, that would be my main advice to you next time you contemplate a time-consuming project like this on a large, important page with numerous ongoing contributors: Don't make it a surprise! Announce your plans on the Talk page, perhaps even with a link to your sandbox page as you develop it. Explain what you are doing and why. You might even get help with it, instead of criticism. The final product would be better, and would be better received too.

I've gone on too long here, but this rewrite has touched on some issues. So we all have some work to do to hopefully move forward.

(And by the way, I believe in signing everything, even criticism, unlike some above.) RogerD (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about shortening the course section too so it could justify the creation of a separate article. Something like the one on the Willamette River article (you should also see the course article written by Finetooth, it's even more detailed than the old one on the Colorado). As for the "generic topo map site" aka ACME Mapper, I might be able to change those to Topoquest links, though I'll have to work on how to specifiy the quadrangles, etc.

And you're right, I'm much more familiar with the lower Colorado, in fact I'm pretty sure I've never even seen the river above Lee's Ferry. The problem with the article being that it's a lot more difficult to find sources for material regarding the upper river, which is why I removed/moved some of it. It took me a while to find a suitable reference for even a seemingly easy fact, such as that Grand Lake is the largest natural lake in Colorado. There seem to be a lot more comprehensive and detailed, either academic or government published sources regarding the lower river, while it's hard to find similar information on the upper basin. Part of the reason I worked on the article so much is because I was trying to get it to meet WP:RS... and that, my friend is an inanely hard standard to meet, and something that always gets me kicked out of FAC (I admit I want to take this article there sometime in the future). For the time being, though, I'll work on a shorter course description for this article. In fact, I might as well take the old course description and post it as a new article right away. Shann_ºn 02:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried doing a shortening of the Course section. It's harder than I thought.

From its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains 50 miles (80 km) west of Denver, the Colorado flows generally west before looping southwest into Utah. Steep gorges – including the Grand Canyon – dominate most of the river's course as it carves through Utah, Arizona and Nevada, in the latter of which it swings sharply south. The Colorado forms the Arizona–Nevada and Arizona–California lines as it traverses the Lower Colorado River Valley, before forming a short stretch of the Mexico–United States border. Below there it passes entirely into Mexico and curves southeast to empty into the Gulf of California, 75 miles (121 km) south of Yuma.

Above Kremmling, Colorado, where it receives its first major tributary, the Fraser, the Colorado River is but a small stream. Downstream, the river greatly increases in size as it picks up scores of tributaries. Some of the Colorado's principal affluents include the Roaring Fork and Gunnison in Colorado; the Dolores, Green, and San Juan in Utah; the Little Colorado, Bill Williams and Gila in Arizona, and the Virgin River in Nevada...

That's pretty much all I got so far. Doesn't seem very right, does it? Shann_ºn 05:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Larger than Connecticut"? Really???

The third paragraph, second sentence of the article says "These works irrigate an area larger than the state of Connecticut". Come on, it has to be bigger than that! The Colorado irrigates vast areas; Connecticut is tiny. I tagged that phrase as "citation needed" but what I really meant was "this statement defies common sense, can we just get rid of it?" --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. The Colorado does irrigate a lot of land, which totals around 4 million acres. Connecticut actually measures up to a comparable 3.6 million acres. The thing is, most of the Colorado River basin remains desert, if you look at a satellite picture, the irrigated areas are mere narrow strips along rivers (except for the Imperial valley, thats a different story). Shann_ºn 17:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Colorado irrigates a lot more than that IMO. I don't mean just the Colorado River basin but the areas far from the river that draw water from it via pipelines and canals. That's the context of the sentence, which is talking about the effect of the "system of dams, reservoirs and canals". Those works service not just the Imperial Valley (a desert turned into a foodbasket entirely through Colorado water) which alone is similar in size to Connecticut, but also the agricultural areas of San Diego, Riverside, Orange and Riverside counties. And those examples are only for "irrigation" in the sense of agricultural use; Colorado River water also supplies the water for cities throughout the southwest which is also a form of irrigation. But forget about my opinion; I guess my question is, was there a Reliable Source for this "Connecticut" comparison, and what exactly was it comparing? --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The comparison could be removed, I don't really care. My figure of 4 million acres, though, was actually pretty high. This says 3.5 million acres, which is even closer to the seize of Connecticut. Then this says 1.75 million acres, actually significantly smaller. Furthermore, the Imperial Valley has between 450,000 and 500,000 acres of irrigated land, which is only a fifth the size of Connecticut (though the physical boundaries of the valley are a lot larger). Finally, Connecticut is 4842 square miles or 3,098,900 acres. Comparisons like this arent that uncommon on WP. Take the Columbia River page, "its drainage basin is about the size of France"... Shann_ºn 19:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that those figures are for irrigation of agricultural land only. Since the Colorado is used for so much more than that, I would feel better if the attempt to define its irrigation impact in terms of some other geographic area could simply be removed. The "drainage basin" of a river can be clearly defined, as in the example of the Columbia river, but the IMPACT of the river's water on areas outside the basin is a lot harder to pin down. I'd have no problem with comparison of the size of the BASIN to someplace else, if you think people will find it helpful. (Although we Californians are not usually very impressed by the size of eastern states - we have counties bigger than Connecticut!) I'm sorry, that sounded boastful, I didn't mean it that way. But it might be more impressive to compare any area to a foreign country, rather than to our 48th-largest state. And maybe the river basin, rather than the acres under irrigation, would give a better sense of the size and scope of this river. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Colorado River/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'll give this article a try. I've been watching it a long time. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

review

• Great article.
• I'm a little confused: "The drainage basin or watershed of the Colorado River encompasses 246,000 sq mi (640,000 km2) of southwestern North America, making it the seventh largest on the continent" but this seems to say fifth largest[2] - or am I not reading it correctly?

Ah, I see how it could have been confusing there. #7 is in parentheses next to the basin size in the table. The list is organized by alphabetic order. Shann_ºn 01:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• article uses a lot of dashes which may be a problem if the article goes to FAC.

I will try to cut down on those. Shann_ºn 01:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've made some edits, which you are free to change.[3] (there was an intervening edit that I think helped the layout of the boxes)

(I'll add some more if I see anything, but I think the article is quite well done, considering all the information it encompasses.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is quite a read but is extremely well done, in my opinion. There's a lot of information in this article, all of it interesting. Wonderful pictures and great links to other, relevant articles. I've done a bunch of editing that you are free to revert.[4] MathewTownsend (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulatons! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

River Width And Depth Is Off

Your depth and width assertions for the river are incorrect. I have traveled the entire Colorado from Granby to below Yuma, complete with sonar and range finders. The river is actually quite a deep one for being more or less free flowing except in the reservoirs. I would say the 6 - 20 foot depth figure is accurate for the Upper River in Colorado, with notable exceptions. The deepest spot in the Upper Colorado is over 90 feet near Black Rocks in Colorado, with a 50 foot pool upstream of Glenwood Springs. As far as width, 200 - 500 feet would be accurate until you get to Grand Junction, where the Gunnison joins. Downstream of here until the Green meets, the average width is more like 350 - 750 feet. The widest is just downstream of the Green Confluence at about 1040 feet.

The Lower Colorado through the Grand Canyon is VERY deep, which numerous spots over 100 feet deep. The average depth in the Canyon is 20 - 30 feet, though it is narrower here, the widest spot being about 0.25 of a mile and the narrowest under 100 feet.

Once downstream of Davis Dam until Imperial Dam, the Colorado is wide and deep. This is the area I frequent most. The average width is probably over 1000 feet, with the widest spot being downstream from the Parker Strip at around 2100 feet. The narrowest area is around Blythe at about 560 feet. The depth ranges from as shallow as 7 to as deep as 110, with the average depth probably 18 - 20 feet. That is deep for a free flowing river. Comparible rivers, such as the Missouri and Upper Mississippi are SHALLOWER in their unaltered sections. In fact they were too shallow for large barges until scores of dams turned them into a series of reservoirs. The Colorado was navigable by similiar craft year round WITHOUT a lock and dam system.

Downstream of Imperial, where most of the water is removed and enters canals, the river is similiar in size to it's headwaters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.221.202 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't base content on our own work, rather we use published sources. I've undone your changes for those reasons and because your edit messed up an existing reference. Vsmith (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There's kind of a lack of published sources detailing the Colorado's channel characteristics, so the article isn't really written that specific. "Most of the upper Colorado ranges from 200 to 500 wide" yes, the river widens to over 1000 feet at Spanish Bottom, and again south of Ocean Point, but that's more of an exception. If someone could get their hands on a full copy of Benke and Cushing's Rivers of North America, that could be helpful. However, I'm pretty sure there is no place the river exceeds 2,000 feet in width (excluding reservoirs). According to USGS topos, the river does reach about 1200-1300 feet wide at Bowman Wash, 10 miles below Parker Dam, but that's the widest I can find. Shann_ºn 04:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much the only two online sources of any value: Near Rifle to below Moab and Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead. The second one, in particular, gives the average depth throughout the Grand Canyon as about 30 feet, though it doesn't mention max/min depths. Shann_ºn 04:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To say the river is relatively shallow is a personal view. It is shallower than say the Columbia or Lower Mississippi, but for a river that is not equipped with a lock and dam system (which can turn even modest sized rivers such as the Verdigris in Oklahoma into a waterway navigable by large vessels) it is quite deep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.217.40 (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

This section of the article appears to be based on a misunderstanding of sources. The root of the problem is the failure to differentiate between prehistoric cultures known only from the archaeological record and oral tradition and modern indigenous cultures/nations, hundreds of thousands of whose members continue to live in traditional communities and speak native languages (note that the Navajo language alone has over 170,000 speakers).

While Hohokam and Ancestral Puebloan (aka Anasazi or Hisatsinom) agricultural society can be said to have collapsed before the 1500s, it is inaccurate to portray their descendants as mere relics of the past, given that nations such as the Navajo, Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai, Mojave, etc., have continued to engage -- very successfully, in many cases -- in traditional agricultural practices long after the arrival of Europeans to the area. These nations all still call the Colorado River watershed home. All of the languages whose names for the river were removed from the lede and relegated to a past-tense reference to what the river "was called" in times long since past are still natively spoken by anywhere between 100 and 170,000 people, depending on language.

Of equal importance to note is the fact that the tribal governments of these nations are major players in the geopolitical landscape of the Southwest, in large part due to their legal standing wrt water rights to Colorado River water.

The general consensus among archaeologists nowadays is that the ancestral civilizations of the Southwest didn't "collapse" so much as they adapted to changes in climate, resulting in more dispersed settlements in some cases, and a greater focus on agricultural adaptations to very low rainfall conditions, including floodplain farming and use of especially drought-resistant crop varieties, among other techniques. These adaptations resulted in the modern indigenous societies that inhabit the area today.

Anyhow, the point is that it's incorrect to refer to prehistoric groups and modern groups as if there were no difference, and claim that their societies all collapsed as if they are no longer around - this is only half-true for the prehistoric groups, and absolutely false for the historic and modern societies.

I've made some basic changes to the article, but felt unsure about changing the Indigenous section very much as I wasn't sure how to fix it without deleting the whole section and starting over.

Thanks for reading this and taking these important facts into consideration. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Also I'd like to give my rationale for why it's necessary to keep native names in the infobox and first paragraph. Given that the river flows through the jurisdictions of tribal governments, as well as the territory of the Republic of Mexico, I think it's important that we give the same placement to the name of this body of water in the official languages of those political entities just as we generally do with any geographical name in the official language of the country/region/etc where it is found. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been wanting to rewrite the section on native peoples for a while, but didn't quite get around to it while writing the rest of the article. I am planning on writing something following the model of the article on Columbia River, where there's an entire section on indigenous peoples, from prehistory to the 21st century. However I think the variant names should be removed from either the lead paragraph or the geobox, as they're pretty much right next to each other and it's causing un-necessary duplication. Also, some of the variant names lack referencing (I tried a few times to find their sources, but couldn't) so I'm not sure if they can stay or not. Shann_ºn 03:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Toltec origin of Hohokam people?

Although suggested Toltec origins of the Hohokam people are an interesting theory, they are little more than that. When talking about prehistoric cultures it's important to remember that besides things that can be dug up and analyzed, or found on a rock (petroglyphs) or something of the sort, it's difficult to state anything definitively, and for this reason many conclusions that have been drawn from archeological evidence are extremely controversial within the field. As far as Toltec origins of Hohokam culture go specifically, there are some who are of the idea that Hohokam developed out of previous cultures that were already in the area and learned agricultural techniques from other cultural groups, and others who believe that they migrated from the south and brought agriculture with them. It would be somewhere between difficult and impossible to definitively prove either theory with the evidence that is currently available... --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Names

I've been debating for a while whether to create a seperate "Names" header for this article or not, since it seems that there's no really good place to mention the multiple Native American and Spanish names for the river; also the Grand River paragraph seems to just be tacked onto the back of the history section. Suggestions are welcome. Shann_ºn 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved the Native American names to the start of "Human history" as the only semi-logical place for it. The collection of names was rather distracting at the start of the lead. Left out the Spanish "Rio Colorado" as seems redundant if you know "rio" = "river" ... and this is en.wiki.

Added a subheader for the Grand controversy bit. Vsmith (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dominy quote

A blockquote of Floyd Dominy has been placed with no context adjacent to early 1900s efforts to "harness" the Colorado.
The quote: "The undammed Colorado River is] useless to anyone... I've seen all the wild rivers I ever want to see." —Floyd Dominy, USBR commissioner from 1959–1969 The quote appears four paragraphs ahead of his tenure with the USBR and has no connection. I see the quote as a POV problem - especially with no context provided. If included in a paragraph re: the 1950-70s controversy over Lake Powell with sufficient context might be justified. But not as a misplaced, isolated quote. Vsmith (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean by misplaced... it's just that it works so well with the context if you don't consider who said it. And also I don't remember if Dominy is speaking about the Colorado River in the 1920s, before Hoover, or about the Colorado River in the 1950s right before the CRSP. Let's leave the quote out for now and I'll see if I can find a good replacement. Shann_ºn 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith -- I see that you removed the Dominy quote entirely. With respect and good humor, could you please elaborate on why you believe a sourced, accurate, relevant quote from a government official with direct responsibility over the Colorado constitutes a POV problem? I realize that Dominy is a "controversial figure" etc. but I'm sure you also realize the value of letting Dominy speak for himself. --Lockley (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote was placed at the start of the section along side of pre-1910 events and there was no context for it. When did he say it and in reference to what specifically? I assume it was related to the Lake Powell dam construction or some other aspect of the complex controversies of that era. If it can be tied in specifically to an event and time with context of when and why he said it, then OK, use it. Personally I recall visiting Hole in the Rock while doing recon mapping in the Kaiparowits Plateau in summer 1970 and thinking how out-of-place to see boats on the still-filling lake in that spectacular desert landscape. I only became aware later of the scope of the controversy. The controversy over Lake Powell may have been the focus of that quote, I don't know - but whatever, to be used it needs context. OK, the Worldwatch report used as a source provides some of that context ... so it could be used along with other material there such as Babbits comments from 1998. Vsmith (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Basin map

According to the map, the river reaches the sea, but nowadays the river (usually) doesn't even reach San Luis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The map shows intermittent streams as well, like the little Colorado and Chaco rivers. The lower section of the Colorado would also qualify as intermittent so the original stream channel to the sea is included. Shann_ºn 01:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

ACME Mapper again

I see that current ref #28, which is cited eight times, is still to the general ACME mapper page (clicking the link takes you to the last map view you accessed). ACME Mapper is a tool to view USGS topo maps in a seamless manner. Seems it would not qualify as a WP:RS, rather a means of viewing USGS maps. The specific USGS maps would be reliable sources (depending on what is being sourced) and should be linked directly as the source. The maps are available for download from the USGS here. If a web based format is preferred then Topoquest would perhaps be better as they provide the USGS map name and datum used. Additionally, I see that ACME is used for the length of the Deloris and Virgin rivers while the National Map is used for the San Juan and Gunnison rivers. Both are tools for map viewing - and I don't see how they are a reference for the length of a specific river. Vsmith (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed up most of the refs, I don't know why Dolores and Virgin lengths are attributed to ACME, since neither one has USGS stream mile markers. The National Map viewer for the National Hydrography Dataset, as for the San Juan and Gunnison, includes a tool for identifying stream lengths. Shannon 17:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK for the Dolores and Virgin fixes. However, seems the 6 remaining <ref name="ACME"> are still problematic. Seems each one needs a ref to a specific USGS quad containing the supporting info (or a link to a specific Topoquest page url) rather than the vague www.topoquest.com/ link. Note the last bit ref'd to #28 ...in addition to many national forests, state parks and recreation areas. would be a separate problem as it is not supported by a specific topo map. Vsmith (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Got rid of the ACME refs altogether for now, I'm now working on replacing them with other sources/Topoquest links. Shannon 20:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Major Tributaries Table

I noticed there was a sorting issue with the tributaries table, when I borrowed and adapted it for an English river, and realised I had not returned the favour. The problem being that the metric columns were not sorting correctly, due to the references. I have edited the table as below to solve the problem, but thought you may want to see the result before using it. Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for catching this – the problem with the sorting tables organizing by the first digit always got on my nerves. I'll put it into the article and see how it looks. Shannon 02:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Statistics of the Colorado's longest tributaries
Name	State	Length		Watershed		Discharge		References
		mi	km	mi2	km2	cfs	m3/s
Green River	UT	730	1,170	48,100	125,000	6,048	171.3
Gila River	AZ	649	1,044	58,200	151,000	247	7.0
San Juan River	UT	383	616	24,600	64,000	2,192	62.1
Little Colorado River	AZ	356	573	26,500	69,000	424	12.0
Dolores River	UT	250	400	4,574	11,850	633	17.9
Gunnison River	CO	164	264	7,930	20,500	2,570	73
Virgin River	NV	160	260	13,020	33,700	239	6.8

Unclear sentence in "Major tributaries" section

Both the Gunnison and San Juan rivers, which derive most of their water from Rocky Mountains snowmelt, contribute more water than the Gila did naturally.

Shannon, I assume that either you wrote this sentence or you are familiar with the information. I find it confusing. Why is the verb for "Gila" in the past tense, and what does "naturally" mean in this case? Is it the Gunnison and San Juan combined that exceed the Gila, or each one alone? Jsayre64 (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

How rather stupid of me. I took a closer look and now it all makes sense. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Discharge verification

I may be missing something, and I see that the matter has already been discussed here at least once, but it doesn't appear that the claim of a 22,500-cfs average natural flow at the mouth is supported by any of the three flow citations that the article gives in the geobox. That average flow citation did not have a URL until I found it online and added it, when I noticed that the source mentions neither 22,500 nor 16.3 million acre-feet (a statistic given at the beginning of the discharge section). Checking the USGS citation for the min. flow, it only mentions 422 cfs. The Wiltshire book, which I can read much of on Google Books, reflects the article's claim of 384,000 cfs as the max. flow, but produces no results for 22,500 or for 16.3 million. I went here and typed in the gage number at Topock, Arizona, to no avail. Then I tried selecting Mohave County, Arizona, which brought up a different gage number at a different spot on the river [5]—already trouble—that has completely different flow numbers (and, by the way, demonstrates how unbelievably dry 2012 was away from home). I ran several Google searches for 22,500 cfs on the Colorado River, and the closest I got was this USBR presentation (it's on the slide titled "Colorado River Operations"), where there isn't enough context. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting -- the URL you added for the citation (which I left out, incidentally/somehow) points to a different document than the one I mean to cite which is here. The article I got the 16.3 MAF figure from is a PDF, but the one you linked is a Powerpoint, and somehow they have identical names but different content (at least at first glance). The specific figure in question is on page 114 of the PDF. I'll go fix the citation right now. Shannon 05:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Good, and I see that since one acre-foot equals 43,560 cubic feet, the figures can be converted across. 22,500 ft³/sec = 81,000,000 ft³/hr = 1,944,000,000 ft³/day ≈ 44,628 acre-feet/day ≈ 16,300,413 acre-feet/yr. Math is pretty cool. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I just tried to look up some stuff on the river's flow below Morelos Dam and mostly just confused myself. But I noted a few things of possible concern. First, in the Notes section at the bottom of the page—note 5 talks about the NIB and SIB (northerly and southerly international border), but I cannot find anyplace on the page that uses note 5 (which means clicking on the note's "uplink" in the Notes section doesn't take you anywhere).

Second, in the Discharge section there is some stuff about the flow at the NIB, which is described as "below major diversions such as the All-American Canal and Colorado River Aqueduct". It's possible I wrote this bit, I can't remember, but the way it's worded sounds to me as if there are no more "major diversions" below the NIB, which isn't true. At Morelos Dam Mexico diverts a major portion of the remaining water. It's not as major as the All-American Canal in terms of total flow, but it is major in terms of the percentage of the flow in the river at that point (our Morelos Dam page is quite lacking and my quick searching seemed to say the Mexican diversion canal is called, confusingly, Alamo Canal (not the historic Alamo Canal though), or the Reforma Canal). Anyway, I wonder if the way it's worded suggests that most of the water in the Colorado below the NIB reaches the Gulf of California (which it doesn't). I tried to find good data summaries on streamflow at the SIB, below the Morelos Dam diversion, but could only find very raw data. Which leads to the third thing.

The Discharge section talks about the various USGS stream gages but there's nothing anywhere, I think, about the IBWC gages. I think there is/was only one IBWC gage on the Colorado itself (below Morelos Dam near the SIB), but there are others on various diversion canals and wasteways, which apparently are used to calculate streamflow in Mexico. The IBWC SIB gage no longer exists, from what I can tell, but is perhaps worth searching on for more info about flow in Mexico: "Stream gage IBWC 09-5222.00 Colorado River at Southerly International Boundary near San Luis, Arizona" is the name of the IBWC SIB gage. That's all for now! The lowermost part of the river is highly confusing, with all its diversions, wasteway returns, and so on. Pfly (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PS, I suppose I'll add the URLs I have open and am being confused by. A more careful reading might be useful. Assessment of Flows Passing Morelos Dam with Future Drop 2 Reservoir Operations (USBR). Colorado River Boundary Section (IBWC). Evolution of the Hoover Dam Inflow Design Flood (USBR?). Pfly (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As a sort of, but not really, related idea, it would be nice to add the All American Canal to the map :-) Kmusser (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Chapter 11, page 490, of Benke and Cushing's Rivers of North America lists a virgin discharge for the Colorado at its mouth as 550 cubic metres per second (19,000 cu ft/s). This is in the ballpark with the 637 cu ft/s cited in the geobox. However, I don't see what on page 114 of the cited source (Nowack) supports the 637 figure. Shannon, is there maybe a further mixup about the Nowack source or page number? Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think he Shannon1 meant page 114 as numbered in the PDF, which is page 136 of the PDF, if that makes sense. There is a chart of discharge over time and it says "the average annual Basin yield is about 16.3 MaF/yr". I also found the Benke and Cushing mention of 550 m3/s and thought about mentioning it. I didn't have time to look into it further to try and determine which source seemed better. I think the 550 in Benke is referenced to some source in a footnote? Pfly (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Which I just looked up, without knowing which source is better still. The relevant bit in Benke is on p. 490: "The annual virgin discharge for the Colorado River is 550 m3/s (Dynesius and Nilsson 1994)." And the source is described on p. 17: Dynesius, M., and C. Nilsson. 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266:753-762. Pfly (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(inserting here because of edit conflict) All true. I have access to the Dynesius and Nilsson article through JSTOR and printed myself a copy this morning. It lists virgin mean annual discharges for 74 North American rivers and would probably be a useful source for other of our river articles. BTW, Shannon is a "she", unless I am mistaken. Also, I don't see how "the average annual Basin yield" of about 16.3 MaF/yr supports the 637 cu ft/s claim. It might be my deficient math skills. How do you derive the second from the first? -:) Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really trust my conversion skills either, but using http://www.convertunits.com/from/(acre+feet)+per+year/to/(cubic+meters)+per+second and entering 16,300,000 acre feet per year I get 637.549 m3/s (22,514.84 cfs). Pfly (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that useful link. I am saving it for future use. Not to be too pesky, I note that the 16 MaF/y stat comes from Imperial Dam, at river mile 49, for the years 1906–2006, whereas the Dynesius and Nilsson number is "the discharge before any significant direct human manipulation" at the mouth. Would it be better to use Dynesius and Nilsson? Finetooth (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Plus Dynesius and Nilsson's number doesn't require that relatively obscure conversion. Also, in Nowak the sentence following the "yield" one confuses me a little: "The average annual Basin yield is about 16.3 MaF/yr, just short of the total allocation. However, a number of system losses, largely evaporation related, create a greater supply/allocation disjoint." Does that mean "basin yield" isn't the same as flow in the river? I feel not exactly sure about what is being said. Pfly (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the USGS [6], basin yield is "the annual yield of a basin (expressed in inches), which is obtained by dividing annual flow by drainage area." I would think that the "annual flow" of the basin would be in acre-feet per year and would equal the sum of the flows of all tributaries above the gauge in question. But I don't know why this basin yield would be in inches; Nowak doesn't express it in inches at all. Thus I think it would be better to use Dynesius and Nilsson.

Agree with you both. Perhaps we should wait for Shannon to weigh in since she is the main contributor and nominator. Finetooth (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As for converting cubic feet per second to acre-feet per year, as I demonstrated above to verify that the geobox and Nowak are in agreement, you first need to know that there are 43,560 cubic feet in an acre-foot. Twice multiply the cfs value by 60 to get to cubic feet per hour, multiply by 24 to find cubic feet per day, divide by 43,560 for acre-feet per day, and multiply by 365.25 for acre-feet per year. Google's search engine has a nice calculator that will pop up if you type in a math problem. That's how I did it. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I somehow did not see or read the earlier discussions about discharge, and I was also flummoxed by the relationship (if any) between "basin yield" and median discharge at the mouth. Finetooth (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, while I'm at it! Yesterday I came across this "streamflow map" of the lower Colorado and its various diversions and returns. It may well be out of date (1964), but is interesting in how it shows the flow sizes—the All-American Canal dramatically diverts most of the river. It also shows how most of the tiny bit left below the All-American Canal is in turn diverted at Morelos Dam. I don't think I'd rely on this older source for detailed info, but the map is pretty nice, and it gives one a good sense of the complexities of the lower river's flow: [7] (also at File:LowerColoradoRiver-waterresources-USGS1964.jpg). (I'll try to actually work on the page itself sooner or later) Pfly (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello guys. I didn't see this conversation till now, so jumping in a bit late. Regarding the accuracy of the Nowak source versus that of the Dynesius and Nilsson book, I do lean further towards Nowak, because of a little simple math, as Jsayre64 also found handy above. Currently most hydrologists/climatalogists/engineers/environmentalists agree that the river's natural flow at Lees Ferry is somewhere between 13.5-15.0 MAF. The inflows between Lees Ferry and Lake Mead averages 0.86 MAF, according to the Bureau of Reclamation (I believe this figure is mentioned in its documents known as 24 month studies and others too). Below Lake Mead the Bill Williams River and smaller intermittent tributaries contribute around 0.25 MAF (also from USBR's 24 month studies) and the Gila's natural flow is about 1.3 MAF (according to Cohen, ref #51). Adding all of these you get figures ranging from 16 to 17.5 MAF which is right around the range of the Nowak figure of 16.3 MAF. On the other hand the Dynesius and Nilsson figure of 550 cms works out to 14.1 MAF per year, which is equal to the Lees Ferry natural flow plus slightly over 0.5 MAF - which doesn't seem convincing given the significant inflows that occur below Lees Ferry.

And about the difference between "Basin yield" and "river flow" I think "basin yield" refers to the amount of water that could be derived from the whole basin if everything were used to the max without any system losses (e.g. we developed some kind of chemical that would cut reservoir evaporation to 0). Thusly speaking this would be close to the amount of water the Colorado would carry to the sea under natural conditions. The "supply/allocation disjoint" is created by system losses, mainly reservoir evaporation of about 2 MAF per year, cutting the total usable supply to perhaps 13-14 MAF per year. In a nutshell, if we didn't have those reservoirs in place, the total 16.3 MAF would be mathematically usable, though of course without the reservoirs all the water would go running off into the sea anyway during the spring because we don't have anything to catch it with.

That went on a bit longer than I expected. Hope that clears a few things up. In the meantime I'll continue searching for sources. Shannon 00:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. 15.8 MAF given here and 16.6 MAF here (for the period 1906-1990) Shannon 01:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly on top of this, and I thank you for the explanation. I've learned from working on many other streams that so many variables are involved in these calculations that the "right" answer is often a range rather than a point. Your figures are fine with me. Congrats, by the way, on such a well-done article. Finetooth (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. The Colorado is a confusing and fickle river, and in addition to the controversy with the Lee's Ferry natural flow, nobody seems to agree about the inflows that occur below Lee's Ferry (which many people seem to be fine with omitting entirely). I have done so much nitpicky research on this subject that I get myself confused! And with the current flow conditions (two of the worst water years in a row and counting) "normal flow" no longer seems to be a solid concept with this river. Shannon 02:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What Finetooth said. Thanks for explaining, Shannon! Pfly (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I'll get back to editing the article. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Temperatures

Sorry to be opening another talk page section, but I am puzzled by the temperature numbers given in the second paragraph of the watershed section. I don't have access to that page in Rivers of North America, but if these are the "mean monthly high temperatures," I think the range would be much greater. Doesn't Rock Springs, Wyoming, average a high of 27.3 F in January, and doesn't Phoenix peak at 106.1 F in July? I'm citing their Wikipedia pages, which cite NOAA. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Good questions. Don't be sorry. I have a bound copy of Benke and Cushing, and here's a direct quote from page 488: "In the upper basin, mean monthly highs and lows in air temperature are 25.3°C and -3.6°C, respectively, compared to 33.4°C and 8.9°C for the lower basin (Fig. 11.14)." It appears to me that the sentence that you refer to in the existing article that says, "Mean monthly high temperatures range from 77.5 to 105 °F (25.3 to 40.6 °C) and lows from 48 to 10.5 °F (8.9 to −11.9 °C), with extremes of up to 120 °F (49 °C) in the desert regions of the watershed to −50 °F (−46 °C) in Rocky Mountain winter storms" must have come from a source or sources other than Benke and Cushing. I think this problem could be fixed either by (1) substituting the Benke and Cushing numbers for the other numbers (perhaps deleting the extremes altogether as not particularly relevant to the nature of the river) or (2) adding a source for the problematic claims. My hunch about Rock Springs, Phoenix, and other particular places within the basin is that the monthly mean averages referred to in Benke and Cushing are for large regions over which the smaller local statistics get smoothed out. Finetooth (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, after looking at it, I've got no idea where those numbers come from either. Replacing with the Benke and Cushing figures seems like a good idea. Shannon 00:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the little excerpt. Does that page of the book also support the following sentence in the article about precipitation? Jsayre64 (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It supports all the figures exactly except for the annual mean for the combined upper and lower basins. The source says "about 16.4 cm"; that is, about 164 mm. Our version says 170 mm. I suspect this came about through converting from metric to imperial units and then re-converting to metric. I think we should change ours to match what the source says, even though the difference is trifling. Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done as well. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the number of zeros currently present

Is there a way to make the conversion template display as, say, "85 million short tons (77 million t)" instead of "85,000,000 short tons (77,000,000 t)"? The numbers in this article tend to be very large (i.e. we're talking millions of acre feet, millions of tons) so it seems it may be beneficial to reduce them. Shannon 02:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

None that I'm aware of. I agree that "million" is easier to read, and I think these might have to be restored by hand. Finetooth (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps so. You could probably get an answer at Template talk:Convert. I would be fine with you undoing my formatting changes to use "million" instead of the zeroes if there is no way around this with the template. But as for more precise values without all those zeroes, of course, let's keep them as they are. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that you can do this with some converts, e.g. "6 million miles (9.7 million kilometres)", but it doesn't seem to work with acre feet. I'll take this issue there Shannon 06:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

And also, I think the FA criteria indicates somewhere that the Convert template be used for all conversions... since with many of the FACs I've been involved in, the issue has been brought up. Shannon 06:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jsayre, I see you beat me to the conversions. Shannon 02:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. I'll probably use this new info elsewhere. Finetooth (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like a neat trick with the template. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Inhabitants living thanks to the Colorado

Inhabitants living thanks to the Colorado : 30 millions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.166.253 (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The name Colorado can be understood if it is written in Bengali.'Kaliro' is the word Kali in the possessive case, which means ' of Kali '. The word' Aado' is derived from the Sanskrit word- ' Aadya ' which means'the first/ or the beginning'. Thus the word Colorado = Kaliro + Ado = Kali's beginning or the first step of the Naga tribe into the west coast of North America. It seems that they entered the Gulf of California, sailed up to the point where the river Colorado joins the Gulf and entered the main land at the mouth of the river. So they called the river as ' the first step of the sons of Kali into the west coast' some twelve thousand years ago. 117.195.241.94 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Bksatyanarayana

Route diagram template

So one day I went and followed the example of many UK featured river articles and created one of those nifty route diagram templates for the Colorado at User:Shannon1/Sandbox 3. I was just seeking some opinion before inserting it into the article because it turned out to be extremely complex, possibly bigger than any routemap currently in use. Anyways, I like it because it gives a better idea of the complexities of Colorado River diversions (especially in the lower basin, which is a veritable maze of waterways, as Pfly pointed out above. Thoughts? Shannon 02:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks pretty cool to me, so I would support it if you could make enough space in the article. But I'd recommend consulting the FAC reviewers first. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Really interesting and not something I had thought of doing with rivers, though earlier this year I did something similar and much much simpler for a narrow-gauge railway. I find it a little hard at first to interpret the symbols without going back and forth to the key, but I don't see any quick fix for that. (It was true of the railway symbols too.) Adding that big dude will make you think again about the layout. :-) Finetooth (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is interesting, if a bit complicated! I've seen some those diagrams used for rivers and/or canal systems in England, but I didn't know you could do quite so much with the templates. My first thought after noting the complexity was how much more complex it would be if it showed returns/wasteways/drains too (you know, like this [8] USGS diagram of the lower Colorado, p. 267 (PDF p. 292)). Not that I'm saying such as thing should be done, just imagining the diagrammatical complexity! Anyway, I would think this diagram is probably too much for this page, but I could see it on Course of the Colorado River. And perhaps it would could made more readable if broken up into parts, like the "Course" page uses three sections. Hmm, now I want to try learning this, heh. I've long imagined a diagram for the Columbia Basin Project... Pfly (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I had been thinking of making more of these too, e.g. for the State Water Project and other complicated shenenigans, because I think it illustrates these things quite well. Adding it to the separate Course page might be a good idea, I'll see if that works. Shannon 01:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Geobox picture

Regarding the recent change of the geobox picture, while I do understand the original photo made it sort of hard to see the river, the new photo also does (the shown stretch is technically part of Lake Mohave so you also can't see the river). Does anyone know of a photo, preferably aerial or at least from a high vantage point, e.g. canyon rim, where you can see the river clearly? (e.g. this or this, except that's not a picture of the Colorado River.) There aren't any on the Commons I can find. Shannon 03:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I see plenty of photos like that in the Commons category that meet those standards, such as this one. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there just aren't any pictures there that meet my fancy... I'll keep looking... Shannon 03:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you restored the Dead Horse Point image, which I think looks better than the other. Finetooth (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Horseshoe Bend was a nice choice, Shannon. What an amazing turn on the Colorado. I want to visit that someday. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that one really sort of captures the character of the river. (Being from CA though, that's sort of ironic as we are largely responsible for sucking the river dry...) Shannon 03:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What needs a citation?

From a purely referenced based point of view almost every sentence in the paragraph "Beginning with small bands of nomadic..." is a unreferenced statement. I could put tens of citation needed tags there but this seems heavy handed and would bog things down. What do you think? Is there a single reference to cover this entire paragraph? None is provided. Personally I think that the statements in this paragraph are probably correct but I would like to have some references to look at to get more detail. Maybe just a single citation needed at the end of the paragraph or just a note (I.E. this) that some citations would be good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Actually according to wikipedia policy citations aren't required in the lead, as the information should be supported by refs in the rest of the article. The lead is purely serving to summarize the content. Shannon 23:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Early explorers? Comment

According to the article Francisco de Ulloa was "the first documented European to reach the Colorado River, sailed up the Gulf of California and continued a short distance into the river's delta". Well, the link to support that fact is unfortunately broken and the link FRANCISCO DE ULLOA and the Naming of California says something else, that de Ulloa never reached the Colorado, but suspected its existence because of strong current there. אביהו (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. I was able to add an archiveurl by searching in the Internet Archive using the dead URL as my search term in the archive's Wayback Machine. This archive is extremely useful and often has material that would otherwise be lost or at least very hard to find. I read the supporting USGS document and adjusted the claims in our article slightly to match what the source supports. I don't think what we have now directly conflicts with the source you found. It appears that Ulloa got close to the river mouth but no further. Finetooth (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

List of crossings

It would be super awesome to have a List of Crossings of the Colorado River page, analogous to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fixed_crossings_of_the_Hudson_River and its kin. 71.218.4.209 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http%3A%2F%2Fviewer.nationalmap.gov%2Fviewer%2F to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118031332/http://www.ansac.az.gov/UserFiles/PDF/08182014/X028_FMIBurtellLingenfelterSteamboats/FMI%20Lingenfelter%20Steamboats/Steamboats%20on%20the%20Colorado%20River%201852-1916.pdf to http://www.ansac.az.gov/UserFiles/PDF/08182014/X028_FMIBurtellLingenfelterSteamboats/FMI%20Lingenfelter%20Steamboats/Steamboats%20on%20the%20Colorado%20River%201852-1916.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131106001019/http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/colorado/chap7.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/colorado/chap7.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Vernal

In this article: "Mormons founded the settlement of Vernal along the Green River in Utah in 1878". In the article about Vernal, Utah: "Vernal, unlike most Utah towns, was not settled by Mormons". אביהו (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Must have been an erroneous source. Shannon 17:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The same can be applied to St. Johns, Arizona. It was started as a ranch by Solomon Barth, a Jewish settler, who called it San Juan (Spanish for St. John). The Mormons bought the land from him for 700 heads of cattle. See Sol Barth: A Jewish Settler On The Arizona Frontier. אביהו (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I changed the wording so it doesn't imply Mormons founded the town. If you spot any other errors let me know. Shannon 04:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Previous name?

Could someone add the fact that one of the previous names of the Colorado River was Buena Guia, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Alarc%C3%B3n ?

Also, what about Rio del Tizon as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchor_D%C3%ADaz ? (in case it's true) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:7171:760E:F581:4BF6 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:7171:760E:F581:4BF6 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304192030/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508080438/http://phoenix.gov/recreation/arts/museums/pueblo/about/visitorinfo/materials/dfdisappearance.html to http://phoenix.gov/recreation/arts/museums/pueblo/about/visitorinfo/materials/dfdisappearance.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B%20filename%3D555%2F20%2FDB2007-Pop.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B%20charset%3DUTF-8&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1191378405012&ssbinary=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107163257/http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_mexico/river_basins.jpg to http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_mexico/river_basins.jpg
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://digitool.library.colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS84MDgyNQ%3D%3D.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112085341/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Colorado-Big%20Thompson%20Project to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Colorado-Big%20Thompson%20Project
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409152252/http://www.water.utah.gov/interstate/thecoloradoriverart.pdf to http://www.water.utah.gov/interstate/thecoloradoriverart.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303213624/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Colorado%20River%20Storage%20Project to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Colorado%20River%20Storage%20Project

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140501143218/http://cadswes.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/PDF/Theses-PhD/Nowak-PhD.pdf to http://cadswes.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/PDF/Theses-PhD/Nowak-PhD.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402100700/http://geology.byu.edu/drupal/sites/default/files/volume-18-part-2-1971.pdf to http://geology.byu.edu/drupal/sites/default/files/volume-18-part-2-1971.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120035100/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/reports/capdeis/Appendices/AppendixJ.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/reports/capdeis/Appendices/AppendixJ.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125065800/http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/green/execsumm.html to http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/green/execsumm.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100422223009/http://www.azstreambeds.com/UserFiles/File/pdf/finalreports/Little%20Colorado%20River.pdf to http://www.azstreambeds.com/UserFiles/File/pdf/finalreports/Little%20Colorado%20River.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127002625/http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP751/p751.htm to http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP751/p751.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121211142719/http://www.ics.uci.edu/~aisi/97_aisics/people/jsells/assign5.html to http://www.ics.uci.edu/~aisi/97_aisics/people/jsells/assign5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925123839/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Navajo%20Indian%20Irrigation%20Project to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Navajo%20Indian%20Irrigation%20Project
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603144141/http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/truenature/truenature0709.html to http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/truenature/truenature0709.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120034142/http://uair.arizona.edu/system/files/usain/download/azu_e9791_1937_67_w.pdf to http://uair.arizona.edu/system/files/usain/download/azu_e9791_1937_67_w.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120034135/http://www.roaringfork.org/pub/collaborative/GDII%20Appendix%20I%20-%20Transmountain%20Diversion%20Projects.pdf to http://www.roaringfork.org/pub/collaborative/GDII%20Appendix%20I%20-%20Transmountain%20Diversion%20Projects.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201032049/http://www.crwcd.org/media/uploads/20110719-policies_TMDs.pdf to http://www.crwcd.org/media/uploads/20110719-policies_TMDs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011123506/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Boulder%20Canyon%20Project%20-%20Hoover%20Dam to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Boulder%20Canyon%20Project%20-%20Hoover%20Dam
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224024443/http://www.usbr.gov/projects//ImageServer?imgName=Doc_1305042259136.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/projects//ImageServer?imgName=Doc_1305042259136.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329184230/http://blueriverwatershed.org/water-quantity/moving-water-in-the-brw/ to http://blueriverwatershed.org/water-quantity/moving-water-in-the-brw/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140827213909/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Fryingpan-Arkansas%20Project to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Fryingpan-Arkansas%20Project
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228020203/http://www.drainit.org/campaigns/drought/facts3.cfm to http://www.drainit.org/campaigns/drought/facts3.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120034155/http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/fieldnotes/fieldnotes0607.html to http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/fieldnotes/fieldnotes0607.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140501135538/https://www.watereducation.org/userfiles/RiverReport_Winter13_web.pdf to https://www.watereducation.org/userfiles/RiverReport_Winter13_web.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201024238/http://www.crwcd.org/media/uploads/CO_River_Uncertain_Future.pdf to http://www.crwcd.org/media/uploads/CO_River_Uncertain_Future.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618091541/http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=130 to http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=130
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919054025/http://co.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/ucol/html/ofr_94_397_p16.html to http://co.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/ucol/html/ofr_94_397_p16.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109231047/http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/l/LEES_FERRY.html to http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/l/LEES_FERRY.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130327183408/http://www.asce.org/OCEA-2012/ to http://www.asce.org/OCEA-2012/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120034136/http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-environment-headlines/20101006-region-colorado-river-drought-threatens-power-production.ece to http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-environment-headlines/20101006-region-colorado-river-drought-threatens-power-production.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623051811/http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/wrfo/Cultural_Resources/formative_era_fremont.html to http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/wrfo/Cultural_Resources/formative_era_fremont.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304000641/http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/coloradoriver.htm to http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/coloradoriver.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613215932/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central+Arizona+Project to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central+Arizona+Project
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~shlemonc/html/trips/Grand%20Canyon%20web/html/flogs/PDFs/structuralvegetation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306135619/http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/kfo/recreation_opportunities/rafting.html to http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/kfo/recreation_opportunities/rafting.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027155601/http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/moab_fo/campgrounds/fee_accomplishment.Par.36998.File.dat/RecreationFeeAccountAccomplishmentsUT02Fy2011.pdf to http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/moab_fo/campgrounds/fee_accomplishment.Par.36998.File.dat/RecreationFeeAccountAccomplishmentsUT02Fy2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120709093215/http://www.npca.org/about-us/center-for-park-research/colorado_river_basin/Colorado-River-Report.pdf to http://www.npca.org/about-us/center-for-park-research/colorado_river_basin/Colorado-River-Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226164622/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Boulder+Canyon+Project++-+All-American+Canal+System to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Boulder+Canyon+Project++-+All-American+Canal+System
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316220454/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=San+Diego+Project to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=San+Diego+Project
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228054940/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Colorado+River+Basin+Salinity+Control+Project to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Colorado+River+Basin+Salinity+Control+Project
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~shlemonc/html/trips/Grand%20Canyon%20web/html/flogs/PDFs/structuralvegetation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015115627/http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/webb_pdf/Fenton-ea-2005-QR.pdf to http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/webb_pdf/Fenton-ea-2005-QR.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214234430/http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/waterdevelopment2.htm to http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/waterdevelopment2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205112023/http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/ute_indians.htm to http://cpluhna.nau.edu/People/ute_indians.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225000708/http://www.environment.nau.edu/water/ColoradoRiver.htm to http://www.environment.nau.edu/water/ColoradoRiver.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213105737/http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Biota/riparian_communities.htm to http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Biota/riparian_communities.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203155107/http://livingrivers.org/ to http://livingrivers.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304091329/http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/167/126.pdf to http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/167/126.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222093259/http://www.usbr.gov/history/HistoryofLargeDams/LargeFederalDams.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/history/HistoryofLargeDams/LargeFederalDams.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68hTWaf6m?url=http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=38043 to http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=38043

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/689BTmZpx?url=http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/gc/lakepowell.html to http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/gc/lakepowell.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/689BUjowT?url=http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/lakefaqs.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/lakefaqs.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/689BbuyRw?url=http://www.easternsnow.org/proceedings/2004/fassnacht2.pdf to http://www.easternsnow.org/proceedings/2004/fassnacht2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224015718/http://www.usbr.gov/history/ProjectHistories/INDIAN%20PROJECTS%20OVERVIEW.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/history/ProjectHistories/INDIAN%20PROJECTS%20OVERVIEW.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522080526/http://www.gcdamp.gov/keyresc/hydropower.html to http://www.gcdamp.gov/keyresc/hydropower.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68hTYStS8?url=http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68hTKqeLF?url=http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68hTZtcHN?url=http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/brochures/faq.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/brochures/faq.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68jVJwJGP?url=http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Parker+Dam to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Parker+Dam&groupName=General
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68jVKTHDO?url=http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Davis+Dam to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Davis+Dam&groupName=General
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68hTaqtj5?url=http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/Roosevelt/story.html to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/Roosevelt/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927020950/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/PSWPRptJan64.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/PSWPRptJan64.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010175929/http://www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/reports/crs/pdfs/cul2006-2010prov.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/reports/crs/pdfs/cul2006-2010prov.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921130141/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/aop/AOP12.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/aop/AOP12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113020305/http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/drought-lake-powell-lake-mead-climate-change-20130818 to http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/drought-lake-powell-lake-mead-climate-change-20130818
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219044038/http://www.usbr.gov/uc/feature/drought.html to http://www.usbr.gov/uc/feature/drought.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130806050034/http://www.pacinst.org/reports/co_river_ag_2013/map/ to http://www.pacinst.org/reports/co_river_ag_2013/map/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorado River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324005737/http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/11/restoring_floods_to_grand_caynon_river/ to http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/11/restoring_floods_to_grand_caynon_river/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Basin Map

The map is incorrect. The map names Fort Collins as "Boulder".

Boulder is actually situated where the "y" in Granby is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.127.21.51 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I have corrected the map. Shannon [ Talk ] 18:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)