Talk:Salem Beverly Waterway Canal

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).

References and accuracy

Well this is interesting Daderot. You are writing entirely from memory; I did not see the canal in your "reference." You must have some hearsay. The roads are not corderoy; you could not have seen them. They are gravel. At least some of the gravel was obtained from the eskers through which the canal cuts, but there are not so many of those. I have no doubt some was trucked in. Trees are not a basis for road building; undoubtedly you heard about or saw the huge brush pile that was left at the Topsfield end. It's gone now. Also a section of the bridge has been removed to prevent wheeled traffic. No, the roads are gravel all right, except the troughs that have been built to connect to the wetlands are concrete. Oh, and yes, it seems to be paved with goose manure from the resident population of geese. Thanks for the nice picture. I took some also but not near as good as that. The place definitely belongs in WP. Everyone who canoes on the Ipswich wants to know where the canal goes and what it is. But, we need some references. You had the fun of putting it in; now it is time for the support work. Guess work may be a start but without the refs it will eventually have to come out.Dave (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS With regard to the vandalism of this article, it is coming from a young man who lives on a side street of Route 1 on the Topsfield end. I refuse to say where. The area is actually currently affluent (who else has the money for his own computer). People do not "hang out" on the canal. It is too isolated, going right through the middle of Wenham Swamp. At night and in the winter it is highly dangerous. If you go through the ice alone there is no help at all for you. The broken bridge is a total hazard. People fish, run, canoe and enjoy the wildlife. You never know what is going to pop out of the swamp. Generally the place is too difficult to reach for "hanging out." There is one spot at the Wenham end where boys have been "hanging out" for at least 60 years. They use it as a swimming hole or used to, but you never see anyone there on a regular basis. The ones who do appear have no idea of its antiquity, or that their grandfather might once have "hung out" there. Sic transit gloria mundi.Dave (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The water rights question

I got a question that I think I will answer as it is not provocative or controversial but is very straightforward. Also, I set myself up for the question by not providing a proper reference. Since we are at least pretending to inform the public and I intend to act in good faith I will make this one reply this once.

An editor altered the number of gallons allowed to be taken from the Ipswich from 2500 million to 2500. I believe your intent was sincere, but you did not follow WP procedure. The procedure calls for a request for a reference. Instead, you just changed it. This is intentionally an encyclopedia. We all know it is NOT that. But, to act in good faith, which I endorse, we should pretend it is. YOU cited the number of 2500 gallons, NOT I. You have no reference for that.

Now that this legalism is done with, let me say that, 2500 gallons cannot possibly be true. One company might use more than 2500 gallons in one day. You use several gallons just to take a shower, if you take your time. If I run a bath I use 10 gallons. You mean to say, the board could take no more than enough to run 250 baths in all of Salem and Beverly? Why, that amount of water might run by a section in a couple of seconds! If that were true, the two cities would would smell as Nahant and King's Beaches now do, for the sewage dumped illegally offshore, because no one would ever bathe. Come to beautiful downtown Beverly. See Beverly and retch.

2500 million is what the act says. I will provide the online ref. As explanation, first let me say that the Ipswich is nothing compared to what it was, but that is a problem troubling most rivers flowing through populous areas. Everyone must have water. Long stretches of it dry up in summer. The pickerel I used to see there as a boy are not there now. People don't fish the Ipswich. There's no fish. Ships used to sail up the Ipswich and dock below the bridge. Hah. I've never seen any craft over 16 feet with a foot or two of draft.

Second, the law clearly intended that Salem and Beverly should have access to all the flow over 20 mil gal per day. So, they said up to 2500 mil per year, over the 20 mil.

I think that covers it. The article probably could use more refs. I don't mean to be unkind, but your first move should have been to look it up yourself and put in the reference rather than just change it on the basis that you can guess what error I might have made and presume how to fix it. WP is not supposed to be a blog, you know. I'd like to say, take a hand, improve it, but I have to warn you you might be wasting time better spent elsewhere (like me).Branigan 16:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue I had is that it stated that the act "stated" that 2.5 billion gallons of water could be taken, per day. Thanks for clarifying that so that it says per year! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]