Talk:Tualatin River

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creeks?

Surely not all these creeks merit articles. Notability isn't exactly the same for geographic features, but I doubt most of these are exactly notable.I'd like to hear a rationale for including them. I think it would be better to write articles on them first--and include them in this article after that. Better yet, put the entries about the creeks in this article then redirect them here. Note that most of those creeks will need (further) disambiguation. Katr67 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, as mentioned on the editor's talk page. Additionally, as to the claim about other Rock Creeks, well try outside Wikipedia: Baker County, to the north in Columbia County, possibly Wasco County, or search for Rock Creek and stream in Oregon from the GNIS and you'll discover at least 11. Rock Creek is extremely common for a name, as is Muddy Creek and Mill Creek, or other simple names as common sense would dictate. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have easily agreed before helping with Paulins Kill—and still might—but a thorough list of tributaries is good. The question in my mind is how many to leave as redlinks.... —EncMstr 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Course description

I felt a bit funny about adding the possibly insane but complete-as-I-could-make-it course description some months ago. When I wrote an even longer one for the Rogue, I decided to create a separate article Course of the Rogue River (Oregon) and write a summary for the Rogue River (Oregon) article. That seems to have worked out OK. As this article gets developed, a separate Course of the Tualatin River might be a good idea. Finetooth (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The line in the intro "There are approximately 500,000 people residing on 15 percent of the land in the river's watershed" is quite confusing and is not an effective way of conveying the information. The 15% part is an odd inclusion and is sort of nonsense/meaningless statistic. Perhaps something more simple like "500,000 people live within the Tualatin River Watershed" would be more informative The USGS states that 350k folks live in the watershed btw https://or.water.usgs.gov/tualatin/pn356.html Sorry if this is the wrong section. I'm just a simple country hydrologist and don't know much about wikipedia editing.

The flow information for Oswego Canal is wrong.

"this flow does not include the estimated flow of 3,600 cubic feet per second (100 m3/s) from the river through the Lake Oswego Canal.[12]". This is a greater flow than the entire Clackamas River. Lake Oswego, both the lake and the city would be washed away with this level of flow. I did search out [12] and it makes no reference to this diversion canal flow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRocklyn (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1996 flow of the Tualatin was in the 20k cfs range right? 3,600 cfs in the Tualatin would be just a tad above average comparatively. I'm not too familiar with Clackamas River Q. The connectivity between the Tualatin and the LO Canal isn't too clear in the article, so it's kind of hard to add things up, but the flow figures listed seem correct. I can't find any Q data for the canal, but I think the writer is saying that 3,600 cfs was coming in from the canal to the Tualatin during the high flow. Here is discharge date from that time. https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/or/nwis/uv?cb_00060=on&format=gif_default&site_no=14207500&period=&begin_date=1988-05-24&end_date=1997-06-01 Side(ish) note - the flow of record on the Clackamas is ~89k cfs.