Talk:Glen Canyon Dam

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 19, 2016	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dams High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams 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.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona 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.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Mid-importance).

Why was the dam constructed?

There is no real reference as to the purpose of the dam. There is only a mention of hydroelectric power, but no mention of why this was needed. Most of the article concentrates on the controversy and negative repercussions of the damming, which is not a bad thing (I think it is quite a good thing to include in this article), however, more needs to be included as to the reason the dam was built and its history/uses. (Note: If I've erred in posting this someway, please correct me, this is my first contribution/post to the Wikipedia.)- Tuxley, Dec. 5, 2005, 5:31 AM EST

Needs text

This needs text, not just collection of images. I have only vague memories of reading Edward Abbey, and don't think that's a good basis for my writing this.Vicki Rosenzweig 16:39, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Radical" environmentalists?

What's so "radical" about the Sierra Club? The wikipedia's own article about that group doesn't characterize them in that manner. There's no reason to paint them with the same broad brush as Earth First! or to revert the deletion of that word.

I agree that "radical" is unjustified. So is the removal of all the pro-draining external links. Such a blatantly POV edit makes me suspicious of the same anon's unsourced assertions about the ecological aspects. I will remove them unless a citation is provided. The link about Lake Powell fishing information is in the Lake Powell article and doesn't belong here. JamesMLane 00:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental Flows

I believe that the reference to experimental flows in 2005 is incorrect, the last experiment was in 2004. Also, the reference to excess silt being flushed into Lake Mead is odd given that all sediment introduced into the mainstem below GCD will eventually be washed into Lake Mead, and the quanitity of sediment in the system is a fraction of what occured prior to the completion of the Dam. If this article is going to reference the post-dam environmental efforts, it should start with a link to the Grand Canyon Adaptive Management Program - http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/index.html - and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center - http://www.gcmrc.gov/gcmrc.htm

Metric system

This page is for display worldwide, and more than half the world uses the metric system. Anyone on that?

it's in the US, and US articles use the US system just like American English vs. British English. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact

Wouldn't it be proper to add a section in the environmental section describing the amount of greenhouse gases that are not pumped into the atmosphere as a result of the electricity produced by the dam rather than through a fossil burning power plant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.43.10 (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that's already discussed in Hydroelectricity, which IMO is a better place since it's a general thing about dams and not specific to Glen Canyon. See also Environmental impacts of dams. --R27182818 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with R2718818. JamesMLane t c 21:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I see what you mean and agree. After reviewing the hydroelectric article and the Lake Powell article, it strikes me that the Lake Powell article contains a great deal of information about Glen Canyon Dam that should be better located in this article. Essentially, the entire history section in the Lake Powell article should be moved here. Also, the discussion in the intro section to the Glen Canyon Dam article contains a lot of information about Glen Canyon and the feelings of those trying to protect it. Shouldn't those portions be moved to a new section entitled "controversies" or something like that. Perhaps they would be better located in the environmental impact section. After all, summarizing a little known novel published in 1975 in the intro section seems a little strange to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.43.10 (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one possibility is to merge the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell articles entirely. There is also a standalone Glen Canyon article, though I haven't looked at it much. Or, the controversy could be summarized in its own article. Anything that seems to minimize the visibility of the controversy would be hotly contested by many people who watch this article, myself included, but I do agree that the distribution of material between this article and Lake Powell isn't ideal.

I personally think the intro is pretty good, though it could use some editing for length. Monkey Wrench Gang may be unfamiliar to you, but it's not a "little known novel", and the dam was the last of the big dams. It's the subject of passionate loathing by many people, myself included. For those reasons, I think its controversial nature is a very important part of its story.

(P.S. please follow talk page conventions -- sign and indent your comments, etc.) --R27182818 (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the neutrality of the environmental impacts section. There is nary a word for the positive changes to the Grand Canyon because of the cooler, cleaner water coming from the dam. A reference to a dam support website, such as friends of Lake Powell would provide a more balanced entry. After all it is an opinion that native environment is better than non-native environment. Saa3567 (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado River Storage Project

I removed the following text from the article:

which provides more storage capacity than all other storage features of the Colorado River Storage Project combined.^[1]

While technically true, I think this statement is misleading. The CRSP includes only dams on the upper Colorado River, and Glen Canyon is the last dam in the project. In particular, Hoover Dam is not part of the CRSP, and Lake Mead holds more water than Lake Powell. Links:

--R27182818 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the dam's inclusion within the CSRP, and the purpose of the CSRP, is properly part of its history. I've moved the reference there, restored the citation that you deleted, and quoted directly from the cited website to give the Bureau of Reclamation's take. I agree with you that the specific point that Lake Powell stores more water than the rest of the CSRP is immaterial and need not be included. Just in case someone else comes upon this fact in some other source and comes here for clarification, however, the quotation I've added imparts the key point you mention, that the CSRP applies only to the upper basin. JamesMLane t c 18:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Glen Canyon Powerplant". United States Bureau of Reclamation. 2005. Retrieved 2008-05-14.

History Bias

The extra quote of the Sierra Club leader adds a biased tone to the history section. I vote to remove it to maintain the balance between the regret of the environmentalists/dam opponents and the satisfaction of the recreationalists/hydroenergists/dam supporters. Saa3567 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't remove valid, properly sourced information just to achieve a spurious "balance". If you think that there's additional valid, properly sourced information about the pro-dam side's POV that could be added, go ahead and add it. Note that, under WP:NPOV, we don't adopt opinions about controversial matters, but we report facts about opinions if stated by prominent spokespersons. JamesMLane t c 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Route 66" is referred to as a "cult classic." What "cult," beautiful Corvettes and open America? The article could be improved by deleting the word "cult." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the dam's structural integrity

I have seen reports that the dams support (physical that is) has been eroded. From what I heard, the dam was built on a porous stone that has allowed water past the dam. That should be addressed in the article. Will (Talk - contribs) 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water is actually supposed to seep past the abutments to reduce pressure within the sandstone. It is porous, but the calcium carbonate dissolved in the water is actually filling up the pores within the sandstone as it seeps around the dam. 67.60.15.221 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence improvement

Later History section: The first sentence in the 1983 floods and legacy subsection, "During the first half of 1983, a deep snowpack in the Colorado River headwaters, heavy spring rain and a rapid rise in temperatures that precipitated swift snowmelt combined to create perfect conditions for maximum runoff on the Colorado River.", could be better presented thereby shortening the run-on sentence. There is no need for a comma after a year (1983) and serial comma's have a purpose.

Suggestion: "During the first half of 1983 a deep snowpack in the Colorado River headwaters, heavy spring rain, and a rapid rise in temperatures that precipitated swift snowmelt, combined to create perfect conditions for maximum runoff on the Colorado River."

oddities in the text

"Design Structure and storage" "were used for flood purposes only once in 1983" If I read the text above it states that the following year on august 12th 1984 they had to open the flood gates again. they are also used for assisting the recovery of the damaged riverine ecosystem 1996 2004 2008 2012

The next paragraph needs to be rewritten the math does not compute probably originally eight 155,500 horsepower aka 119MW generators totally more or less 930MW upgraded to 5 * 165MW + 3* 157MW totaling 1296MW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.171.178 (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working to give it a GAN

Good day, over the next couple of days I will be working on the article because I believe it can achieve "Good Article" status. I hope we can achieve this as a team. AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 16 or 17, 1960

Hey folks, in some research I am doing, Sec of Interior Seaton poured the first concrete June 17, 1960. Can anyone state the reasoning for the June 16 date? Cordially yours, Tom (Cite "Dam Concretre Pour Needs 1,275 Men by Year's End," Arizona Daily Sun, June 17, 1960; "First Concrete Poured at Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona Daily Star, June 18, 1960 RRFWTommartin (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dam height conversion

I noticed that the conversion template is inaccurate. Can someone explain why it is not converting 710 feet to 216 meters? The same thing occurs in the List of tallest dams in the United States article. Xnatedawgx (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Glen Canyon Powerplant". United States Bureau of Reclamation. 2005. Retrieved 2008-05-14.

[1]