This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Inland Empire / Southern California Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Inland Empire task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Rivers Low‑importance 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. Engineering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Because of WP:1R, I have included the San Jacinto tunnel in this article instead of its own page. It's quite long but it provides lots of important information about the effects of the building of the CRA, and the formation of the EMWD. Lvi56 ( talk) 03:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Overall, I agree that the San Jacinto Tunnel is an interesting aspect of the problems encountered while constructing the project. However it is disproportional to the rest of the information in the article. The entire article is 2,045 words long. The main section is only 762 while the San Jacinto section is 1,283 words long, almost twice as long. This makes it long enough for it's own article (see Gunnison Tunnel at 321 words). I suggest a separate article for the San Jacinto tunnel, with cross linking to the CRA article. Bobsd ( talk) 04:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree that San Jacinto Tunnel would be better as a separate article. I've tagged the section accordingly. — Mudwater ^{( Talk)} 02:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree we should split it off. Wdford ( talk) 22:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

This article about the Colorado River Aqueduct is not thoroughly referenced and shows a disregard for the controversies surrounding water rights of the communities the water is diverted away from. There is not a single citation in the first paragraph, though it gives numerous introductory facts about the topic. Continuously throughout the article, a source is only cited at the end of the paragraph. I am assuming this suggests that all facts before the last sentence are from that source, but that is not good practice and can easily lead to confusion when another editor wants to add additional information.

The sources for this article seem reliable, but even some of the sited sources discuss the implications that moving this water to serve the LA area have had on other communities. One of the articles sited is “Conflict and Cooperation within an Organization: A Case Study of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California”, yet this wiki article doesn’t mention controversies of any kind. Zetland’s article discusses conflicts throughout the 100 years this project has been negotiated. Even recently, CNN documented conflict that arose from the recent drought that brought farmers outside of LA to attempt to compromise on the water being drained from their communities to no avail. Furthermore, this article discusses the project as a feat of science but ignores the impact on communities outside the LA area. Amberzeise ( talk) 06:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Amber reply

Regarding your comments about there not being a single citation in the first paragraph, see WP:Lead for information about this. Other than that, I would say you're on the right track. Oh, and when you leave comments on a talk page, don't mark them as "minor"; if you do, they might not get very many people's attention. -- Junkyardsparkle ( talk) 08:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorado River Aqueduct. 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/20101122095137/http://emwd.org/news/history-book/section_1.pdf to http://www.emwd.org/news/history-book/section_1.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorado River Aqueduct. 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/20060625150733/http://www.asce.org/history/landmark/projects.cfm?menu=name to http://www.asce.org/history/landmark/projects.cfm?menu=name

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply