From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

I think something should be included on the controversy over the naming of 'Lake Powell'. Powell was an ardent naturalist that would probably have been upset over environmental destruction caused by the dam and lake. It seems ironic that the man who first explored the river and admired its power should have his name lent to this massive lake. Tkessler 19:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like a good addition but we have to make it NPOV. Was there an actual controversy when the reservoir was named? Did people raise this point and argue that some other name should be selected? We should describe that controversy. Failing that, we'd need to refer to some notable spokesperson for the view you mention, that Powell would have opposed the environmental destruction. JamesMLane 23:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A quick goggle search suggests that there is definitely some controversy over the issue (The Coaltion to Rename Lake Powell being one example). I'll do some research and add in a bit if no one has objections (or they can do it themself if they have a good source). Tkessler 02:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
The only controversy was made up by extreme environmental groups. The U.S. Board of Geographic Names rejected their naming request - end of story. scorup

Lake Powell reservoir information web page

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/profile?s=PWL&type=res

The capacity, according to this page is 24,322,000 acre feet.

This page also gives monthly mean volumes, as well as a link to monthly volume data.

Dispute and improvement

Does anyone object to removing the neutrality tag?

Re-reading the article, this seems reasonable to me. -- R27182818 ( talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, I think this article should have a section on the recent drought. I've heard (and I'll find sources) that Lake Powell may never fill up again. I could expand the last paragraph in the "History" section into another section, possibly titled "Recent Drought." Thoughts? Russell Abbott ( talk) 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree. Note that snowpack this winter is very high and the lake may fill up this year (no source, sorry). But the long-term prospects are still grim.
There also needs to be a Controversy section. Many folks (including myself) have a passionate loathing for this particular reservoir and this fact and the reasons behind it are not captures. -- R27182818 ( talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There's more discussion of the controversy in the Glen Canyon Dam article, where it seems more appropriate. (I just checked that article and noticed that someone along the way deleted the Dave Brower quotation about the dam. The passionate loathing you describe is matched by passionate adoration from the dam's supporters, and they've pushed their POV in that article.) The best setup is to have the controversy fully and fairly covered in Glen Canyon Dam, with a brief mention and wikilink here. JamesMLane  t  c 18:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Removed balance tag (finally), per above.

Is this an encyclopedia article or a political platform? Why don't you save your passionate loathing vs. passionate adoration and personal perspectives on the other author's POV's for a more appropriate outlet. Sorry to disagree with you, James, but this article is still emotive, non-scientific, and persuasive. The fact is, the dam exists, the lake exists. So an impact was made. Both for good and bad. Lots of tourism, recreation, flood control, etc. could be seen as good, maybe. Losses to the environment, impacts because of accessibility, etc., etc. could be seen as bad. All this controversial stuff can be seen as good or bad by different people. So what? Is this the place to make those arguments? Leave your whining and pining at home, or find another outlet for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.131.108 ( talk) 06:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Re: drought: I added a nice time-lapse slideshow of yearly satphotos of the lake, 1999-2009. Pretty dramatic. These are PD fotos, so we may want to add samples (or the whole slideshow?) ---- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Update page information

Under Marina information would someone with more technical skills than me please update/modify the following


Because most of the lake is surrounded by steep sandstone walls, access to the lake is limited to developed marinas:

This should be updated to reflect that there are also a number of primitave launch locations.

Lees Ferry Subdistrict- This is not a marina on the reservoir, it is downstream of the dam

Page/Wahweap Marina - The marina name is Wahweap, and it is located in Page Arizona.

Page is not located on the shore of lake and there is no marina there. It is the largest town in the vicinity of the dam, however. Wahweap is a marina but is located several miles away from Page (across the dam and upstream) and should be treated as a separate location. Lumping these two areas together makes about as much sense as lumping them in the Lees Ferry subdistrict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.131.108 ( talk) 05:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Antelope Point Marina - This is also in Arizona and is owned by the Navajo Nation

Halls Crossing, Utah Marina

Bullfrog Marina - This is also in Utah

Hite Marina - This Utah marina closed a few years ago, low water levels made it inoperable. At a minimum water level of 3606, the location may be used as a primiative launch.

State Line - this is a primative launch location in Arizona

Dangling Rope Marina - This marina should be added to the list. There is no boat launching at this marina as it is not accessible by road. It is approximately 40 miles uplake from the dam. This marina also closes during the off-season.

The following marinas are accessible only by boat:

Dangling Rope Marina

Rainbow Bridge National Monument - this is not a marina - there was a marina here in the early years of the reservoir but it was removed more than 20 years ago

Escalante Subdistrict - not an on-lake marina


````sherifac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherifac ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply


The dam did not start impounding water when it was "completed" in september of 63, it started impounding water sometime in january of 1963. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.249.4 ( talk) 08:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lake Powell. 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:

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) 20:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lake Powell. 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:

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) 23:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Proposal: split "History" into two sections - one for true history, one for current events

The "History" section has grown long and a bit unwieldy. As part of upgrading this article from its current "Class C" status, I welcome comment from fellow Wikipedians on a proposal to split it into two sections:

"History" - for true history (discovery of the area, proposals for construction, construction itself, and water levels through some reasonable historical date - maybe post-1983 flood? maybe up until year 2000 and the current long-term drought? suggestions welcomed).

A new section, heading TBD (Ideas: "Current reservoir", "Recent History", "Post-2000 history", "21 Century drought" - again, suggestions welcomed). This would have the facts and discussions of the recent/current lake levels and dam operations, and the effects of same on the Colorado Basin water supply in general.

My argument is twofold: (1) the History section is already too long and contains too much information that's not strictly "historical", and (2) as a proxy for water availability and climate change effects throughout the entire Western US, Lake Powell's recent and current water level, and USBR water operations, are vital and highly-researched information - they shouldn't be buried at the bottom of a long "history" section, but deserve their own heading/section.

Again, comment welcomed.

Gallery

There are so many images that the many floating objects problem occurs, which moves illustrative images and graphs out of the section that they illustrate, e.g. the surface area shrinkage image was not in the " 21st century drought" section, but was in the "Fish species" section, due to this problem. Wikipedia reccomends using the <gallery> tag to contain all of the "stacked" images, and allow the other images to "float" in the places where they illustrate the text. Please check carefully as you edit. Please make sure that the drought surface image and graph stay with the drought-section text. Thank you. Nick Beeson ( talk) 14:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Lake_Powell&oldid=1203466204"