This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the San Joaquin River article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance). Rivers Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The San Joaquin River is located in California, near the Sacramento River. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers share a delta. The waters of the San Joaquin are used greatly by people. People fish a lot in these waters. Salmon are greatly fished there. This is the second largest river in California.

I have a few questions for those with answers:

1) What is the precise length of the San Joaquin River? I have received different lengths and maybe you know the correct one. 2) Who is the river keeper? 3) What goes on around the river? 4) Anything else I should know about the San Joaquin river? Please let me know

By: Nathan Mai

I was wondering if anyone had seen anything besides just stray cats and squirells around this general area, if they could post that around here. I'd like to know about what else lives around this area.

Actually I'm slowly going through and working on building a series of water articles related to California. The general outline I have for rivers will be as follows: 1. Geography / Course (with maps), including the headwaters, tributaries, and confluence / destination, 2. Physical Characteristics, including hydrology / runoff, geology, water quality, and ecology (this is where I'll right about the native and invasive species of import to the watershed), 3. Economics, including navigation, fishing, water supply, power generation, tourism, and 4. historical / political significance, including major cities, cultural issues, military events, and of course major current events. To directly answer your question, the major species of concern really are the native salmon species and Pacific flyway waterfowl ... after that there are plenty of species tied to the watershed worth noting, including the Tule Elk and various rodents and reptiles. MCalamari 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply

— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.196.62.3 ( talk) 04:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The source of the San Joaquin river is Thousand Island Lake at 9834 feet, which is at 37°43′15″N 119°10′56″W / 37.72083°N 119.18222°W / 37.72083; -119.18222. Notice that it feeds the Middle Fork of the San Joaquin. The North Fork of the San Joaquin arises from Twin Island Lakes at 37°41′29″N 119°13′58″W / 37.69139°N 119.23278°W / 37.69139; -119.23278, but Twin Island Lakes are only at 9625 feet of elevation. The source of a river is the highest elevation that running water flows from.

Many people think that the Ritter Range is the Sierra Crest, but that's not true. The range to the east of the Ritter Range (including Mount San Joaquin is the true Sierra Crest. So, it is possible for water to flow from Thousand Island Lake out to the Pacific.

Later -- I just traced the South Fork of the San Joaquin River. It originates from Martha Lake at 37°05′39″N 118°44′18″W / 37.09417°N 118.73833°W / 37.09417; -118.73833, at elevation 11004 feet! That's the winner, I'll modify the article.

-- hike395 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

An even higher source might be Blue Lake (just east of Blue Lake Pass). This lake drains into Bench Canyon and then joins the river running from Twin Lakes. Griot 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Nope, that's 10524 feet. But, there is an unnamed lake at 37°43′33″N 119°14′37″W / 37.72583°N 119.24361°W / 37.72583; -119.24361 that is at 3410 m (11190 feet) on the North Fork that seems to be even higher. Time to change it again hike395 13:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Lake Catherine (37°41'58.43"N; 119°12'23.28"W) is at 11,067 feet. It drains into Twin Lakes. At least this lake has a name. I nominate it as the source. There are about a million unnamed lakes sitting at the base of glaciers in the Sierra. Moreover, Google Earth shows your unnamed lake at 10,881 feet, and not only that, but Google Maps shows yet another unnamed lake higher than the one you cite! And not only, but traveling by Google Earth, it appears to make like the lake you cite drains into Silver Lake on the east side. How about if we pool our money and go on an actual fact-finding junket into these parts? Griot 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I looked at the Topozone map, not Google Earth. The topo map says it is 3410+/10 m in elevation, while Lake Catherine is listed at 3365 m. The topo map clearly shows that both the unnamed lake and Lake Catherine drain into Twin Lakes (are you sure we're talking about the same lake?)

I've been close to, but never at Lake Catherine. It's a great neighborhood :-) hike395 06:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Question: under "Headwaters", the page currently says: The North Fork, (a stream), begins at... -- and I just wonder what "a stream" means? My understanding is that "stream" is a generic term for flowing water channel, that is, river, creek, brook, whatever. So I don't understand why this is mentioned? Pfly 08:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Errors in section: "Tributaries / canals / lakes" False statement: "The following lakes and reservoirs are on the San Joaquin River watershed: [list]..."

But in fact, the following drain southerly into Tulare Lake, not the San Joaquin River (quotes by Wikipedia:)

"the construction of Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River flows to the Tulare Lake bed south of Stratford."

Kaweah River. "From Lake Kaweah, ...it flows west into the Tulare Lakebed."

"Lake Success is a lake near Porterville, California on the Tule River at 36°04′N 118°55′W / 36.06°N 118.92°W / 36.06; -118.92[1]."

What is "Tulare Lakebed?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulare_Lake Tulare Lake is now a normally dry fresh-water lake that was formerly the largest in the Western United States. Except during heavy precipitation it was part of a large endorheic basin, at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley but not connected to the San Joaquin River. ...The lake and its surviving wetlands lie in the southern portion of California's San Joaquin Valley, about forty miles south of Fresno. ...The land was reclaimed from the lake over a few decades as the Kaweah, Kern, Kings and Tule rivers were diverted upstream and canals were built to drain the lake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Joaquin_River ...the San Joaquin River itself is the southern most river of the greater San Joaquin River watershed.

That is, all waters in the SJV south of the SJR drainaige flowed into Tulare Lake, and now flow down Man's maw. Also, all other waters in the SJV now flow down Man's insatitable gullet.

Second False statements:

"then at Mendota Pool flows north to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and then San Francisco Bay." and "these bypass channels tended to be better designed and thus the main channel of the San Joaquin runs dry in some of these places."

That vague and confusing section gives a false impression. In fact, except in rare flood years, there is no hydraulic continuity or "flow" to the delta or ocean. This is due to water diversions. Long stretches of the river are dry. Due to court battles, and related, some may wish to paint a pretty ecological picture not there. However, a restoration project started this year to bring back the salmon, which might fix broken hydraulic continuity for part of the year.

Vague or false, gives wrong impression regarding river continuity:

"Though the agricultural drain water or urban waste water will be returned to the original channel downstream of the point of diversion,"

"will be returned ?" When? A drain dream for Westlands Water District halted and not been re-approved. Also of interest, in the SJV, "agricultural drain water" typically means polluted, used crop water unfit for crops or wildlife, see Kesterson Wildlife Refuge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesterson_National_Wildlife_Refuge and http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/na/elemap.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-meyerhoff/for-the-birds_b_44051.html. In a nutshell, each year that local soil must be washed of toxic selenium and other salts before crops can grow. (Vested interests would seemingly prefer to obfuscate that simple fact, it is difficult to discern from the confusing literature.) Large agricultural drains for over-irrigation are a thing of the past in California.

newspaper: http://www.sacbee.com/288/story/2340633.html

First flows from San Joaquin River restoration stop below Mendota Dam Published: Sunday, Nov. 22, 2009 The first revival flows of the San Joaquin River have stopped about 30 miles downstream of Mendota Dam, well short of fully refilling the dried riverbed. Reconnecting the entire river probably won't happen until next year, but federal officials collected a lot of information from monitoring wells during the seven-week experimental flow that ended Friday. The river restoration began Oct. 1 under a lawsuit settlement signed by farmers, environmentalists and the federal government in 2006. The San Joaquin dried up and salmon runs died after Friant Dam, which is northeast of Fresno and about 62 miles upstream of Mendota Dam, began capturing the water in the late 1940s. The Bureau of Reclamation, which owns and operates Friant Dam, will resume water releases Feb. 1. – Fresno Bee

http://www.revivethesanjoaquin.org/category/issue-catagories/river-restoration-and-settlement-agreement

By Mark Grossi Fresno Bee Published Monday, Sep. 28, 2009 It all starts Thursday with a gentle surge of water to be released from Friant Dam into the San Joaquin River. A massive, unprecedented and unpredictable river restoration project will begin -- reawakening miles of dried riverbed and salmon runs that have been extinct for six decades. Since the dam was built in the 1940s, long stretches of the river have been dry.

The Nature Conservancy in California - San Joaquin River and Wetlands http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/california/preserves/sanjoaquin.html

The once thriving river has lost 95 percent of its wetlands. Due to current operations of dams, bypasses and diversions, the river no longer flows for roughly 60 miles.

google Results about 30,500 for: restoration salmon "San Joaquin River"

regarding the wildlife question, other good sources might be:

San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust Dedicated to preserving and restoring the San Joaquin River Parkway and to educate the public on the need for stewardship, to research issues affecting the ... Our mission is to preserve and restore San Joaquin River lands having ecological ... where plants and animals are free to exist in accordance with nature's cycles. ... fish and wildlife, trees and plants, and scenic vistas to enjoy.” ...

http://www.riverparkway.org/

San Joaquin River Conservancy - Home Implementing the San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan, a 22-mile regional greenspace and wildlife corridor along both sides of the river extending from ... http://sjrc.ca.gov/

San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge The San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge encompasses more than 6500 acres of riparian woodlands, wetlands, ... http://www.fws.gov/Refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=81654

San Joaquin River - San Luis NWR Complex Feb 2, 2009 ... Nature's Calendar · What to Expect on Our Refuges ... The San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge located in Stanislaus County encompasses ... The Refuge is situated where three major rivers (San Joaquin, Tuolumne and ... http://sanluis.fws.gov/sanjoaquin_info.htm

in the section: "Historical / political events:" Misleading, biased, and unsupported statement:

"Despite the federal Central Valley Project Act's (and the California voters') express authorization of this scheme, in 2004, a federal judge ruled the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in violation of California law for not letting enough water flow to maintain the historic salmon population."

Huh? ...No doubt that petulant "activist" federal judge was a Liberal! Much of this section is biased and seems based on Friant Water Users Authority propaganda such as SanJoaquinRiverCaseHistoryFriantFnl.doc. and http://radanovich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/SJRcasehistory.pdf However:

Federal judge rules Friant Dam near Fresno violates California law By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer Last Updated: August 27, 2004, SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal judge ruled Friday that the U.S. government violated California law when it built the Friant Dam near Fresno six decades ago, a decision that could settle a 16-year-old water dispute and restore water flows to the state's second longest river.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040828-0021-ca-friantdam.html http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141x2308 http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/9055127p-9952805c.html

Dam Violates California Law, Federal Judge Rules - Los Angeles Times August 29, 2004 A federal judge ruled Friday that the US government violated California law when it built the Friant Dam near Fresno six decades ago, a decision that could ...

http://8.12.42.31/2004/aug/29/news/admn-dam29

Judge Orders Minimum Flows for San Joaquin River Salmon "The spring chinook run, once the system's largest, was completely exterminated after the construction of Friant Dam. In 1950, State Attorney General Edmund G. "Pat" Brown relegated the fish to extinction when he issued an infamous legal interpretation that federal officials did not have to comply with the State Fish and Game laws protecting fisheries below the dam, but only with the dam's purpose: to provide irrigation water."

April 10, 2003: http://www.fishsniffer.com/dbachere/041003sanjoaquin.html

Sept 4, 2004: Bacher: Federal Judge Says: Let the San Joaquin Flow "After 15 years of litigation, fish advocates and environmental groups won a huge legal victory on August 27 when a federal court judge ruled that the Bureau of Reclamation illegally dried up the San Joaquin River when Friant Dam was built in the 1940 s. ... There can be no genuine dispute that many miles of the San Joaquin River are now entirely dry, except during extremely wet periods, and that the historic fish populations have been destroyed, said Judge Lawrence Karlton of the Eastern Federal District Court in his opinion. ... The Bureau operated the Friant Project in violation of California law for 55 years. ... The 41-page ruling is extremely well written, documenting the vibrant spring and fall salmon runs that ascended the San Joaquin before the dam was built. ... The river s spring run, estimated at several hundred thousand fish, was one of the largest chinook runs anywhere on the Pacific Coast. The historical fall run is conservatively estimated to have numbered 50,000 to 100,000 fish, according to Karlton. ... The suit charged the bureau with violating Section 5937 of the California Fish and Game Code, which requires that the owner of any dam shall allow sufficient water to pass over, around or through the dam, to keep in good condition any fish that may be planted or exist below the dam. The lawsuit was first filed in 1988, making it one of California s longest running water disputes.

http://dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Bacher0904.htm

ELAW: Case Summaries Natural Resources Defense Council v. Houston 146 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1754 (1999) "...The plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA),[2] the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),[3] section 8 of the Reclamation Act,[4] and section 5937 of the California Fish and Game Code.[5] In 1989, the irrigation and water districts were permitted to intervene. The Friant Dam adversely affects the endangered Sacramento winter-run chinook salmon and other listed species in the Friant Service Area by impounding the San Joaquin's water and diverting it to irrigation canals, leaving a long stretch of the San Joaquin dry... Once the chinook was listed, the Bureau had independently determined that the contract renewals were not likely to adversely affect the salmon.[???!!!] ... The Bureau had acted arbitrarily and capriciously... The Friant Dam adversely affects the endangered Sacramento winter-run .... with section 5937 of the California Fish and Game Code. Under California v. ... The district court concluded that federal law did not prima facie preempt section 5937, and the Ninth Circuit agreed. " http://www.elawreview.org/summaries/natural_resources/fish_and_wildlife/natural_resources_defense_coun_6.html

The San Joaquin: A River Betrayed (Hardcover) Gene Rose (Author, retired Fresno Bee journalist) http://www.amazon.com/San-Joaquin-River-Betrayed/dp/1884995209 -- excerpts and historical photos: http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4hmwY9r8cYC&dq=The+San+Joaquin:+A+River+Betrayed&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=k9EiC3xj_P&sig=iNnk_mIWlBHxmt6hRvcrGrzJw8Y&hl=en&ei=z_kuS7GRHYSMtAO-w6nJBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false Product Description: The story of the San Joaquin California's heartland river its people, its places, its past.

NRDC: Press Release - San Joaquin River Reborn Oct 2, 2009 http://www.nrdc.org/media/2009/091002.asp "... The flows are the first major milestone under a historic settlement agreement reached in 2006 between the Natural Resources Defense Council, Friant Water Users Authority and the federal government over the de-watering of the river that devastated one of California's largest salmon runs. The settlement ended 18 years of legal battles and initiated one of the largest river restoration projects in the nation. NRDC said that restoring flows and the historic salmon runs on the San Joaquin will help California’s ailing commercial salmon industry, create jobs and help improve water quality in the Bay-Delta, a source of drinking water for 22 million Californians. This historic restoration effort serves as an important example of how farmers, fishermen, environmentalists, state and federal agencies can work together to implement real solutions to California’s conflicts over water resources...."

-- 68.127.89.134 ( talk) 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Doug Bashford reply

The Kings, Kern, Kaweah and Tule rivers are technically tributaries of the San Joaquin. It's just that the drainage from the southern part of the Valley isn't well developed enough; Tulare Lake used to form as a result of poor drainage. The Kings River flows into the San Joaquin via Berenda Slough in wet years. The Kern River, farthest south, has flowed into the San Joaquin during extremely wet periods. Shannon ^talk _contribs 01:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

"Technically" according a distant map maker, a politician, or to a geologist? I don't understand. If one looks at a topo map, one can see why the Tulare Lake Basin is an endorheic basin. One gains a great deal of understanding by doing this. It strongly appears that the Kings River created an alluvial fan deposit (or piedmont "delta") on the valley floor, creating a dam and splitting the drainage. (It's typical of mountain rivers slowing as they hit the flats to dump their sediment loads.)

In other words, to escape the lake, (or any any endorheic lake,) water would have to travel uphill. (Thus the claim that the Tulare lake was "drained" by canals is physically impossible...and so forth, -- this concept is worth pondering.) Because a canal from the Kings River comes past my house in Fresno, -- on the other side of the divide, -- does not imply they are in the same watershed, rather it speaks to water diversion technology, - in the Kings irrigation system, all the Fresno canals including the Gould, Fresno, and Consolidated Canals start at the highest elevations near the Friant-Kern Canal to make the trip. Likewise, a political map shows the alluvial fan (our dam,) criss- crossed by canals, implying from a distance that it does not exist.

American Heritage Dictionary; Slough: NOUN: 1. A depression or hollow, usually filled with deep mud or mire. 2. also slue A stagnant swamp, marsh, bog, or pond, especially as part of a bayou, inlet, or backwater. 3. A state of deep despair or moral degradation.

You are correct that the Kings River is not "air tight" in floods, but this is because weirs are switched ONLY in flood time (near Riverdale and Lamoore) to direct water from the natural Kings River into the North Fork Kings River (a canal,) which then flows into Fresno Slough, Fish Slough, and/or James Bypass into Mendota Pool, then to the San Joaquin River. The only other possible escape is Tulare Lake over-topping the alluvial fan, which hasn't come even a little close in over 100 years.

Also, I don't think "poor drainage" is a geological term, it is a term used by farmers, (such as the locally powerful J. G. Boswell Company, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Boswell_II ,) their ditch diggers (such as the powerful Kings River Conservation District (KRCD) and the powerful KRWA) and their politicians. "Boswell used the company's influence to successfully lobby for advantageous land and water policies in the state, including the construction of the Pine Flat Dam. The dam stemmed water flow to Tulare Lake, the now dry bed of which is a central part of the company's land." (Also google: boswell "king of Kings" "fresno bee") - I'm saying don't trust vested interests nor their products/info/maps/loaded terminology /assumptions...and that's about all that exists in the area. (There is a huge and fascinating back-story, but another story....) However, "wetland" is a geologically recognized, neutral term.

When trying to tell a fair story I think it's important to remember that "trees" have no lobbyists, -- heck they don't even have lawyers. We being fish, must compensate for the fact that fish can't see water.

-- 71.133.254.173 ( talk) 04:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Doug Bashford-- 71.133.254.173 ( talk) 04:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I made some corrections and additions to my previous Comments.

-- 71.133.254.173 ( talk) 04:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Doug Bashford reply

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of San Joaquin River's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GNIS":

• From Merced River: "Merced River". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior. 1981-01-19. Retrieved 2009-11-02.
• From Pit River: "Pit River". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior. 1981-01-19. Retrieved 2010-01-29.
• From Kern River: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: San Joaquin River, GNIS

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

It seems to be a thumbnail problem at Commons: there's even a warning message about slow thumbnails there. We could wait a while to see if the problem gets fixed, or remove the image until it gets fixed.

[Shannon: great job on all of the new content!]

— hike395 ( talk) 04:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Ah, I was wondering about that pic too. When I was building the page in my sandbox it just chose random times to appear and others it wouldn't, but by the time I got to mainspace it was out 100% of the time. (A shame, a shame.) Maybe one day I'll go up to the San Joaquin and take my own picture. Hehe! Shannon ^talk _contribs 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Good idea! I dug back into my photo archive and found my own photo of roughly the same spot. I replaced the photo -- now it works! — hike395 ( talk) 05:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Nice pic. Very beautiful spot, I hope to go there sometime. Shannon ^talk _contribs 16:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The text regarding Pedro Fages 1772 explorations reaching the San Joaquin Valley relates two stories, but gives the impression that only one story could be correct. In fact, both are true.

Fages first expedition occured during Spring 1772 when Governor Fages led an expedition from Monterey up through the Santa Clara Valley and East Bay. Fages was retracing his expedition of 1770 which reached the Oakland-Berkeley area. In 1772, like 1770, he hoped to find a route around San Francisco Bay in order to reach landmarks near Point Reyes that had long been known to Spanish navigators. In the spring 1772 expedition, Fages reached the vicinity of Antioch, California and from a hilltop, saw both the Sierra Nevada in the distance and San Joaquin River delta. The party turned back and returned to Monterey. (Multiple sources exist for this, including the diary of Fray Crespi who accompanied Fages on this expedition. Bancroft documents this expedition well in his History of California.)

The second expedition occured in the fall when Fages sought an inland route between Mission San Gabriel and the new mission at San Luis Obispo. (Again, this is well documented.) -- Jpribyl ( talk) 00:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh! Thanks for clarifying. I came across this issue while writing the history section of this article and since I couldn't find many exact or reliable dates in the sources I figured something must have gone wrong. Also the fact that the only source I found for Fages climbing Mount Diablo in 1772 was in an old Nat Geo book. Again, thanks, I will go and fix the problem Shann _º n 16:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)\ reply

The article currently says, "The river officially starts in the south-central Sierra Nevada at the confluence of two major affluents: the Middle Fork, rising out of Thousand Island Lake at almost 10,000 ft (3,000 m) above sea level, and the smaller North Fork, beginning at a small unnamed pond just south of Mount Lyell."

The part about the North Fork is incorrect. All water south of Mt. Lyell drains into the Lyell Fork of the Tuolumne River. I was just up on the North Fork. It starts either at the northern Twin Island Lake (9672') or in upper Bench Canyon, at Blue Lake (10,619'). (I say "either" because I'm not sure how you designate the headwaters of a river. The drainage out of Bench Canyon runs, by way of Bench Canyon Creek, into the North Fork. Since Blue Lake is higher than Twin Island Lake, is it the headwaters?) BTW, to be perfectly accurate, the headwaters are in the narrow canyon that runs northwest out of upper Bench Canyon. When I was there (August 2012), it was very dry, and the water from Blue Lake wasn't draining. However, Bench Canyon Creek was being fed by water from the glacier and pond at 37°41'23.12"N 119°16'20.49"W (10,843'). Chisme ( talk) 00:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hm – looking at USGS topos, it appears that the North Fork starts about 2 miles southeast of Mount Lyell on the southeast flank of Rodgers Peak. I'll see to fixing it. Thanks for pointing this out. Shann _º n 01:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I see what you mean. You're referring to the pond at 37°43'5.40"N 119°15'14.72"W (11,532'). By way of a couple of other little ponds, it drains into Twin Island Lakes. I'd like to hike up there! Chisme ( talk) 00:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply

No need for original research: GNIS says that the North Fork starts 2.9km SE of Lyell, at 37°43′42″N 119°14′39″W / 37.728265°N 119.2440336°W / 37.728265; -119.2440336, see [1]. — hike395 ( talk) 02:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply

This articles seems to indicate that the Spanish entered the San Joaquin Valley in order to capture slaves to serve at the missions.

I must say this is not the official history I have learned from conducting research on this region.

Lieutenant Moraga from the Presidio of San Francisco DID enter the area in pursuit of some Miwok who had been raiding Missions San Jose and Santa Clara, killing sixteen of the missions' disciples/neophytes. Nowhere in any recorded history, either from California or Catholic Church sources, did it ever indicate any natives were ever "enslaved". They were encouraged to come to the missions via gifts and promises for food and stayed to learn the ways of the church. Until such time as they asked for and accepted baptism into the Catholic Church, they were free to come and go as they pleased.

However, once baptized, the friars ensured the neophytes understood they could not return to their homelands except for special occasions, asking for permission first. When they simply wandered off, which happened often, soldiers assigned to the mission were sent out to find and bring them back. No undue force was used and a gentle "punishment" was given by a friar, usually a form of spanking with no bruises or bloodshed.

One must remember that the friars looked upon the natives as children and treated them as such in the moors of the 18th Century - spare the rod and spoil the child.

So, the statement that Spanish entered the valley to capture slaves is not only incorrect but biased.

If the original poster can cite references about this, I would be most curious to read them.

MSgt Dale Day, US Army Retired, author of The Sailor and The Carpenter, Book One of Father Serra's Legacy soon available at bluewoodpublishing.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvcabbie ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on San Joaquin River. 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/20110319100511/http://www.bay.org/rivers-and-delta/reconnecting-rivers-to-the-bay/san-joaquin-river/temperance-flat to http://www.bay.org/rivers-and-delta/reconnecting-rivers-to-the-bay/san-joaquin-river/temperance-flat
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http%3A%2F%2Fviewer.nationalmap.gov%2Fviewer%2F to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http%3A%2F%2Fviewer.nationalmap.gov%2Fviewer%2F to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC) reply