Talk:Salton Sea

Torres-Martinez Wetlands

It would be great to see some information on the wetland project that Debi Livesay is directing on the Torres-Martinez land on the north end of the lake at the mouth of the White River. Any input? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.96.74 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Stub no more

I've replaced the Salton Sea stub with a greatly increased discussion of it's formation, overall history, and some of the environmental and political issues.

However, it still needs work: the history is brief and I intermingle history and politics when they should probably be separate.

Since the Salton Sea (and what to do with it) can be a sensitive issue for people in those parts, I've tried not to offend, but it will likely take a few revisions to get a good NPOV.

Kaszeta 20:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Super, that's a lot more useful that the junk I left here those many months ago. I hope you'll add a photo or two, and ideally details of the settlements that (if memory serves) surround the sea. Also, I don't know if there are any rivers that naturally flow into the salton sea (I guess there aren't), but any artificial inflows should be added to List of rivers of the Americas by coastline's "inland basins" section. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Local communities added and linked to, most of which are just census data stubs and should be fleshed out at some point, with links back to the Sea. Local river basin has been described, and some of the overall information on desalination efforts was added. Partial Metric conversion, too, to save someone the effort later (Aside: how do metric countries measure irrigation water---i.e. what's the closest metric equivalent to acre-feet? I've never thought of that before). -- Kaszeta 13:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I BELIVE THAT THE THPEOPLE SHOULD SAVE ITIS NATIOAL LANDMARK SHE BE PRESERVED FOR AS LONG TO KEEP IT GOING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.78.114 (talk • contribs)

Did you know there is a documentry about it? [1] --207.189.233.158 00:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Gord

An anon had deleted the Disasters category link. Let it be clear that that tag is there because the lake was formed by a dike breach, a disaster by any definition; it is not a judgement about whether the resultant lake is a Good Thing or not, a matter about which we should maintain NPOV of course. seglea 06:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ecological Hazards of Salton Sea

The Salton Sea is unnatural... people should stop trying to save it. It's not a Good Thing. It is an abomination and it must go. It will evaporate soon enough if people just leave it alone. It does not belong. --Node 21:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess drying the sea up would disperse too much salt and other stuff all around that territory. Although it would be natural, of course, to let the sea evaporate by itself. 212.92.145.60 15:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to talk about such things, this is merely a place to discuss the article (oh and we can't add that the sea should or shouldn't disappear as that is a matter of opinion).Father Time89 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article goes straight into a section that discusses how to 'save' the Salton Sea, without mentioning how it is endangered, or what saving it might consist of. This is perhaps not noticeable to people who've been maintaining the article for a while.

---Nick Schuyler begin--- I thought this was a very politically biased article; Wasn't this basin closed for the most part due to its danger to recreational humans, waterfowl, and fish? Isn't the Salinity level as high as the equally unsupportive Dead Sea? ---Nick Schuyler end---

Tilapia are the survivors but they look all dead in the photo

so like there is a photo of dead tilapia fish but the article says the tilapia are the ones that survive the best. Is it getting too salty for them too? or are those other less tolerant fishes dead there?

The article does say that due to the increasing salinity, "only the tilapia will survive", yet a later paragraph states that, due to selenium levels, parasites and algae, die-offs are common of all fish species but "mostly tilapia". This does seem to be a serious contradiction. If the die-offs are "mostly tilapia" how can "only the tilapia...survive"? I think the section needs a rewrite for either clarity or accuracy. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Toxic metals and chemicals are different than salinity. The salinity is killing the other fish, but the pollutants are killing the tilapia. Hope this clears things up. Shannon^talk _contribs 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sea-level Canal??

The idea of a sea-level canal for Salton Sea strikes me as dubious. A sea-level canal connects two bodies of water, both of which are at, um, sea level. For example, the Suez canal. But the Salton Sea is *below* sea level, so it doesn't qualify. In other words, there is no way Salton Sea could be at one end of a sea-level canal. Water would simply rush down the canal from the ocean into Salton Sea. I would like to see a reference to proposals for such a canal and study them for validity. Otherwise, I propose that the topic should include a disclaimer about the workability or be omitted entirely. Jedwards05 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you create a canal connecting the Salton Sea to the ocean, wouldn't the conceptual problem (that the Salton Sea is below sea level) go away rather rapidly? —131.107.0.75 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be obvious that a Sea Level canal is not practical. This concept has been offered by those who wish to to belay the practical concept of canals to bring water into the basin and export water out of the basin. Import/export by pipeline is also impractical because of the high energy requirements. A small consulting firm offered the State of California a practical plan for import/export which was never given serious consideration by the Advisory Committee. DWR prepared another pipeline import/export plan and condemned it as too much money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.196.131.78 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically you could have a "sea-level" canal that just had a few locks along it, though you would definitely need at least one! If not, eventually the entire area would flood with sea water. Piping is an option, although you'd need to ensure there was less than 200 ft of head loss along the pipeline (and given that distance, good luck). Otherwise you'd need some pumping stations. Either way, the article looks very POV imo, as it seems to "push" the idea of a sealevel canal.167.7.17.3 (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"current surface of the Salton Sea at 226 ft (69 m) below sea level" Either a canal or a pipeline would have to allow for a rise/fall of over 200 feet. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

it's intended to raise the Salton Sea up to sea level, people!!! Most likely a canal from the Colorado Delta!!! Shannon^talk _contribs 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't raising the Salton Sea to sea level make the Salton Sea incredibly huge?? Ridiculously so? BUt then again, if the sea levels are going to rise world wide.........what the heck?? Why not.66.87.1.213 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Calexico and Indio would become port cities. Cities like El Centro would cease to exist. You could theoretically have ocean going ships docking in Indio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.212.121 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Between the rise in the water level of the Salton Sea, and the canal from the Pacific Ocean to it, between one thousand and two thousand square kilometres of land would be under water. Salton Sea salinity could increase, or decrease, depending upon how the canal is built. A broad (1 000+ metres), deep (250+ metres) canal would decrease salinity. A shallow (25 metres), narrow (10 metres) canal would increase salinity. The broad canal would be more expensive to build, but offers several benefits that other solutions don't offer.p (talk)

Creation Section

The section involving the creation of the salton sea repeats the story of how the Salton sea was created, I propose we combine relevant information from the two repeats and cut back on the repeated informationFather Time89 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for getting rid of redundant redundancies. Bugguyak (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at the creation section and there are no citations to any of the factual statements. I am new to Wikipedia, but the major Articles I have seen have at least one cite for each statement, including a short quote from the referenced work. It takes some work, but it is the best way, I think, to postion the Article for "Good" or someday "Featured" status.Wikipedia:Good article criteria Even assuming that status is not a goal, references would give the reader reasons to believe what an Article says. Also, if text has been copied from a source, there could be copyright problems absent any attribution.Stwiso (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, that's my fault, I'll correct it. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll add these when I have the time: [2] [3] [4] Shannon^talk _contribs 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

trivia

Although trivia or pop culture sections are a burden to articles, I don't think it is inappropriate to note popular culture citations in Talk for possible inclusion in the article if notable. The Monster That Challenged the World was a 1957 sci-fi movie set in and around the Salton Sea (for a lot of Americans outside California, it was the first they knew about the Salton Sea). Naaman Brown (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Airspace information?

While the information about the airspace above Salton Sea is good information, does it really belong in the summary/introduction? It seems a bit specialized to pilots. I wouldn't mind the information somewhere down in the article, but not in the intro... Davejenk1ns (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Every piece of dirt or water has airspace over it, and this airspace is not so unique to deserve space in the lead. Moved and tagged as citation needed. --S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)