|WikiProject Lakes||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject California||(Rated Start-class)|
Where is this lake? Somewhere in California?
- I don't think it is really "there" any more--it's mostly agricultural fields. You can find it about 40 miles south of Fresno just to the east of California Highway 41. Antandrus 00:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--- I live in an area on the outskirts of hanford, my grade school I went to was a few miles from my house. It's called Lakeside named after the area it occupies. Apearently that area was a port area for shipping on the Tulare Lake. In the middle of the 19th century if you would of looked towards the south in the area where Lakeside Elementry School now stands you would see nothing but Lake and Marshes for miles. Now all you see is farmland and dry desert fields, a total change in the habitat of the area. The Saddest thing is no one really knows nothing are even cares to know nothing about the Lake, Rivers, and Marshland that used to be out there right under there feet and how beautiful the place must of been. now its just a dryed up wastland with the strong smell of cow manure in the air... a sad testement of Manifest Destiny... - Another Lonely Traveler -- Wednesday, April 19th, 2006
In very wet years, portions of the historic Tulare Lake do become flooded. That happened most recently in the early 1990s. Armona 8 Apr 2007
Largest freshwater lake in Western US
- I would guess by area only. It was not more than maybe 40 feet deep, I believe. Lake Tahoe would probably be much larger by volume. I'll see if I can find solid facts. I'd like to improve this and some related pages if I can. Pfly (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please also use the metric system here? Miles don't mean anything to me. — 188.8.131.52 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Another Tulare Lake
http://www.museumca.org/creeks/133B03-OMALaguna.html --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The article currently says: During wet years it was the terminus of the western hemisphere's southernmost (Chinook) salmon run -- with the "salmon run" link going to info about the San Joaquin River. But unless I'm mistaken, Tulare Lake was part of an endorheic basin, that is, it did not connect to the San Joaquin River -- or any river leading to the ocean. So I'm removing this claim. Feel free to put it back if there is a reference source. Pfly (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Endorheic basin
It seems more reasonable to assume that during wet years the lake was not endorheic, but that during moderate levels of precipitation it was. Allowing the occasional appearance of anadromous fish. Citations are needed but the sentence removed seems likely to be factual. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The source referenced is a dead link. I could find no alternative source to back up the claim. Please address. H2olocalcontrol (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Presentation on Tulare lake
check this out an hour and 45 presentation on the The environmental history of Tulare Lake; given by William Preston, Professor of Geography, California Polytechnic State University http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kx55QPQgag&feature=related
I have heard from many source's that the Tulare lake did connect to the San Joaquin or Sacremento River year round and they both flow into the San Fransisco bay, there were ships in the early days that would trade in between the two areas... - Another Lonely Traveler -- Sunday, march 29th, 2009
Are there any know photos of the lake from the 19th / early 20th century? It being the largest fresh water lake in California by area, surely someone had to have taken a picture of it. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Or at least a painting by a local artist or a newspaper sketch? Are there really no known depictions of this alleged lake? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
"Aggressive groundwater pumping since the draining of the lake and loss of its natural groundwater recharge of the San Joaquin Valley aquifer has resulted in a significant lowering of the water table, causing land subsidence in the valley."
The source sited doesn't even mention groundwater, well pumping or land-based subsidence. Because of that, I believe this to be a misleading and somewhat inaccurate statement, and also because I know the following to be true:
The Tulare Lake groundwater sub-basin overlies the geologic Corcoran Clay layer. Within the footprint of the original Tulare Lake bed, that impermeable layer is at its shallowest, as is the bottom of the unconfined aquifer (in some cases only a few feet down). There is very little useable groundwater within the lake footprint as most shallow water is high in salts, and deep confined water at over 1000 feet is too costly to pump. For those reason, primary supply in the lake bottom is surface water, not groundwater. DWR Bulletin 118 http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/5-22.12.pdf does speak to subsidence and useable groundwater, but USGS and CalTrans joint surveys confirm that this issue is only found on the northern and eastern boundaries of the groundwater sub-basin which is a larger area than the former lake's footprint. The DWR Water Data Library http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/ shows that there are only about a half a dozen wells located within the Tulare Lake footprint. However, it also shows that most if not all of those wells have not been active since the 1960's and 1970's (the 1969 and 1982-83 Water Years which flooded the lake bottom are not coincidences) which supports my points. Most of them don't even exist anymore.
I suggest the removal of this entire sentence until legitimate sources are used to convey an accurate message.