Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles Aqueduct

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 5 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject California}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Employment levels

While the LADWP Web site refers to 3900, I think the historical record should defer to the carefully put together annual reports submitted to city leaders at the time of construction. The 7th annual report was submitted to the city in 1912 stating 3800 workers. Dcoffida (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive Apostrophe

Shouldn't this be spelt with an apostrophe? "Los Angeles' Aqueduct". Robinoke 00:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Gmatsuda 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Employment levels

In the Article on William Mulholland, it states that 2000 workers were employed, as opposed to 100,000 noted here. 100,000 workers in more that the population of Los Angeles at the time

Good catch. The LADWP says the number is 5,000.[1]. I'vechanged it to that number until we can decide if 2,000 is more accurate. -Will Beback · † · 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read that it was 100,000 different employees over the course of the entire construction, but never more than a few thousand at a time ~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.112.89.10 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

3rd through 7th Annual reports, the last published in 1912 provided employment specifics. 3rd Report (page 135) 2,629. 4th Report, Dec 1908 3,879; Jan 1909 4,150; Feb 4,492; Mar 5,304; April 5,250; May 6,060. 6th Report 3,814 dropping to 1,150 and rising again to 3,200. 7th Report employed ranged from 2,800 to 3,800. Dcoffida (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

I've seen pictures of various parts of the aqueduct showing it above ground and mostly below ground in a pipe. There also seem to be surface reservoirs and power stations along the way. Can someone describe or map how this all works out? What steps are necessary to keep the water safe for drinking? Where is it tested and treated? -- Beland 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Second (SLAA) Los Angeles Aqueduct is underground and of reinforced concrete box construction. The 'sag pipes' and conduit south of the San Francisquito tunnels is steel pressure pipe. Dcoffida (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox issue

The 'width' entry on the infobox appears to have been subject to vandalism, but it's been like that since the infobox was added. I looked on the refs cited on the infobox to fill in the proper value, but didn't find any info on those external websites. In the interim, the rubbish value has been removed.

KJBurns (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

For those interested, there are 103 B&W photographs, and 18 drawings available from the HAER project http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/CA3095 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unclear and poorly developed material

I just could not make heads or tails of the sections talking about the various land value/payment issues, water price/sale issues and the like. While these things should definitely be talked about, the sections in question were confusing, disconnected and lacked clarity. Rather than leave them there, it's better they be gone and rewritten, rather than languish.

Also fixed a few facts and worked to improve flow and readability.

MrPinks (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a map

There should be a map in this article showing where the aqueduct starts and ends.Avram Primack (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map added Sept 29, 2013 Dcoffida (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Construction (First Paragraph)

The first paragraph of the construction section has numerous errors and omissions.

According to the 'Final Report of the Los Angeles Aqueduct 1916':

  • The project began in 1905 with a $1.5 million bond for the 'purchase of lands and water and the inauguration of work on the aqueduct' and 'on Septemper 7, 1905..citizens of Los angeles approved the bonds and endorsed the Owens River project [1].
  • On June 12, 1907 a second bond was passed with a budget of $23 million to begin Construction [2]
  • The current article states that 5,000 workers were employed on the project, however none of the footnotes in the current article cite this.

Dcoffida (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Final Report of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Los Angeles Department of Public Service. 1916. p. 17. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ The Final Report of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Los Angeles Department of Public Service. 1916. p. 17. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Construction (Second Paragraph)

The third paragraph of the construction section has numerous errors and omissions.

  • The aqueduct consists of 223 mi (359 km) of 12-foot (3.7 m) diameter steel pipe...

The LADWP web site cites just 12 miles of steel and concrete pipe. 'Final Report of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, 1916' breaks this down to 12.05 mi of siphon (steel) and .16 mi of concrete flumes. It does not however cite steel used in penstocks.[1][2]

  • a cement plant..,

The Final Report states the there were 3 cement mills, Monolith, Fairmont, and Haiwee. [3]

Insert following paragraph: "In its original construction, the Los Angeles Aqueduct was designed to divert water flowing down the Owens River into a series of man-made conduits that begins 13.8 miles south of Big Pine at the 'Headworks' and ends 233 miles south at the Van Norman Reservoir in the City of Los Angeles."[1][2]

Dcoffida (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b The Final Report of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Los Angeles Department of Public Service. 1916. p. 271. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ a b "Facts and History". Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
  3. ^ The Final Report of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Los Angeles Department of Public Service. 1916. p. 271. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

St Francis Dam

This paragraph should have its own section since it was not in the original scope of work cited in the Final Report.

Dcoffida (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Section on Mono Basin Extension

To further the reach north for more water for a growing city, In 1930 L.A. voters passed a third $38.8 million bond to fund the Mono Basin extension. The 105 mile extension diverted flows from the Rush, Lee Vining, Walker and Parker Creeks that would have flowed into Mono Lake. The construction of the Mono extension consisted of an intake at Lee Vining, the Lee Vining conduit to the Grant Reservoir (48,000 af) on Rush Creek, the 67,000 ft Mono Craters Tunnel to the Owens River, a second 163,000 af reservoir in Long Valley at the head of the Owens River Gorge and 67,000 ft of tunnel.[1]

Completed in 1941, the Mono Extension added 123 cfs of flow. The limited downstream capacity of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, however prevented full appropriation of the water until the second aqueduct was completed in 1970. [2]

Dcoffida (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Liebcap, Gary D (2007). Owens Valley Revisited. Stanfor Economics and Finance. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-8047-5380-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Liebcap, Gary D (2007). Owens Valley Revisited. Stanfor Economics and Finance. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-8047-5380-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Los Angeles 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 10:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Los Angeles 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map

A map of the aqueduct showing a few cities as reference points would be great. Maikel (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Angeles_Aqueduct&oldid=1203758074"