Talk:Colorado River Compact

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Selenafriedman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
The article reports 7.5 million acre feet per year as 293 m³/s. But something seems terribly wrong. An acre feet (of water) is a measure of volume. Meters cubed per second (m³/s) is not a measure of volume. Note that 7.5 million acre foot = 9.25111378 × 10^9 m^3. What am I missing? Wendell 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

million acre feet sex year (volume/time) is not a volume its a flow just like (m^3/s) (volume/time). if you change 9.251 * 10^9 (m^3/year) into (m^3/s)by dividing by the number of seconds there are ina year you have 293 (m^3/s) exactly what was stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.211 (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The following comment was added at the bottom of the article by User:75.162.169.6. While I was in the process of moving it here so it could be properly evaluated by someone with greater expertise than myself, that user then had a change of heart and deleted it. Given that this talk page already has a suggestion that some of the figures in the article maybe incorrect I have decided to include it here anyway in hope that the information provided may be useful. Saayiit (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

THIS READS THE WATERSHORTAGE FIGURES REVERSED I BELIEVE_ The agreement specifies three levels of shortage conditions, depending on the level of Lake Mead. When the surface elevation at Lake Mead is below 1,075 feet (relative to mean sea level) but above 1,050 feet (320 m), the Lower Basin states will receive 7.167 million acre feet per year (4.4 million acre feet to California, 2.48 million acre feet to Arizona, and 0.287 million acre feet to Nevada). When the surface elevation of Lake Mead is below 1,050 feet (320 m) but above 1,025 feet (312 m), 7.083 million acre feet per year will be delivered to the Lower Basin states (4.4 million acre feet for California, 2.4 million acre feet for Arizona, and 0.283 million acre feet for Nevada). The most severe shortage considered in the interim guidelines is when the level of Lake Mead drops below 1,025 feet (312 m), in which event 7.0 million acre feet per year will be delivered to the Lower Basin states (4.4 million acre feet to California, 2.32 million acre feet to Arizona, and 0.280 million acre feet to Nevada).

IT SHOULD READ_

The agreement specifies three levels of shortage conditions, depending on the level of Lake Mead. When the surface elevation at Lake Mead is below 1,075 feet (relative to mean sea level) but above 1,050 feet (320 m), the Lower Basin states will receive 7.0 million acre feet per year (4.4 million acre feet to California, 2.32 million acre feet to Arizona, and 0.280 million acre feet to Nevada). When the surface elevation of Lake Mead is below 1,050 feet (320 m) but above 1,025 feet (312 m), 7.083 million acre feet per year will be delivered to the Lower Basin states (4.4 million acre feet for California, 2.4 million acre feet for Arizona, and 0.283 million acre feet for Nevada). The most severe shortage considered in the interim guidelines is when the level of Lake Mead drops below 1,025 feet (312 m), in which event 7.167 million acre feet per year will be delivered to the Lower Basin states (4.4 million acre feet to California, 2.48 million acre feet to Arizona, and 0.287 million acre feet to Nevada).

---

Note: regarding the comment immediately above, about the figures being reversed, they are correct as is. The lower the Lake level drops, the less water is delivered. Also, the actual measurement specified in the compact is that the flow in any 10 consecutive years must sum to at least 75 maf. It doesn't say that the flow has to be 7.5 maf/year minimum. I know it's weird and confusing but that's legalese for you. I edited it to say the correct information, which is "75 million acre feet in 10 consecutive years". Saying "7.5" million acre feet in 10 consecutive years is not correct. 2010-07-31

hi kaliBold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.130.191 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is apparent that droughts are an important aspect of the Upper Colorado River. Due to changes in flows in the Colorado River, it is increasingly difficult to plan its construction. Selenafriedman (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Selenafriedman

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Colorado River Compact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050404024322/http://www.cap-az.com:80/about/index.cfm?action=history&subSection=5 to http://www.cap-az.com/about/index.cfm?action=history&subSection=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The link for the Updated streamflow reconstructions for the Upper Colorado River Basin doesn't work. I believe that this is the correct link https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3a9/f0a4044a19ac717210f87b7c9aeefacb235b.pdf Selenafriedman (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Selenafriedman

Colorado River Compact and the environment
This section should go in more depth about how the Colorado River compact is having drastic and negative effects on the drought in California. The overuse of the Colorado River by Californians is a great contributor to the drought http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1652&context=jleg Selenafriedman (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)selenafriedman

Related organizations
Should these related organizations have their own articles and/or be mentioned in this article?
 * Upper Colorado River Commission http://www.ucrcommission.com/
 * Colorado River Commission of Nevada http://www.crc.nv.gov/
 * Coloradio River Alliance  https://coloradoriver.org/  Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Colorado Compact or Law of the River?
This page is not strictly about the Compact, so should it be titled the Compact or the Law of the River? The Compact apportioned water to the basins but did not allocate water to the states. That's an error that I am planning to correct. To describe the allocations, it is necessary to detail more of the subsequent bills, court cases etc. that followed the signing of the Compact. And this page does go into the Boulder Canyon Act for instance. But to return to the question: Any thoughts on the proper title? Detrital (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Titles don't always exactly match the topic. The first line and the rest of the lead provide a broader description. The article can describe the Compact and lots more related to the "Law of the River" under the current title. It is nice to have Colorado in the title rather than using an exact legal phrase that the general public won't recognize. Improve the article without concern about the succinct title; don't be hasty as it will be clear eventually if the title can be improved. Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss  •  talk  03:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! Will do. Detrital (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)