Talk:Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 8 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mbreuerco.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
"dirty levees" ? Is that supposed to be "earthen levees" ?

Sacramento River Delta? It's called the California Delta or the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta, you self vanitated morons.

This should be revamped so as to include a discussion of the current crisis regarding possible levee failure. Elijahmeeks 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Self vanitated morons?" That's a little harsh. I will add a section about the possible levee faliures aslong as you don't call me a moron. Rayana fazli 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Vanitate" isn't a word. 96.254.62.85 (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is now!!! Ohh yeah. jp×g 04:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed unsourced content
I removed the following, which: 1) was without sources 2) was poorly written 3) used unscientific vocabulary. David.Monniaux 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger met with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who had took a tour of the levees in Sacramento to evaluate whether they need federal aid. The governor announced in February that California is in a state of emergency. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who have been working with the California Department of Water Resources,have identified 24 critical erosion sites in the Delta. If these levees were to fail, the estimated  economic costs would be around $30-40 billion. The pressure that have caused the levees to be unstable have been building up for centuries. When the delta's soil reacts with the air, microbes digest the peat and release gas which has built up and caused breeches in the levees. Other reasons for the levees instability have been caused by natural disasters like earthquakes and floods.

I added a note in brackets under "History", after the wording "frequent military expeditions were made into the Delta from 1813–1845 in response to animosities between the Native Americans and the Spanish" [Mexico Owned California from 1821 to 1845 - not Spain] Miguel Castellanos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.121.90 (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No really
I agree with Elijahmeeks, I want, no, request that the goddammed article be renamed "California Delta". Thats the right name. Two rivers (when you look at it, the SJ is only a miles shorter than the Sacramento) both the largest in CA flow to meet together into the SF Bay, does Sacatomatoes need their name on everything?? Man, seriously. You know what, someone should write a better article under "California Delta", and get the current one erased or combined.

-Sincerely Abe


 * I partially disagree. I'm a civil engineer working for the State of California and for the past seven years I've been an expert in the "Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta" (in fact, I am the editor of one of the references cited in the current version of this report -- actually I also happened to be the author of that particular chapter as well).  That is both its common and legal name.  In the Sacramento region it will often also be called "the Delta", but we have to remember that Wikipedia isn't just about California for Californians.  An English speaker in Australia might think of some other delta as "the Delta", and thus I honestly think the name of the article is fine.  IIRC there are redirects for some other names to this article, and I would not object to you creating a "California Delta" redirect to this article, because there is no other large Delta in California.  If anything the articles official name should be "Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta". MCalamari 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Sacramento River Delta → Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta – This delta is a confluence of two rivers, the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento River. Both are major rivers. In fact, I would say that they are the two most important rivers in California. The Sacramento River has a higher flow (I do not know how much higher), but both rivers are extremely important for irrigation, drinking water and hydroelectricity (a lot of the hydroelectricity is generated on their tributaries, but both have a substantial amount of generating capacity on themselves, too). Since one river is not clearly more important than the other, I think that the name of the article should incorporate both names. It seems like people call the delta the Sacramento River Delta or the San Joaquin River Delta depending on the context. For example, if a newspaper article is about the San Joaquin River, the delta would probably be called the San Joaquin River Delta. However, there is precedent for using "Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta". For example, it is used in this San Francisco Chronicle article and in a report by the State of California's CALFED Bay-Delta Program. According to Google, "Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta" is used far more often than "San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta" (39,700 vs. 723 results), so I think we should go with it. -- Kjkolb 06:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey
''Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Support - compare with . --NE2 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
''Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Delta Smelt
An increasing issue in the delta is the Delta smelt, but this hasn't been mentioned at all in the article. Could someone look at this? (written by User:Zenazn, who was too lazy to log on)
 * I am working on a contribution to this article. It may take a month.  See my first installment -- the Flooded Ponds and Water Management sections of Suisun Marsh.
 * HowardMorland 03:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi - can anyone add any pictures - I don;t know how to.

There are some good ones at http://www.water.ca.gov/levees/history/ showing the construction.

Construction and history
The total area is around 1,100 square miles, around 70 reclaimed islands and tracts, surrounded by 1,100 miles of levees surrounded by 700 miles of waterways. The delta was originally marshland; reclamation was made by the building of levees, by Chinese laborers in the 1850s.

A typical levee was constructed as being approximately trapezoidal, 10 ft above original ground level, and approximately 30 ft wide at the base rock armoured on the river side. The construction was a colossal engineering undertaking.

Created "Levee Failure" Section
As someone who grew up on the Delta, I felt that the importance of levee failure was not noted in great enough detail in this article. Thus, I have created the "Levee Failure" section of this article.

The Delta supplies almost two-thirds of California's drinking water, as well as millions of acres of agricultural land with irrigation water. Delta levee failures have the potential to disrupt the economy by threatening California's water supply and property.

JDeitz

Redirected from False River, California
Is a false river another name for the delta? It certainly appears like a real river or rivers, it's not like an oxbow lake or anything like that. Slightnostalgia (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. 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/20130310052106/http://www.restorethedelta.org/about-the-delta/overview-of-delta-agriculture/ to http://www.restorethedelta.org/about-the-delta/overview-of-delta-agriculture/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121023065538/http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/media/pr/2012/120703-BPOP.php to http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/media/pr/2012/120703-BPOP.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140720184633/http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ccbn/keep_the_delta_clean.html to http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ccbn/keep_the_delta_clean.html

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 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to break out water transportation
There's a lot of water transportation of cars, steel, naval supplies, etc. I think we should find a good source for that and break "Water transportation" or "Shipping" out from under "Agriculture" in the Economy and Uses section. Chris vLS (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a new section header 'transportation' which could cover both. Richard 09:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area into Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. The NHA article is a stub, and can't really be expanded without just duplicating the excellent work on Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. My suggestion is to add Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area was designated a National Heritage Area on March 12, 2019. to the intro, and Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area was designated a National Heritage Area on March 12, 2019, the first such designation for California, as part of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area is managed by the Delta Protection Commission. (with its refs) to the Conservation efforts section. Feedback? Schazjmd (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Toxic Cyanobacteria
Proposal to add the following information detailing toxic cyanobacteria outbreaks in the Delta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbreuerco (talk • contribs)

The Delta has seen numerous cyanobacteria blooms with increasing frequency over the past two decades. Cyanobacteria have the potential to produce cyanotoxins which can pose a risk to humans and animals upon contact. Because of this cyanobacteria blooms are seen as a threat that has the potential to impact human life. Several types of toxic cyanobacteria have appeared in the Delta, with Microcystis aeruginosa being one of the most common types. Microcystis aeruginosa produce microcystins which are hepatotoxins that can cause liver cancer. Frequent Microcystis blooms have impacted the food web of the Delta at multiple trophic levels. Microcystis spp. blooms in the Delta were found to decrease the diversity of the aquatic microbial community. Additionally, the cyanobacteria blooms in the Delta have led to decreased zooplankton mass and density. There is also concern for further spread throughout the food web via bioaccumulation. Microcystins were detected in the tissue of clams at levels much higher than the ambient water around them because of microcystin's ability to covalently bind to tissue.

The increased occurrences of cyanobacteria blooms in the Delta can be attributed to a variety of factors with the most important being lowered streamflow. From 2004 through 2008 researchers collected different water quality parameters during the cyanobacteria blooms and determined that the blooms appeared after reaching a threshold of 19°C (66°F) which was exacerbated by reduced precipitation, reduced streamflow, and increased nutrient concentrations. They also determined that the negative attributes associated with climate change like reduced precipitation and increased temperatures could further increase the possibility of cyanobacteria blooms in the Delta. The high prevalence of nutrient concentrations in the Delta also plays a significant part in the increased frequency of Microcystis aeruginosa blooms. Microcystis benefits greatly from anthropogenic inputs of nitrogen which allows it to out-compete other primary producers and dominate the lower trophic levels. There have also been large amounts of nutrients monitored in the Delta as a result of various human activities.

The increased presence of Microcystis aeruginosa blooms in the Delta represents a continual threat for species at multiple trophic levels. The lower trophic levels are affected from both reduced diversity as well as reduced numbers through competition. When the conditions are met Microcystis have the ability to dominate the lower trophic levels hence why they are able to bloom. Additionally, when microcystins are present in the system then the consumers in the food web are at risk due to the effects of bioaccumulation. Fish that are present and active during cyanobacteria blooms can often have microcystin levels high enough to produce sublethal effects. Because microcystins can concentrate inside fish at multiple trophic levels it also represents a risk for human consumption as well. The Delta has seen numerous cyanobacteria blooms with increasing frequency over the past two decades. Cyanobacteria have the potential to produce cyanotoxins which can pose a risk to humans and animals upon contact. Because of this cyanobacteria blooms are seen as a threat that has the potential to impact human life. Several types of toxic cyanobacteria have appeared in the Delta, with Microcystis aeruginosa being one of the most common types. Microcystis aeruginosa produce microcystins which are hepatotoxins that can cause liver cancer. Frequent Microcystis blooms have impacted the food web of the Delta at multiple trophic levels. Microcystis spp. blooms in the Delta were found to decrease the diversity of the aquatic microbial community. Additionally, the cyanobacteria blooms in the Delta have led to decreased zooplankton mass and density. There is also concern for further spread throughout the food web via bioaccumulation. Microcystins were detected in the tissue of clams at levels much higher than the ambient water around them because of microcystin's ability to covalently bind to tissue.


 * You've already added the content to the article, and have since tried to remove it twice. What's going on? Schazjmd   (talk)  20:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)