Talk:Sacramento River

Initial assessment
Barely beyond a stub. The importance of this resource in California is high. Needs expansion in fisheries, overall ecology, history, water politics. Anlace 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

teel me more -PROJECT peolpe need them

Basic information
I added an infobox and filled in what I could find, but I'm not particularly happy with the numbers. The source elevation is based on my guess that it is approximately equal to the base elevation of Mount Shasta. Also, the best I could find for discharge rate and watershed area was from http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1215/introduction.htm, which says only that the discharge is 27 billion cubic meters per year and that the watershed area is 70,000 square kilometers - I'm sure that there are more accurate numbers somewhere, but I couldn't find them. Rkstafford 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just searched for good discharge info. Often such stats are not average annual discharge rates over many years. The figure out 15,000 cfs (and claim of 3rd largest in the US West) struck me as high, but I haven't found a good stat yet, other than the one mentioned above. 27 billion cubic meters per year works out to 30,215 cfs -- double that given in the infobox! I'm still a little skeptical though, I wonder if anyone knows of other sources?  Also, there is the question of whether the discharge stat ought to be "natural" (before all the diversions for irrigation etc) or "actual". That same webpage says that of the 27 billion cubic meters per year, 18 billion are diverted for "agricultural, urban, and environmental uses".. although at least some of this must end up back in the river.  I started looking into this due to the claim of the river being the 3rd largest (in discharge) of the US West, "after the Columbia and the Colorado". I'd have thought some of the PNW rivers would be contenders, but maybe not. Also, if discharge rates are "actual" rather than "natural", the Colorado River is nowhere near #2. Pfly 16:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional notes-- the USGS page http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/ofr87-242/ gives average discharge at mouth of some of the US's largest rivers. These are rivers of the western USA that flow into the Pacific Ocean (the Bering Sea is part of the Pacific Ocean, as the Colorado River flows into the Pacific via the Gulf of California), and seem likely to be larger in average discharge than the Sacramento River: Columbia River (265,000 cfs), Yukon River (225,000 cfs), Kuskokwim River (67,000 cfs), Copper River (59,000 cfs), Stikine River (56,000 cfs), Susitna River (51,000 cfs), and the Nushagak River (36,000 cfs). Large rivers that are tributary to others include the Snake River (56,900 cfs), Tanana River (41,000 cfs), Willamette River (37,400 cfs), and the Porcupine River (23,000 cfs). So.. even given the seemingly high stat of 30,215 cfs for the Sacramento River, it seems to fail this 3rd place rank as given, so I'm taking it out. Also, according to the above webpage, the Colorado River doesn't even come close to any of these, with an average discharge around 4,000 cfs. Once upon a time it was much higher. Pfly 17:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Where in the world do you get the average discharge of the Colorado being 4000 cfs Pfly? According to USGS and wikipedia the mean volume of the Colorado River is 22,000 cfs. So yes that would put it behind the Sacramento in discharge. Just look at USGS realtime data though and you will find the Colorado below Hoover, Davis, and Parker dams is usually 15,000 - 25,000 cfs, NOT 4000 cfs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.116.24 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment above is over three years old--I don't even remember why I wrote it! But the source cited says, "For example, combinations of these effects, but principally diversions, have reduced the average flow of the Colorado River near its mouth from about 22,000 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) for the period 1903-34 to less than 4,000 ft3/s during the period 1951-80." Apparently I had failed to read the next sentence though: "However, the annual flow in 1984 averaged 17,500 ft3/s, a consequence of record-breaking precipitation on the river basin." You're right--I was wrong about 4,000 cfs. Anyway, I note that the Colorado River page says the average annual discharge is 22,000 cfs, and cites the same source. The text explains the changing discharge a bit, but doesn't seem to deal with anything after 1980. Seems to me that the infobox discharge stat should reflect discharge data up to the present day, not just 1951-1980. Pfly (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Being from the southern-California area, I could dare to say that the discharge at the mouth of the Colorado is more like 50 cfs, most of that from the Hardy. (Or maybe reverse drainage flow from the tides which sweep over the Delta a lot of the time.) I bet before 2010 at least, the Colorado hadn’t reached 4,000 cfs for ten years. Even the 22,000 cfs figure for the “before diversions” seems a tad bit high; the real discharge back then was more like 18,500 cfs or something like 14.1 million acre feet per year... And there’s two dams below Parker; Palo Verde and Imperial, and at Imperial all the water gets diverted out of the river and into the Imperial Valley (and thus the Salton Sea) leaving none for Mexico which currently provides practically all the water that reaches the Gulf. Shannon  talk   contribs  01:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to find a good long term mean annual discharge stat for the lowermost USGS gage but found it harder to find than most gages. Ideally there would be a Mexican gage to cite, but I wouldn't know how to find its data, if there even is one. It looked like the lowermost USGS gaga sometimes has sizable discharge, but there are additional diversions below it. This also brings up the question of how to deal with rivers with sizable discharge over most their length but near zero at the mouth. For a generic "discharge" stat in an infobox it doesn't seem right to say the Colorado is basically zero. Perhaps one could find a gage on the lower river that has something approaching a "normal" discharge--whatever "normal" might mean. I'm just not sure. Pfly (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Flows below Parker and Davis Dam right now are both over 21,000 cfs and are often up to 26,000 cfs and higher this time of year due to power generation. At other times of the year they are as low as 14,000 or so cfs. Most of the water diverted in the Colorado is diverted at Imperial Dam for the All American Canal and also into the Gila Gravity Canal for Arizona. Little to no water usually reaches the sea from the Colorado. Municipal use for the Colorado accounts for very little of the water diverted, almost all is for irrigation. However 22,000 cfs on average seems a bit right as a mean annual flow of the Colorado BEFORE water diversion (primarly Imperial Dam, and to a much lesser extent Palo Verde Dam). Twenty two thousand is the USGS figure and I believe 30,000 cfs is it's figure for the Sac, so the Sac is SLIGHTLY larger. Both are still pretty small compared to the Columbia or Mississippi, but both the Sac and the Colorado are big rivers compared to most as far as rivers go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.116.24 (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You could also get a discharge figure from one of those “annual water-data reports”, I saw one that said something like 14.5 million acre-feet annually for the Colorado River basin; just divide that by 763 and you get 19,000 cfs. But after all this is a talk page for the Sacramento River and not the Colorado; maybe a discussion should continue on Talk:Colorado River if it should continue. Shannon  talk   contribs  05:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Longest rivers entirely in one state
Not sure how that "320 miles" got inserted for the Sacramento River length. Even a quick measurement on a map as reduced as the National Geographic World Atlas comes to nearly 400 miles (you can't cut corners on the bends!), and, when it's done properly by USGS using their 1:24,000 scale topos as is standard, you get 447 miles. USGS topos can be viewed (and rivers measured) at www.topozone.com. The longest and largest river entirely in one state is the Kuskokwim in Alaska, 720 miles long and a 41,000 cubic ft./sec. average discharge. It's followed by: 2. Trinity River, Texas 710 / 7,100 3. Sacramento - Pit, California 690 / 15,000 4. Tanana, Alaska 660 / 24,000 5. Koyukuk, Alaska 520 / 14,000 6. Innoko, Alaska 500 7. Altamaha, Georgia 470 / 14,000 8. Yazoo, Mississippi 465 / 10,000 9. Guadalupe, Texas 460 / 2,100 10. Kentucky, Kentucky 430 / 8,300 11. Salmon, Idaho 420 / 11,000 12. James, Virginia 410 / 7,500 River lengths are always measured in official lists along the longest watercourse (longest source, regardless of what name it carries....i.e. MS-MO-Beaverhead-Red Rock) (in this case, the Sacramento to the Pit to the S. Fork Pit - West Valley Cr. - Cedar Cr.) Sources: USGS and World Facts and Figures (John Wiley and Sons)DLinth (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Reflist
All of the numbers past 6 are not displaying – any ideas as to why? Shannon talk   contribs  03:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like an extraneous space in ref 6 was causing the problem... I don't see how that would affect things but it fixed it. Shannon  talk   contribs  03:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Colorado And Sacramento River Volumes
The Sacramento DOES NOT have a significantly greater flow than the Colorado. I would say the historical discharge of the Sacramento being slightly under 24,000 cfs is NOT significantly greater than the Colorado's 22,000 cfs historical discharge, but SLIGHTLY greater. In fact, during times of high electric power generation, the Colorado carries a greater flow than the Sacramento, often exceeding 25,000 cfs. Overall the discharge of the Colorado is a BIT lower, but not SIGNIFICANTLY lower. Water use in the Colorado began before use in the Sacramento, and flow records only go back over 100 years or so, so who knows which river really has the greater discharge because it's so close. So this is the reason for my edit saying the Sacramento is SLIGHTLY larger. Even if you use a rough historical flow of 30,000 cfs for the Sacramento, that's not SIGNIFICANTLY greater than the Colorado, but SLIGHTLY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To further add to this, much of the modern data on Colorado River flows are skewed because it took years to fill the reservoirs behind the dams, so the flow was much lower than it is today during the years the reservoirs were filling. The flows on the Colorado do not plummet until the All American Canal and a normal 15,155 cfs are removed at Imperial Dam near Yuma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

People need to quit saying the Sacramento's flow is significantly larger than the Colorado. The Sacramento's discharge of 23,400 cfs is SLIGHTLY larger than the Colorado's 22,000 cfs. The discussion is showing that the Klamath and Skagit Rivers have flow close to the Sacramento, but both rivers are smaller than the Colorado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Really, 23,400 and 22,000 are slight in difference, not significant. Get your facts straight PLEASE. Stop undoing a common sense edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Goose Lake: Headwaters of Pit? Not really...but once upon a time...
"The last outflow from Goose Lake (into the Pit-northernmost tributary of the Sac River) was in 1880." US Army Corps of Engineers: Chapter 3: Central Valley Flood Management Systems

Therefore, the watershed of the Sacramento only historically reaches into Southern Oregon. With water diversion, and climate change, who knows if the Pit (and by extension, the Sacramento) will ever again see water from Oregon. Its not likely as the lake is in decline. Norcalal (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing head of tide
There is no data about the location of the head of tide, nor is the word "tide" even mentioned in this large article.71.63.160.210 (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sacramento River. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817124438/http://www.sierrahistorical.org/archives/geology.html to http://www.sierrahistorical.org/archives/geology.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112001702/http://www.maidu.com/ourhistory/ethno-history.html to http://www.maidu.com/ourhistory/ethno-history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101030024957/https://learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?id=526 to http://www.learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?id=526
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615221008/http://water.washington.edu/Outreach/Publications/WatershedReview/watershedreviewv3n2.pdf to http://water.washington.edu/Outreach/Publications/WatershedReview/watershedreviewv3n2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722185923/http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/projectfacts/ca/civ/SacramentoRiverDeepWaterShipChannel/factsheet/735_9341.htm to http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/projectfacts/ca/civ/SacramentoRiverDeepWaterShipChannel/factsheet/735_9341.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005204135/http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=125 to http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=125
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415171721/http://www.museumsiskiyoutrail.org/ to http://www.museumsiskiyoutrail.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Article needs a management section
There are multiple managing authorities and policy makers for the Sacramento river. They are not easily identified. A section about how the river is managed and by what authorities would be useful to nautical visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.212.57 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)