Talk:Tulare Lake
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tulare Lake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in California may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Another Tulare Lake
[edit]http://www.museumca.org/creeks/133B03-OMALaguna.html --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Salmon??
[edit]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)
I've found a reference for this, and will restore the sentence. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah ha, thanks -- learn something new every day. Pfly (talk) 07:15, 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
[edit]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
Photographs
[edit]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. 98.221.137.91 (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? 98.221.130.215 (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Environmental Impacts
[edit]"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.[6]"
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.
H2olocalcontrol (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think people get aggressive with LA County water and blame them for everything. They deserve blame, but based on your research using reliable sources, I hope you removed the sentence. I hate when people cite something, then don't realize it doesn't support the claim. Thanks for doing this. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)