Talk:Oroville Dam

Flood protection cost savings

This article needs sources. It makes allegations regarding the cost savings from flood protection but does not provide a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.154.96 (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oroville Dam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very nice, well-written article. I've only a few minor comments:

• "it is the tallest dam in the U.S." - I added " as of 2012" - is this correct?
• NealthNewsDigest.com - is this a reliable source for damage prevented?
• "Groundbreaking on the dam site occurred in May 1957 with the relocation of the Western Pacific Railroad tracks that ran through the Feather River canyon." - the relocation of the railroad tracks was the groundbreaking?
• I've made a few edits that you're free to correct.[1]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• The few comments I made above are not enough to hold up the passing of this article. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Damage in February 2017

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/02/07/damage-reported-at-oroville-dam-spillway-after-officials-increase-water-releases/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.104.168 (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Currently there are no photos available with a permit-able license. We will probably see one in a few weeks of the spillway damage. That should be uploaded. Seeing something to scale (people besides or in) will show a lot more than just saying how big it is. Also the damage after use when this is over will greatly increase the size of the hole. It'd probably be good to add the emergency spillway and a photo of the water, and the damage later on. Currently the damage and cost is all just speculation so its good that it isn't put in. Citations will need to be gone through though to be certain that everything is reliable as this is a current event. Rocka1994 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017

Update the final paragraph of the "2017 spillway failure" section:

On February 12, 2017, evacuation was ordered for those in low-lying levels of Oroville, due to an anticipated failure of the auxiliary spillway. A failure of the concrete top of the spillway would allow up to 30 vertical feet of Lake Oroville through the gap in an uncontrolled deluge. The flow over the main spillway was increased to 100,000 cubic feet per second (2,800 m³/s) to try to slow the erosion of the emergency spillway.

as follows:

On February 12, 2017, evacuation was ordered for those in low-lying levels of Oroville, due to an anticipated failure of the auxiliary spillway. Specifically, erosion on the hillside was growing uphill toward the concrete lip of the auxilliary spillway, leading to the fear that it would collapse. A failure of the concrete top of the spillway would allow up to 30 vertical feet of Lake Oroville through the gap in an uncontrolled deluge. The flow over the main spillway was increased to 100,000 cubic feet per second (2,800 m³/s) to try to slow the erosion of the emergency spillway.

By the evening of the 12th, the increased flow had successfully lowered the water level to below the emergency spillway, allowing the erosion there to be inspected and hastily stabilized with boulders. The danger is that the damage is transferred to the main spillway. Not only does this make future repair more expensive, but the damage to the main spillway could grow uphill to the point that it endangered the main spillway gates, leaving no safe way to release water. The extent of such damage is currently unknown, hidden by water spray and darkness; it will be assessed on the morning of the 13th.

Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I have added the requested changes. However, I have changed some of the wording and grammar (to put things in the past tense), and omitted potentially contentious changes not supported by the sources. Please resubmit your request if you would like additional changes. --Vandraedha (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017

Fix the dead (possibly malicious) link in the Operations section at the end of the paragraph involving the 1997 flood

|url=http://cepsym.info/Sympro1997/roos.pdf

Should be this:

|url=http://cepsym.org/Sympro1997/Roos.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tduff (talk • contribs) 2017-02-13T00:23:18 (UTC)

Done --Vandraedha (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Spillway incident

I've attempted to reorganize the existing text of the incident into a logical progression and coherent narrative. I've added sub-headers in an attempt to clarify the timeline and avoid confusion between the failure of the primary spillway and the use of and failure of the auxiliary (emergency) spillway. These subheadings may not be the best solution long term, and they but I hope that they will help keep things organized temporarily until the incident evolves further.

I have also changed several mentions of emergency spillway to auxiliary spillway. Although most of the locals and many news sources use the term emergency spillway, I believe that using auxiliary spillway is a more clear and accurate description. AFAIK, this is also the term being used by the California DWR. Although it may be more correct, I think that emergency auxiliary spillway is just too long and potentially confusing to type repetitively. I'm not really concerned with the exact term used for the secondary spillway, as much as having a consistent name. --Vandraedha (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest the spillways incidents could be mentioned in the lede. -DePiep (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• We may want to hold off on adding too much detail about the spillway incident to the lede, lest we run afoul of WP:RECENT. Yes, it probably should be mentioned, but the exact wording for the mention will most likely change repeatedly over the next few days/weeks/months. At this time, nobody knows exactly how big of an event this is going to be and there is a high degree of speculation and uncertainty involved in all aspects of it. --Vandraedha (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• The failure of or substantial damage to of any supporting structure of a dam should be in the lead, particularly if it leads to evacuations.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In DWR's press release of Feb 9 ( http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2017/020917spillwayflow.pdf ) only the term "emergency spillway" is used (4 times). In licensee and ACE Reservoir Regulation Manual documentation, it's referred to as "emergency spillway". The role as auxiliary spillway was supposed to be temporary, until the Marysville Dam (which was never built) became operational. They never meant to use it as such, and must have known it wasn't suitable for that purpose (according to regulations, they're supposed to limit releases to 150,000 cfs "until 10 feet of surcharge above the ungated spillway lip is achieved"; look at the damage the spillway sustained after just 1.5 feet). Prevalence 06:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Oroville Dam crisis

The content of the 2017 Oroville Dam crisis article is described in more detail in the Oroville Dam article. I suggest splitting in the future, but right now the 2017 Oroville Dam crisis article doesn't have any content that is not duplicated in the other article. epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Should it be merged or split? epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose @Epicgenius: In my opinion, that is putting the cart before the horse. I think there is too much content in the dam's article on the current crisis (overall slanting the article towards recent events) and splitting it off is a good thing. We should be trimming what the dam article says, not undoing the split.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, it could go either way. I am proposing either a split or a merge. I'll amend it. epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Current events articles get too much hype. - Frankie1969 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Frankie1969: Not in general. Notability is irrevocable - once reliable sources have covered it in great depth, which has happened, notability is not in question. And since this is going to be ongoing for a while ($200 million spillway repair at the very least) rather than just an isolated incident, of course it deserves an article. --Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason as Frankie1969: current events articles get too much hype, so let the original article, strictly on the dam, stand on its own. The crisis article should bear the brunt of the crisis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Civil Engineer 3 (talk • contribs)
• Wait If there is NOT a catastrophic failure of either the main or emergency spillways, then this should just be an interesting section merged into the MAIN article. Sure, it's a little bigger than the sections on "2005 dam re-licensing" and "Spillway cracking and inspections", but it is still JUST a part of the evolving history of the dam. Only if the worst should happen (hope not!!), THEN this should stay as a standalone article. Jmg38 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jmg38: Uhm no. That's not how notability works, either. We all know now that the spillway is no longer in imminent danger of failing, but this coming week's storms will test that. by the way, please don't use all-caps--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge - There's no reason to separate it out from the main body article. Most of this stuff is just a product of recentism; when merged into the main article, we won't need to break down the specific timeline in great detail as is presently the case. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Wait - The dam might collapse soon. If something doesn't happen, we'll merge and if something does happen, we keep this as a standalone article. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)'
  • @UNSC Luke 1021: Surely you don't actually mean the dam will collapse. The dam itself is in absolutely no danger of failing. It's all about he spillways.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jasper Deng: But if the spillways fail, this could be almost as serious as a direct dam failure. Water could erode around the spillway until the gate would collapse, leading to a catastrophic situation. Another reason to keep this article. Glacier2009 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @Glacier2009: Yes, but it's not like a dam break where the entire 3.75-odd million acre-feet will all come out at once, since bedrock would at some point halt the erosion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Already, this is a major story. Topic deserves its own article. Issue is not if the dam fails, but that failure was seriously possible. Glacier2009 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This is such a major issue, the 2017 Oroville Dam crisis page will be needed for all the follow up info also. The Oroville Dam will only have a summary in the future. The two pages should be used as such, one for summary and one for details.Telecine Guy (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The Dam article doesn't need the clutter; it can contain a summary and point here. Whatever happens to the dam, there will be fallout and long-time major repair efforts to cover here. Twang (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Wait and merge - Agree with the others who say wait—however, I would add, check out St. Francis Dam, an article about a dam in the past tense, because it failed and is gone. Most of the article deals with the history of the dam, its design flaws, and how those led to its failure. That's what the main article on Oroville Dam would turn into if this dam bites the big one. And if it doesn't, it's a merge as this will become a footnote in the history books. But, first and foremost, wait. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. Darkest Tree Talk 23:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Darkest tree: If you read NOTNEWS, you'll notice that "enduring notability" is the main question for an article of this type, and you will surely agree with me that this subject will not lose notability anytime soon, given the massive repairs that will be needed regardless of what events occur. So NOTNEWS is not a valid reason to merge here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge The history plays a major part in the crisis, when split, there would be redundancy on the construction (info on how deep the foundation of the emergency spillway wall is is still missing, but may be available soon), the 2005 consideration whether the emergency spillway ridge should have been reinforced, the 2013 cracks etc. The crisis section may eventually make up the most part of the article, but it also is the most notable part of the dam itself (e.g. being the reason why interational audiences hear of that dam at all), so that would be justified. Regardless if the situation worsens or not, it is already bad enough to determine the whole "life" of the dam project so far, in other words, there is no point in splitting the small dam article off the important main article about the 2017 crisis. And when the dam is rebuilt and (likely) heavily modified over the next years because of what happens now, will you write it in the crisis article as outcome or in the dam article as next construction step? Makes really no sense to have two articles that tell the same with only different detail focus.--79.194.224.239 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Plenty of sources for this, and it's notable for a standalone article -- at least it is at this time. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It's unlikely to become a full blown disaster (also no unnecessary fear mongering on Wikipedia please), but the Feb 2017 "incident" is notable enough for its own page. Shannon 01:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Wait and merge The dam does not yet seem to have any issues. The spillway is where the issue lies. I would suggest that if there is some damage to the dam itself, that would be when the two should be merged. jwhouk 02:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Major event. --Deansfa (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Split - too much detail would make the article way big. plus enough detail to make the split off data not too light Dave Rave (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)