# Talk:Oroville Dam

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) 

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)

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: 

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: 

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): 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc: 

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: 

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
@Vandraedha and Prevalence: Indeed, the naming is a significant issue, and was at the heart of the 2005 lawsuit.  The terms "emergency spillway" and "auxilliary spillway" are defined in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules, and they're defined differently.  An emergency spillway is designed for emergency (unanticipated) use only, and not in any reasonably anticipated case.  It's okay if the spillway suffers substantial damage if used.  An auxiliary spillway is intended for infrequent but anticipated use, and may suffer minor damage.  The lawsuit was that the spillway was not up to auxiliary standards but should be (because procedures, intended to be temporary until the never-built Marysville dam entered service, called for its planned use in some cases).  The result of the lawsuit was that it was okay to leave it at emergency standards.  Significantly, both parties agreed that the current spillway met "emergency" standards but not "auxiliary" ones; the dispute was about which it should meet.  So, combined with what Prevalence noted, I think "emergency" is the best term to use. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

On July 22, 2009, there was an accident at the Orovile Dam involving the "river valves", meant to discharge water during low-flow seasons. Refs: 

http://www.orovillemr.com/general-news/20120912/dwr-planning-study-on-worrisome-river-valves-blamed-in-2009-oroville-dam-accident
http://www.chicoer.com/article/zz/20100223/NEWS/100227917
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Releasing-water-at-Oroville-Dam-a-lingering-10941922.php
-- Dan Griscom (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Oroville Dam. 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/20120325153036/http://www.ussdams.org/uscold_s.html to http://www.ussdams.org/uscold_s.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407054356/http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/facilities/Oroville/hyatt.cfm to http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/facilities/Oroville/hyatt.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Oroville Dam. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://npdp.stanford.edu/DamDirectory/DamDetail.jsp?npdp_id=CA00035
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128112059/http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/renewables/hydro/ to http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/renewables/hydro/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205223601/http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/dams/DamList.htm to http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/dams/DamList.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170210163002/http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/latest-emergency-spillway-oroville-dam-45401080 to http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/latest-emergency-spillway-oroville-dam-45401080
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Oroville Dam. 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/20121001040007/http://ussdams.org/ben_9903.html to http://ussdams.org/ben_9903.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515142259/http://www.pcl.org/projects/2011symposium/proceedings/Keats8.pdf to http://www.pcl.org/projects/2011symposium/proceedings/Keats8.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516093200/http://library.thinkquest.org/trio/TTQ06035/History.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/trio/TTQ06035/History.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405052816/http://www.water.ca.gov/swpao/docs/bulletin/95/view/text/cha11.html to http://www.water.ca.gov/swpao/docs/bulletin/95/view/text/cha11.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)