Talk:Elwha Dam

Serious problems with last section

While I feel the section entitled "Increased Sediment Load Following Demolition" seems to contain valuable and pertinent information that should be included in this article, the entire paragraph is completely unsourced and, at times, poorly worded. (e.g. "As predicted, the sediment load from the point of dam demolition to the river mouth has increased dramatically resulting in turbidity much higher than what was originally predicted." While the author seems to have a negative perspective on the dam removal, I don't believe this should preclude inclusion the information at hand. Nevertheless, a more encyclopedic tone which integrates both pros and cons (i.e. short term and long term effects) would be more warranted. I'm removing this until the information can be tied down better with proper sourcing, which should be easy enough. --129.105.149.247 (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Copy/Paste?

The last few paragraphs read like something copy/pasted. I got rid of a first person worded "we may see" to make it more encyclopedic. The last part of the article still need help, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.47.110 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Useful reference

The National Register of Historic Places document at [1] has quite a comprehensive history and description of the dam, as of 1988, a lot of which could be added into this article if anyone's interested and has the time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Source for 34 million cubic yards of sediment?

The Randle, 2012 paper references 24 million cubic yards of sediment so maybe 34 was a typo?

"As of July 2010, reservoir sedimentation for the two lakes was estimated to be 24 million yd3, of which 20 million yd3 are stored in Lake Mills" 2601:602:8200:890:45F8:9231:875E:2207 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)