Talk:Green River (Duwamish River tributary)

Wording

The Green River emerges from the Green River Valley and enters the much larger Kent Valley at Auburn, Washington, which was created by glacial action during the Pleistocene ice ages...

I don't think Auburn was created by glacial action so I reworded this :^) Gr8white (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsource POV claim about access

Someone keeps adding the claim that "the Green River Watershed [was] closed to public access due to fallacious beliefs some water providers have that allowing public access makes a watershed more vulnerable to contamination or terrorist attack." Not only does this kind of statement need to reference the source: statements by "some water providers" expressing this concern, and if any such statements exist, others are needed to show they are fallacious. But also, this claim goes against the many sources that give different reasons for the closing of the watershed to public access. This [HistoryLink essay not only mentions that the issue is "controversial" (thus perhaps the repeated, unsourced addition to this page), but also that the Green River was becoming contaminated from logging operations, agriculture, and human habitation, leading to Tacoma starting to acquire the land and protect it.

This Tacoma Water page does say that access is limited "to minimize contamination that people and their activities can introduce." But terrorist are not mentioned. If one can find a source that says people "and their activities" in a watershed are no threat to water quality, then a case might be made. Good luck though; in the nearby upper Tilton River, Cowlitz River basin, I've come across large illegal dumping sites right in the river. That kind of "activity" can't be good for the water quality.

Anyway, without the kind of source references needed, this claim will probably continue to be removed. Pfly (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a source, but I can say that the vast majority of municipal water providers DO allow public and recreational access to these public property watersheds, and they don't have a problem with human activity from access or recreation rendering water undrinkable. It isn't wise to dump garbage or the like in water sources, but animals still live in the basin and urinate, defecate and such in the water, and natural contamination from runoff and weather is taken care of. The Seattle and Tacoma governments are just very liberal, restrict and regulate everything environmental leftists. Denver is another city that has three lakes closed to all public access, and again, Denver is a VERY liberal city. One must remember that these areas are public property and restricting reasonable access and recreation is Un - American and tyrannical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.73.164 (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that you are making two very specific claims that need sources. First, that "some water providers" have certain "beliefs". Second that these believes are "fallacious". I'm not saying you are right or wrong about this, just that you need to say where this information comes from (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of key policies of wikipedia). Otherwise, whether right or wrong, it is just opinion and speculation. Pfly (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the flooding risk now that the Howard Hanson Dam has been deemed safe?

I heard from a government worker that the Army Corps of Engineers discovered the plans to the Howard Hanson Dam and it showed that tunnels were drilled underneath but a change in plans made the tunnels unneeded so they were filled with timber. The Dam was never damaged (or the damage was already fixed) and the only thing wrong with the project was that the useless tunnels, filled with rotten timber, collapsed. So does that mean that the flooding risk has been eliminated and there will be no "Lake Kent"? That government worker commented that it was a total waste of billions of taxpayers' money. -- Azemocram (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Duwamish River

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no merge D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Considering that the Green and Duwamish Rivers are different rivers in name only, it would make sense to merge them to a single article. I say put the whole thing under the title Duwamish River, since it need a lot less disambiguation than the 100 some Green Rivers worldwide. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer they were kept as seperate articles, but I don't feel strongly about it. I can give a long rambling reason why I prefer this, but it's not based in policy, so I haven't included it. I can ramble about it if anybody is interested. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 01:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please ramble, it would be helpful to know why you have this opinion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

TL;DR. Like I said, it's not a policy based decision. The locals of the area (the ones likely to look up the articles) often view the river as two distict parts. The Green river is often used for recreation, so people looking up that would want that type of information. The Duwamish is mostly commercial/industrial usage, so people may want that info when looking up Duwamish River. I, myself, think of them as seperate. The Green river gorge, rafting, inner tubing and Flaming geyser are what I think of when I think of the Green river. These are places to go to get away from the city. This upper section is also where most of the drownings happen, so the news articles always state Green river when they mention the accidents. When people say Duwamish I think of shipping and commerce. The news articles on the Duwamish are mostly about industrial waste dumping and the like. Decades ago the history of the rivers was taught in the local schools (not sure if that's still the case) so people growing up here know they are now the same river. Many of the people that move here don't know the rivers are the same and might be confused when looking up one and being redirected to the other. There's also a lot of history to the rivers here as they have changed over time and there are stories from the native Americans about the rivers and how they were used long ago when they were seperate, so I think there's a bit of culture related stuff that I thought about when making the decision about keeping them seperate. I wouldn't say these are good reasons for keeping them seperate, they're just the ones I thought about when deciding. Please feel free to merge them if you'd like as I said, I don't feel strongly about it. All the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Green/Duwamish is hardly the only river that transitions from mountain to rural to urban in its course. The Puyallup River comes to mind, and most of the big rivers in China as well. As far as name confusion with the redirect, putting both names in bold in the first sentence covers it. Combining them probably makes it easier to explain the name issue. FWIW, I grew up in Snohomish and they didn't teach squat about it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, twas a long time ago that they taught that stuff in the schools. Back in the good ol days as they say. If you feel strongly that they should be merged, then please do so as I don't have a strong opnion on it. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I will wait to hear more comments before I do so. I might ask Wikiproject Rivers about the general precedent for this kind of thing. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As the article states, the Duwamish was the name given to the waterway downstream from the historic confluence of the Black River and the White/Greeen River. In this way, the Duwamish is similar (historically) to Shatt al-Arab and the Amur River, which are well known examples of named rivers that arise only after the confluence of rivers of comparable magnitude. The Duwamish has never referred to the waterway upstream from the historic confluence mentioned above, so my feeling is that it would not be appropriate to redirect the Green River to the Duwamish River. — Myasuda (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction, the Duwamish WAS similar to the Shatt al-Arab, or for that matter, to the Snohomish River nearby. But what matter is what the Duwamish IS, and today there is no confluence. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a correction to my statement. I'm well aware of the present state of the river, and have known its history since reading about it decades ago. That's why I used the term "historic confluence" twice in my statement above and only used the word "is" in reference to the Duwamish name origin. My opinion is based on both the historical origins of the name as well as the current usage of the "Duwamish River" and Green River". — Myasuda (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Here is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers says at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Rivers with multiple names - If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name. - Thus this policy suggest merging Duwamish into Green, rather than the other way around or not merging at all. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That, of course, makes more sense than your first suggestion. But I don't see any compelling reason to make the redirect. Remember that the discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers are simply guidelines and not policy. — Myasuda (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green River (Duwamish 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/20070701104640/http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/report/hah.htm to http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/report/hah.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)