Talk:Bonneville Dam

Oregon High‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

United States: Washington Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance).

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dams High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photos

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jholman (talk • contribs) 00:46, May 30, 2004

HABS photos now linked in article are public domain and can be uploaded. doncram (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Lock?

Can someone please add the status of the old lock to the article. Was it shut down, or did it continue to operate for smaller vessels?--J Clear 16:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you from doing this research? Wahkeenah 16:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual suspects: so much to edit, so little time; lack of inspiration; figured someone more familiar with it would have the answer already, etc.--J Clear 18:10, 27 August 2006

The old lock is there, but is not used. --Smartone100 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New material

I added new NRHP text and photo references which may contain substantial new info for editing into the article. Also, I added a 76 HABS "data pages" link whose description is another major new source of material. doncram (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington and/or Oregon?

Does it really belong (equally) to both Oregon and Washington as suggested by the templates on the talk page and by the categories? It must be under some sort of administration/supervising by one of the states. I can't image it is by both... --141.30.94.37 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject templates don't indicate ownership, just that the subject of the article is of interest to both states, since it spans the river between them. According to the article, the dam is administered by the federal Army Corps of Engineers and the federal/regional Bonneville Power Administration. Katr67 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To further answer your question, things seem to be administered from the Oregon side of the river, from Bonneville, Oregon, though I believe the State of Oregon has little jurisdiction over the place. I'm not sure how much infrastructure is in Washington. The dam is "in" both states however. Katr67 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was mainly curious about who has jurisdiction about it. Even if it "is" in both states there must one of them responsible in case of trouble. Since they're listed as National Historic Landmarks for both states for example I'm wondering if it really is listed as being in both states or whether they national historic landmarks will be "assigned" to whatever state they happen to have their jurisdiction. Same with Registered Historic Place... --141.30.94.37 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't think the states have anything to do with it--it is a federal facility. As for the NRHP status, it's listed as being in Bonneville, Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Katr's right…my understanding is that the U.S. Army (via the Corps of Engineers) has responsibility for the site. Just like military bases, and places like the Hanford Site, and possibly even National Parks are primarily managed by the Feds. If something goes wrong, they might call on a state's resources, but I'd think it would be the Feds calling the shots in a case like that.

I could be wrong, that's just the impression I get from the various reading I've done. -Pete (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I work at Bonneville Lock and Dam so I can answer some questions. Bonneville is a Federal facility, so neither state OR or WA has jurisdiction over it. We do call upon resources from the states when needed. The Bonneville Fish Hatchery is ran by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and is a seperately ran state facility, although we work together and are neighbors who share. The Columbia state juridiciton run pretty much down the middle of the river, and in fact the Spillway at Bonneville is split in half by the state borders. Since it's on Federal land their is no dispute.

To answer the question about the old navigation lock it's in what is called "Mothball" status. It's not currently functioning, but it could be brought back on-line if we had to shut down the newer lock. I'm not sure how long this would take. I would imagine 1-4 weeks of constant labor. I've walked through the old facility and nothing has been kept up on it. Both of the Navigation locks have ever functioned at the same time.Brad Hamel (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bonneville Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060414112844/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_sc/smart_sea_lion to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_sc/smart_sea_lion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bonneville 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:

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) 08:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved - technically this is an uncontested revert of an undiscussed move back to its original title. Polyamorph (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonneville Locks and Dam → Bonneville Dam – Requesting a revert of a controversial move made twice by Xnatedawgx without a discussion or the courtesy to follow WP:PCM. "Bonneville Dam" is the common name for the complex and has over 1,000 hits on The Oregonian website compared to zero for "Bonneville Locks and Dam", which is itself an incorrect name. The official name for the complex, used by the Army Corps of Engineers, does not pluralize "Locks"; this name gets less than 50 hits from The Oregonian. Sounder Bruce 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.