Talk:Warragamba Dam

Untitled

There seems to be some conjecture over the available storage figure. 1,857,000 ML was the old figure BEFORE the deep-water storage recovery project. As a direct result of that project, the Sydney Catchment Authority now uses 2,027,000ML - as of 15 April 2006. Furthermore, official figures are quoted in megalitres, not cubic km. Any questions/thoughts please let me know. Cheers.--Merbabu 06:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• PS, with the extra info in the article (which i will add to and firm up as time permits) we might want to put in a few sub-headings. I'll get around to it as time permits - unless i am beaten to it. --Merbabu 06:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

the opening paragraph, with created in 1960, should have the old 1.8 figure for capacity. with the new figure quoted later for after the upgrade, and is it 2.027 or 2.031 and cite needed ...

and it's volume should not be in tonnes, but cu m or concrete Dave Rave (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that in the press they are talking about the extra capacity being avaialable "each year". That is not correct because by the time the water is needed it will be unlikely the dam will refill before the next year. So whilst it increases the capacity of the dam, increasing the capacity of the dam will not lead the catchment to yield any more water during the existing dry conditions.

Problems when dams used for flood mitigation reach capacity, are common to all dams used for that purpose. Maybe the comments

Its limitations, however, become apparent when the reservoir reaches capacity and water must be released through the floodgates.

could be reviewed? Prudent use of dams for flood mitigation includes, planned release of excess water prior to a flood wave reaching the dam wall. Sometimes this leads to minor flooding, in an attempt to avoid catastrophic flooding (minor floods are still catestrophic to you if it is your house under water though!) Once the flood wave reaches the dam wall, water is not released through the floodgates - it overflows via the spillways. Garrie 02:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - in the case of Warragamba, water from a moderate flood is released through the opened gates first on the primary spillway (ie, middle of dam wall). ONly an extreme (1 in 700 year??) flood is the auxillary spillway likely to see use. Merbabu 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that events under 1:100 years don't actually need the spillway. So that is exactly what I was getting at.Garrie 00:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Could the reference to internal sydney water operational figures be replaced with something which is available to the public?Garrie 00:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference was added by Merbabu on 24 May 2006, but it's not a reference to anything in the article, i.e. it's redundant.I've removed it. SimonJones 13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As a local resident i can clear up a few things (although nothing we can actually put in the article without another source). the spillway is designed for a 1 in 10,000 year flood, and it is designed like a giant plug so that more layers wash away depending on how severe the flooding is. secondly in a normal flooding incident the primary floodgate opens. only in the event that the primary gate cant cope with the load are the 4 auxillary gates opened.. hope this helps clear some things up. we got brochures on the topic a while back but ill try to dig up a few links. Raya 85 13:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose we merge this with Lake Burragorang, as they are pretty much one and the same and most of the information is duplicated.

Any views? John Wormell (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not merge. The lake is a waterbody, the dam is a structure. That's like apples and beans. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not merge. Would you merge Hoover Dam with Lake Mead? No, you wouldn't - and that is a similar situation (except for size). They're not the same. AprilHare (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Not merge. There is a lot of information to be added to this entry that follows on from the point this entry leaves off. I will be adding it once I get my head around Wikipedia. Willowdovegirl (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not Merge but edit. Warragamba Dam is a piece of concrete. Lake Burragorang is a lake. The lake is the water source, the Dam impounds water. Like to see contextually each article framed that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.145.20 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• No merge as per foregoing. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:52, 28 February 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.

Not in the Burragorang Valley

the first paragraph claims the Warramgamba Dam is in the Burragorang Valley. This is not correct. The dam is located in the Warragamba Gorge. The Burragorang Valley was a much wider, agricultural valley, which drained through the Warragamba Gorge to the east. The Burragorang Valley is where most of the water impounded by the Warragamba Dam is located ( when there is water in it ). However the location of the dam is not in the Burragorang Valley. I have changed the first paragraph accordingly.Eregli bob (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Warragamba 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/20070528084206/http://www.sydneywater.com.au:80/SavingWater/WaterRestrictions/ to http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/WaterRestrictions/

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} 05:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal 2020

After making the proposal I have just noticed that this has been discussed over 10 years ago, but as the articles are now, they overlap considerably and it seems worthwhile discussing again. The height of the dam wall inevitably affects the body of water, so it's going to be difficult to work out what belongs in which article. Anyway, I'm done for now, having added stuff to the Dam article and then noticing the overlap in the other one. Being neither a local nor an expert on dams or geographical features, I will leave this to others to take further, or not. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

nup, same as 11 years ago, ones a basket, one is the fruit, different. Dave Rave (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Not even a question. Warragamba Dam is a structure. Lake Burragorang is a natural body of water. About as different as it gets. - Cement4802 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing, given the consensus not to merge (views unchanged from a decade ago). Klbrain (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)