Talk:Seton Dam

dam height reversion

Re this, actually User:Dougmcdonell]] did provide the source in his edit comment, but did not place it in the article. I, knowing the dam well (my father was in charge of its construction, and I know the location extremely well as I'd lived in Lillooet and Shalalth in later years), dispute what's on Hydro's page, which is a sort of reductionism. The figure on Hydro's site is the total head from Seton Lake to the Fraser, and of course an 18m dam makes no sense at all if the lake was only raised 10' in elevation; The "dam" is really a weir of sorts, diverting most of the flow into Seton Canal from what is officially the Seton River, but is known locally as Seton Creek, with the name Cayoosh Creek being in continued local use since the CGNDB imposed the name Seton River in 1950 or so; I suppose to make water license descriptions easier for legal reasons; it's not accepted locally in the slightest, and not used. Hydro's website information is really a gloss of the truth; unless the canal and intake to the powerhouse turbines two miles away are considered part of the "dam". Rewording that with a citation to reflect reality instead of Hydro's gloss may be tricky; I'll ask locally for anything in print that explains it better than Hydro did; so it's not so much a valid revert for not having a citation, but that the citation is inaccurate....unreliable as are many corporate sites; probably written, also, by someone who's never even been there....Skookum1 (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the additional info Skookum1, and I agree BC Hydro is generally a poor source for their own facilities.Dougmcdonell (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)