Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ".J,. <br /> <br />THE EFFECTS Of DAMS <br /> <br />. I <br /> <br />n~~ construction on th~ Lower Colorado River greatly altered the physiochemical character- <br />istics of the system. Laguna Dam. built in 1909. had only a slight effect on the iower <br />river because of its small size and downstream location (Table 1. Figure 1). .Comp1etion <br />of Hoover Dam (about 108 I<m upstream from the more recently constructed Davis Dam) in <br />1935 allowed the storage of large quantities of flood water in Lake Mead; regular releases <br />during the dry season made possible a more nearly constant river flow. Fluctuations in <br />salinity concentrations decreased and the water of the lowet river cleared (figure 5). <br />later, Parker, Imperial. Davis. Headgate. and Palo Verde darns further stabilized discharge <br />rates and increased salinities and transparencies in the downstream river water. <br /> <br />& <br /> <br />c <br />TABLE 1. Major dams and reservoirs along the Lower Colorado River.a <br /> <br />& <br /> <br /> b Dam Height Reservoir Area Year <br />Reservoir Dam type (m) (h~) Completed <br />Laguna ER 3.0 1909 <br />Imperi a 1 SB 14.3 2.957 .1938 <br />Palo Verde Diversion ER 12.5 1958 <br />Havasu (Parker Dam) VRA 25.9 8.262 1938 <br />noovaiya (Headgate Rock Dam) E . 1":l1 7 1941 <br /> .: ~~ ~ <br />Mohave (Davis Dam) ER 42.1 1,134 1953 <br /> <br />aCompiled from California Dept. of Water Resources (1974). Douglas (1947). & Slawson. (1972). <br />bE = earth; ER = earth and rock; SB = slab and buttress; VRA = variable radius arch. <br /> <br />.' ~ .~.>.: "";:~~ <br /> <br />The regulated and clarified waters were distinctly different-from those of the pre- <br />impounpment period. Immediately below dams, the mainstream was clear and currents were <br />swift (Borland and Miller 1960; Dill 1944; Moffett 1942). The currents scoured the river <br />bottom. leaving it rocky and gravelly. Farther downstream from the dam, turbidities were <br />higher and current velocities lower; certain downstream areas had braided and meandering <br />channels and resembled the original river. Diurnal water level fluctuations resulting <br />from irrigation and hydroelectric needs replaced the seasonal fluctuations of the original <br />ri ver. <br /> <br />Static water habitats during the immediate post-impoundment period are poorly described. <br />Backwaters were usually clear and had little or no current. In many respects, the back- <br />waters probably resembled those present before dam-construction. One obvious difference <br />was that more of the backwaters were permanent because seasonal floods were eliminated. <br /> <br />Perhaps the.greatest single influence of dams on the river system was the creation of <br />large r~servoirs that were not present in the original river. The reservoirs had clear <br />water and reduced currents. and some - such as Lake Havasu and Imperial Reservoir -.had <br />relatively stable water levels. Because rapid water passage thrOugh all of the reservoirs <br />prevented prolonged thermal stratification, dissolved oxygen concentrations remained high <br />from surface to bottom (Beland 1954; Dill 1944; Kimsey 1957; Ponder 1971). <br /> <br />After impoundments were built, the biota in the remaining stretches of mainstream between <br />darns responded to their altered environment in several ways. Some species were able to <br />live and reproduce in the new environment but many less adaptable species became locally <br />extinct. Exotic species entered the mainstream through natural immigration and stocking. <br />In areas with sandy and muddy soils, some carrizo cane, cattails, and bulrushes survived. <br />The paucity of submergent aquatic plants continued except for attached algae in clear, <br />rocky portions of the river (Dill 1944; Moffett 1942). Ditch grass (Ruppiasp.) spiny <br />naiad (Najas marina), and sago pondweed (potamogeton pec~inatus) were common rooted sub- <br />mergent plants. although submergents were not abundant enough to be important 1;0 fish, <br />except in a few areas (Dill 1944). Production of invertebrates in the river was low because <br /> <br />CAL-NEVAWILDLIFE TRANSACTIONS 1989 <br /> <br />104 <br />