The Colorado River Paul Glenn

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Colorado River Paul Glenn The Colorado River Paul Glenn Overview. Water is the most abundant resource on Earth, covering over 70% of its surface. But much of the human population lives in areas that do not naturally have enough water to support its existence. In the American West alone, trillions of dollars have been spent diverting natural sources of water to farms and cities. It is one of the most contentious political issues of the last 100 years. And the very acts of diversion represent some of mankind’s greatest engineering achievements. Water is organized constantly to enable the interactions that support human life. What is being organized? The resource being organized is the water of the Colorado River. The Colorado River runs 1,450 miles from La Poudre Pass in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado to the Gulf of California in Mexico. In terms of both its length and total flow, the Colorado is a relatively small river; it is dwarfed by the Mississippi. However, the river is the only major water system in the Southwest United States, magnifying its importance. The river is fed annually by snowmelt from the Rocky Mountains. In addition to runoff directly into the river, significant tributaries, including the Fraser River, Blue River, Gunnison River, Gila River, Escalante River and Dirty Devil River feed it. The organizing system consists of dams, aqueducts and irrigation canals. Dams capture the flow of the river, storing it in reservoirs. Aqueducts transport water away from the river for use elsewhere, either by pumping it uphill or by directing it downhill. Irrigation canals are similar to aqueducts in that they move water out of the river, but are typically shorter and less engineered. Why is it being organized? Water supports many interactions, including the generation of electricity, the irrigation of land for farming, human uses such as drinking, bathing making waste and recreation, and natural uses like supporting plant and animal habitats. Water in the West has generally been organized to support the growing populations of Western cities without direct access to natural water sources (especially Los Angeles, and, to a lesser extent, Phoenix) and to irrigate the crops necessary to feed these populations and provide a livelihood for Western farmers. How much is it organized? Water is a generic resource, and no specific drop can be uniquely identified. Its use is measured in acre/feet, a unit that represents the amount of water that would cover an acre of land to the depth of one foot (approximately 325,000 gallons; the average U.S. household uses half an acre/foot of water annually). The Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior (USBR) is responsible for managing the water resources in the Western United States, and carefully tracks water entering and leaving the organizing system by both natural and man-made forces. It provides annual reports detailing the diversions, returns and net usage of all parties holding rights to make beneficial use of the water resources, and tracks the amount of water entering and leaving the organizing system by natural forces (snowmelt, runoff, evaporation, etc.). How or by whom is it being organized? A variety of structures organize the resources and make them available to users. The primary structure organizing water are dams, aqueducts and irrigation canals. USBR holds the primary authority over all three, in addition to other federal, state and local government agencies and private companies. There are 34 dams on the Colorado River. They organize water by blocking its natural flow and creating reservoirs, which store water resources for later use. There are tradeoffs involved with organizing water into a reservoir, chiefly increased evaporation. In total, dams create 65 million acre/feet of reservoir capacity on the river. Dams also support an interaction of the organizing system: creating electricity. The dams of the Colorado River combine to generate 10 million megawatt/hours of electricity annually, of which seven million megawatt/hours are generated at the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams. Aqueducts and irrigation canals are the two other structures that allow for interactions with resources in the organizing system by transporting the resource to the location where the interaction will take place. The two most significant are the Colorado River Aqueduct, which is operated by the Los Angeles Municipal Water District, and diverts 1.2 million acre/feet per year 242-miles from Lake Havasu to Los Angeles, and the Central Arizona Project, which diverts 1.5 million acre/feet per year 336 miles from Lake Havasu into central and southern Arizona. When is it being organized? The structures organizing water resources in the Colorado River operate constantly, but the organization is considered in annual cycles. This is because of the natural annual cycle of snowmelt that adds resources to the system. Water is constantly entering and leaving the organizing system through diversions and returns. By one estimate, a single drop of water can support 17 different interactions over the course of the year1. Other Considerations. A key consideration of the organizing system of the water of the Colorado River is who has the right to make use of its resources. Dams, aqueducts and irrigation canals make interactions possible, and the USBR accounts for these interactions, but a separate system of laws, treaties and court decisions, known collectively as the Law of the River, define to whom these interactions are available. At the core of the Law of the River is the Colorado River Compact, a 1922 agreement among the state governments of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, California, Nevada and Arizona (although Arizona did not ratify the agreement until the 1960s), which apportions part of the annual flow of the river to users in each state. 1 Reisner, Marc (1993). Cadillac Desert. Penguin. p. 120. Water rights are governed in the West based on the principle of prior appropriation: once someone has diverted and made beneficial use of water, they are entitled to that same amount each year in perpetuity, so long as they continue to make beneficial use of the water. The Colorado River Compact arose in part, in response to fears that left unchecked, Los Angeles would continue to divert water from the river before the other states could make beneficial use of it2. The history of this organizing system is full of similar political battles over what interactions should be available with the resources (such as the controversy over whether to build the Bridge Canyon Dam near Grand Canyon; the dam was not built due to a general public outcry spurred by the Sierra Club3) and who should be able to take part in those interactions (such as the 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Water, which guarantees delivery of 1.5 million acre/feet to Mexico annually). 2 Reisner, 1993, p. 124 3 “American Nile.” Cadillac Desert. 1996. KTEH-TV/PBS. Accessed Electronically. Artifact: Who Benefits from the Organizing System? A key consideration in the analysis of the organizing system of the Colorado River is who benefits from its existence? Where are the users of the organizing system located, and how do they interact with its resources? The Bureau of Reclamation publishes detailed accounts of diversions from the river, including forecasts. I examined its report on forecasted use for 2015 in the Lower Basin1 (California, Southern Nevada and Arizona) to find additional insight into this question. The data is presented as a PDF, and needed a significant amount of cleaning to extract the values to a usable format. I then used Google Maps to locate a latitude and longitude for each listed water user, and assigned each to a category. As is always the case, creating the categories posed a significant challenge, for several reasons: it was difficult to find information on some of the water users, it was difficult to discern the exact nature of how the water was being used, and it was difficult to determine the appropriate level of granularity. For example, the Central Arizona Project diverts water from the Colorado River to the Phoenix area and it is used along the way for irrigation. I classified it as Metropolitan because that is, presumably, what the majority of the diversion is used for. Another example is the University of Arizona and Yuma Union High School District. I classified both of these as Government, although an additional category of Education would have better described them. The below maps are provided separately as high-resolution images, and an interactive map is available here which allows the user to explore the data in depth. Full Lower Basin View 1 http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/hourly/forecast15.pdf Southern California Detail Las Vegas Detail Yuma, Ariz., Detail Summary of Use by State and Purpose .
Recommended publications
  • West Colorado River Plan
    Section 9 - West Colorado River Basin Water Planning and Development 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Background 9-1 9.3 Water Resources Problems 9-7 9.4 Water Resources Demands and Needs 9-7 9.5 Water Development and Management Alternatives 9-13 9.6 Projected Water Depletions 9-18 9.7 Policy Issues and Recommendations 9-19 Figures 9-1 Price-San Rafael Salinity Control Project Map 9-6 9-2 Wilderness Lands 9-11 9-3 Potential Reservoir Sites 9-16 9-4 Gunnison Butte Mutual Irrigation Project 9-20 9-5 Bryce Valley 9-22 Tables 9-1 Board of Water Resources Development Projects 9-3 9-2 Salinity Control Project Approved Costs 9-7 9-3 Wilderness Lands 9-8 9-4 Current and Projected Culinary Water Use 9-12 9-5 Current and Projected Secondary Water Use 9-12 9-6 Current and Projected Agricultural Water Use 9-13 9-7 Summary of Current and Projected Water Demands 9-14 9-8 Historical Reservoir Site Investigations 9-17 Section 9 West Colorado River Basin - Utah State Water Plan Water Planning and Development 9.1 Introduction The coordination and cooperation of all This section describes the major existing water development projects and proposed water planning water-related government agencies, and development activities in the West Colorado local organizations and individual River Basin. The existing water supplies are vital to water users will be required as the the existence of the local communities while also basin tries to meet its future water providing aesthetic and environmental values.
    [Show full text]
  • Floating the Dirty Devil River
    The best water levels and time Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) of year to float the Dirty Devil The Dirty Devil River corridor travels through two The biggest dilemma one faces when planning BLM Wilderness Study Areas, the Dirty Devil KNOW a float trip down the Dirty Devil is timing a WSA and the Fiddler Butte WSA. These WSA’s trip when flows are sufficient for floating. On have been designated as such to preserve their wil- BEFORE average, March and April are the only months derness characteristics including naturalness, soli- YOU GO: that the river is potentially floatable. Most tude, and primitive recreation. Please recreate in a people do it in May or June because of warm- manner that retains these characteristics. Floating the ing temperatures. It is recommended to use a hard walled or inflatable kayak when flows Dirty Devil are 100 cfs or higher. It can be done with “Leave-no-Trace” River flows as low as 65 cfs if you are willing to Proper outdoor ethics are expected of all visitors. drag your boat for the first few days. Motor- These include using a portable toilet when camping ized crafts are not allowed on this stretch of near a vehicle, using designated campgrounds The name "Dirty Devil" tells it river. when available, removing or burying human waste all. John Wesley Powell passed in the back country, carrying out toilet paper, using by the mouth of this stream on Another essential consideration for all visitors camp stoves in the backcountry, never cutting or his historic exploration of the is flash flood potential.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying the Base Flow of the Colorado River: Its Importance in Sustaining Perennial Flow in Northern Arizona And
    1 * This paper is under review for publication in Hydrogeology Journal as well as a chapter in my soon to be published 2 master’s thesis. 3 4 Quantifying the base flow of the Colorado River: its importance in sustaining perennial flow in northern Arizona and 5 southern Utah 6 7 Riley K. Swanson1* 8 Abraham E. Springer1 9 David K. Kreamer2 10 Benjamin W. Tobin3 11 Denielle M. Perry1 12 13 1. School of Earth and Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, US 14 email: [email protected] 15 2. Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, US 16 3. Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, US 17 *corresponding author 18 19 Abstract 20 Water in the Colorado River is known to be a highly over-allocated resource, yet decision makers fail to consider, in 21 their management efforts, one of the most important contributions to the existing water in the river, groundwater. This 22 failure may result from the contrasting results of base flow studies conducted on the amount of streamflow into the 23 Colorado River sourced from groundwater. Some studies rule out the significance of groundwater contribution, while 24 other studies show groundwater contributing the majority flow to the river. This study uses new and extant 1 25 instrumented data (not indirect methods) to quantify the base flow contribution to surface flow and highlight the 26 overlooked, substantial portion of groundwater. Ten remote sub-basins of the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah and 27 northern Arizona were examined in detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Projecting Temperature in Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam Tailrace
    Projecting Temperature in Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Dam Tailrace By Nicholas T. Williams1 Abstract factors affecting the magnitude of warming in dam discharges (Bureau of Reclamation, 2007). During the period of warmest river temperatures, the Recent drought in the Colorado River Basin reduced dissolved oxygen content of discharges from the dam declined water levels in Lake Powell nearly 150 feet between 1999 to concentrations lower than any previously observed (fig. 1). and 2005. This resulted in warmer discharges from Glen Operations at Glen Canyon Dam were modified by running Canyon Dam than have been observed since initial filling of turbines at varying speeds, which artificially increased the dis- Lake Powell. Water quality of the discharge also varied from solved oxygen content of discharges; however, these changes historical observations as concentrations of dissolved oxygen also resulted in decreased power generation and possibly dropped to levels previously unobserved. These changes damaged the turbines (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005). The generated a need, from operational and biological resource processes in the reservoir creating the low dissolved oxygen standpoints, to provide projections of discharge temperature content in the reservoir had been observed in previous years, and water quality throughout the year for Lake Powell and but before 2005 the processes had never affected the river Glen Canyon Dam. Projections of temperature during the year below the dam to this magnitude (Vernieu and others, 2005). 2008 were done using a two-dimensional hydrodynamic and As with the warmer temperatures, the low dissolved oxygen water-quality model of Lake Powell. The projections were concentrations could not be explained solely by the reduced based on the hydrological forecast for the Colorado River reservoir elevations.
    [Show full text]
  • FIXING the UPPER COLORADO RIVER Paul Bruchez, Reeder
    FIXING THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER Paul Bruchez, Reeder Creek Ranch Mely Whiting, Colorado Counsel, Trout Unlimited Lurline Curran, former Grand County manager Grand County’s most famous tourist was President Dwight Eisenhower, who in the 1950s spent summer vacations snagging trout from the Fraser River. That river even then was significantly depleted by diversion to Denver. Nearby, at Grand Lake, the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) had begun a massive withdrawal of water from the Colorado River. Later, in the 1980s, came another major disruption to the local water-dependent ecosystems, a dam on the Colorado River near Windy Gap, where it is joined by the Fraser. It all adds up to what rancher and fishing guide Paul Bruchez described as death by a thousand cuts. The full extent of the problems became apparent in the 2002 drought and its aftermath. In old days, before all the diversions began, ranchers in the Kremmling area had just relied upon springtime snowmelt flooding by the river to deliver water to their hay fields. Because of the C-BT diversions, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had installed pumps along the river, to ensure ranchers could get water into the fields. As river flows receded in the 21st century, those pumps had become inadequate even as Denver Water and Northern Water (beneficiary of the C-BT) pushed long-standing plans for further diversions. The net result: 80 percent of native flows in the Colorado River would be diverted across the Continental Divide. This could have gotten ugly, but Grand County instead chose a different approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Water Protection Plan Grand County, Colorado
    TOWN OF FRASER RESOLUTION 2018-05-03 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FRASER RIVER PARTNERSHIP SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN WHEREAS, A Source Water Protection Plan identifies a Source Water Protection Area (SWPA), lists potential contaminant sources, and outlines best management practices (BMPs) to reduce risks to the water source. WHEREAS, The Fraser River Source Water Protection Partnership (FRSWPP) was established to provide a framework for public water systems in the Fraser River Valley to collaborate on the protection of their drinking water sources from all potential sources of contamination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO THAT: The Town Board hereby adopts the attached Fraser River Partnership Source Water Protection Plan. DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF MAY 2018. Votes in favor: ___ BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Votes opposed: ___ TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO Abstained: ___ Absent: ___ BY: Mayor ATTEST: (S E A L) Town Clerk Fraser River Source Water Protection Partnership Source Water Protection Plan Grand County, Colorado June 28, 2017 Written by: Ryan Lokteff Fraser River Source Water Protection Partnership Fraser River Source Water Protection Partnership Source Water Protection Plan Contents WATER SYSTEM CONTACT LIST ..................................................................................................................... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. November 12, 2020 Regulation No. 33 - Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River Effective March 12, 2020 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with these few exceptions: EPA has taken no action on: • All segment-specific total phosphorus (TP) numeric standards based on the interim value for river/stream segments with a cold water aquatic life classification (0.11 mg/L TP) or a warm water aquatic life classification (0.17 mg/L TP) • All segment-specific TP numeric standards based on the interim value for lake/reservoir segments with a warm water aquatic life classification (0.083 mg/L TP) Code of Colorado Regulations Secretary of State State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Commission REGULATION NO. 33 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND NORTH PLATTE RIVER (PLANNING REGION 12) 5 CCR 1002-33 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] 33.1 AUTHORITY These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq. C.R.S., as amended, and in particular, 25-8-203 and 25-8-204.
    [Show full text]
  • Glen Canyon Unit, CRSP, Arizona and Utah
    Contents Glen Canyon Unit ............................................................................................................................2 Project Location...................................................................................................................3 Historic Setting ....................................................................................................................4 Project Authorization .........................................................................................................8 Pre-Construction ................................................................................................................14 Construction.......................................................................................................................21 Project Benefits and Uses of Project Water.......................................................................31 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................36 Notes ..................................................................................................................................39 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................46 Index ..................................................................................................................................52 Glen Canyon Unit The Glen Canyon Unit, located along the Colorado River in north central
    [Show full text]
  • TROUT HABITAT FLOW ANALYSIS Reach Selection the Relationships
    Environmental Flows, Methods for Determination Appendix A TROUT HABITAT FLOW ANALYSIS Reach Selection The relationships between available trout habitat and streamflow were investigated during the 2007 field season in 11 of the 27 Grand County stream reaches using the PHABSIM (Physical Habitat Simulation) system (Bovee 1997; USGS 2001). The 11 reaches were selected for study based on several criteria, including streamflow magnitude, history of hydrologic alteration, location within the county’s river drainage network, relative importance for recreational and other water uses and, in most cases, the lack of previous detailed instream flow studies. These reaches and the study sites sampled are described in Table A1. Eight additional PHABSIM sites were selected and sampled in 2008 and in 2009 as described in Table A2 and A3. Table A1. Site Details for the 10 Reaches Selected for PHABSIM Surveys and Modeling in 2007 Streamflow (cfs) Location Site Dates Sampled Number of Transects High Medium Low Vasquez Ck F-VC 9 102 63 8 Jun 24 Jul 5 Jul 30 St Louis Ck F-StL 11 58 30 12 Jun 22 Jun 24 Aug 2 Fraser River F6 10 233 45 18 Jul 5 Jul 30 Oct 25 @ WWTP Fraser River @ Granby F9 11 219 75 52 Jul 2 Jul 31 Oct 25 Ranch Colorado R. @ Miller CR3 9 109 52 36 Jul 4 Aug 1 Oct 27 Ranch Colorado R. u/s K-B CR5 7 547 269 217 Jul 4 Aug 1 Oct 27 ditch Colorado R. d/s K-B CR6 8 518 267 191 Jul 3 Aug 1 Oct 27 ditch Colorado R.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado's 303(D) List of Impaired Waters
    COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 5 CCR 1002-93 REGULATION #93 COLORADO'S SECTION 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION LIST 93.1 Authority These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq C.R.S. as amended, and in particular, 25-8-202 (1) (a), (b), (i), (2) and (6); 25-8-203 and 25-8-204. 93.2 Purpose This regulation establishes Colorado’s Lists of Impaired Waters. These waters include Water- Quality-Limited Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”), impaired waters that do not require a TMDL, and Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List: (1) The list of Water-Quality-Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs fulfills requirements of section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act which requires that states submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a list of those waters for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required controls are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards. These segments are included in Section 93.3 with parameters included in the Clean Water Section 303(d) Impairment column. (2) Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List identifies water bodies where there is reason to suspect water quality problems, but there is also uncertainty regarding one or more factors, such as the representative nature of the data. Water bodies that are impaired, but it is unclear whether the cause of impairment is attributable to pollutants as opposed to pollution, are also placed on the Monitoring and Evaluation List. This Monitoring and Evaluation list is a state-only document that is not subject to EPA approval.
    [Show full text]
  • Pursuant to C.R.S., §37-92-302 , As Amended, You Are Notified That the Following Pages Comprise a Resume of the Applications An
    PURSUANT TO C.R.S., §37-92-302 , AS AMENDED, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE FOLLOWING PAGES COMPRISE A RESUME OF THE APPLICATIONS AND AMENDED APPLICATIONS FILED WITH THE WATER CLERK FOR WATER DIVISION 5 DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2000. 1. 00CW138 1. Grand County Water & Sanitation District No. 1, c/o Bruce Hutchins, P.O. Box 3077, Winter Park, CO 80482, (970)726-5583. 2. Stanley W. Cazier, Baker, Cazier and McGowan, P.O. Box 500, Granby, CO, 80446, (970)887-3376. 3. Grand County Water and Sanitation District No. 1 Reservoir. 4. APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE. 5. Fraser River. 6. Location: NE1/4SW1/4 of Section 28, T1S, R75W of the 6th P.M. The initial point of survey is located at a point on the North line of said NE1/4SW1/4, 200 feet East of the Northwest corner of said NE1/4SW1/4. 7. Domestic and municipal. 8. Reservoir. 9. 8 acre-feet. 10. The Reservoir is constructed, but the Districts has not applied the water to beneficial use. Additionally, the Applicant has engaged in those activities described on attached Exhibit A in pursuing putting this water right to beneficial use. 11. The application contains a detailed outline of the work performed during the diligence period. (4 pages) 2. 00CW139 GARFIELD COUNTY – THREE MILE CREEK, ROARING FORK RIVER. Anthony and Sandra Threinen; P.O. Box 1213; Eagle, CO 81631 970-328-6885. Sue’s Spring – Application for Water Rights (Surface). Location: the point of diversion is located in the SE¼SW¼ Sec. 20, T.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish and Drought DON't MIX
    February 12, 2019 Drought and Fish: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ Overview of CPW’s 2018 Aquatic Experiences David Graf and Lori M. Martin, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Grand Junction State of CO Policy and CPW Mission • It is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of the state and its visitors. C.R.S. 33-1-101 (1) • Our mission is to perpetuate the wildlife resources of the state, to provide a quality state parks system, and to provide enjoyable and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire current and future generations to serve as active stewards of Colorado's natural resources. CPW Regions NW Aquatics Team Areas of Responsibility Dave Graf - NW Region Water Specialist NW REGIONBill Atkinson AQUATIC BIOLOGISTS Tory Eyre Jon Ewert Jenn Logan Lori Martin - NW Senior Aquatic Biologist Kendall Bakich Ben Felt U.S. Drought Monitor for Colorado, 2018 Jan. 23, 2018 Feb. 20, 2018 Mar. 20, 2018 Apr. 24, 2018 May 22, 2018 June 21, 2018 July 24, 2018 Aug. 21, 2018 Sep. 18, 2018 Oct. 23, 2018 Nov. 20, 2018 Dec. 18, 2018 https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ Drought and Fish (Toward a better understanding of freshwater fish responses to an increasingly drought-stricken world; Lennox et al. 2019 Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries) • How does drought affect fish habitat? • What are drought refuges for fishes? • How does drought influence fisheries? • What is drought tolerance in fishes? • What kills fish during drought? • What is the nature of species succession in drought-stricken waters? • What are the long-term consequences of drought to fishes? • How does climate change affect drought-fish interactions? River Continuum Concept (Vannote et al.
    [Show full text]