BOARD02195

• Board Meeting Date: 9/12/1964
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

to build the Narrows Reservoir is not a con-
servation measure in either terms of water or
land.

I

The best they can do is to eliminate
Jackson Reservoir to conserve surface acres
exposed to evaporation. In so doing they have
to have 3500 acres as a permanent pool, so that
evaporation as a minimum mdst be more than we
now have in the surface area.

I

At this point I want to point out and
work just a little bit more - I'll step up
and point out on these maps which are con-
veniently here. They are factual, gentlemen,
they are a good illustration of what I mean
by the addition of another reservoir, in addi-
tion to all of those we have, is actually a
water consuming project. Now these maps
overlap and it looks like there are two reser-
voirs here but there are not. This one on
the wall here has a surface area of some 1,000
acres of land here, (pointing to the map).
This reservoir here has somewheres in the
neighborhood of 2,000 acres of land. This
reservoir here (and I'll get over on this map)
has some 2500 acres. This reservoir has 4,000
acres of land. Now any time, as a conserva~
tion measure, we could gather these reservoirs
up and put them into one so the relative depth
to the exposed surface area is greater, we are
going to make a conservation measure of the
first order because we can save on evaporation
factor. If we go here and put in Narrows
Reservoir here, we have to have 3500 acres here
as a permanent pool. That is going to evapo-
rate, gentlemen, year in and year out. I
pr~sume Jackson will be incorporated within,
but nothing has been said here that it would
be. If it is not, you will simply add it on
as additional evaporation factor here. No
amount of reservoirs or that sort of thing
can eliminate that uniess we can get it com-
bined and combine as many as we possibly can.
I think that will clear up that particular
point.