BOARD02205

• Board Meeting Date: 3/10/1971
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

we wish to handle it. My answer was that if
there weren't going to be too many of them
that we would like to handle them. It would
give us a chance to meet with the industry
officials and fill out the application. I
haven't heard any more since, so I don't know
what the situation is on that.

We still have some problems that need
solving. I'll go through these quite rapidly
as I see my time is running out. One of the
big problems that I don't think anybody has
the answer to yet is the matter of irrigation
return flows. Feedlots I have mentioned be-
fore. Mine waste I have mentioned before.
But we have a problem with regard to solid
wastes that are discharged into the ground
water table, especially in the Denver Metro
area where we have many sand and gravel oper-
ations that have excavated the sand and gravel
leaving a depression in the earth usually down
below ground water level. I feel this is an
ideal place to dump our trash. The only thing
is that it pollutes the ground water. So
this is one of our problems.

We are going to have to get into pre-
surveillance. We are applying with C.S.V.
for a grant for an aerial survey with infrared
photography of the South Platte River basin.
We hope eventually to get into electronic
water quality monitoring stations. These at
present are quite expensive. I have talked
to my counterparts from other states. New
York I guess has had them in longer than
anyone. They started in 1966. At that time
they cost $40,000 per station. Since then
they have been reduced to $20,000. Maybe if
we wait a year or two we can get it down to
$10,000 or some reasonable figure. In New
York they have all of their monitoring units
connected by telemetry to Albany and feed
into their computer. They also have it set
up so that if a stream is classified, say,
for cold water fishery which requires six parts

I

I