BOARD02386

• Board Meeting Date: 3/8/1972
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

reservoirs. To do that, then, and to get some
evaluation of it, we have run the model that
we developed sometime ago down there, we have
run the model to show what the benefits of
different kinds of actions might be. Now the 1
first one would be our base which is normal
conjunctive use, which is present practice. ...
The next one would be a kind of a far out
thing, the elimination of water rights just to
give perspective: another one would be if we
provided better management to John Martin res-
ervoir: another one would be to reduce evapo-
transpiration losses, et cetra. Then the last
two down here are combinations.

Now to take a look at what the benefits
are, we look at this column here. We show that
the increase in benefits by eliminating water
rights would be a 9 percent increase. A 20
percent increase might be added if we could
manage John Martin reservoir the way we would
like to and the reducing of evapotranspiration,
and so forth. Down here we can show some sub-
stantial benefits by combining all of these
things: but the thing we have to remember is
that some of this is by importing water into
the system from the Western Slope.

One of the statewide things I wanted to
mention was the mine drainage project that we
have. I thought maybe Si Berthelson would be
here. What we are attempting to do in this
pa~ticular project is to show Which streams
and what reaches of streams have been affected
by the minerals in the state and their ex-
ploitation. The things that we are doing at
700 different sites is to measure the pH and
tSPhecific ~onductance, the stream condition, 1-' -
e aquat1.c life in the stream and the water
sample. By these single observations at these
particular sites, so far that we have made at
700 different sites, we have shown possible
effects at fifty-five reaches of streams
throughout the state.

-36-