Laserfiche WebLink
The alternatives evaluated by the Board include the following: <br /> <br /> 1. Diversion of water from the American River via the Folsom-South Canal <br /> 2. Diversion of water from the Sacramento River near Hood <br /> 3. Diversion of water from the Delta at Clifton Court <br /> 4. Diversion of water from the Delta at Indian Slough <br /> 5. Construction of new terminal reservoirs <br /> <br /> 6. Revised operation of the terminal reservoirs <br /> <br /> 7. Water exchange with the Woodbridge Xrrigation District <br /> <br /> B. Construction of new hydro power projects on the t4okelumne River <br /> <br /> g. Reclamation <br /> <br /> 10. Conservation <br /> <br />Our evaluation of these al ternat~ves was based on several criteria including <br />cost, environmental impacts, water quality, and other factors. Eac~ of <br />alternatives has advantages and disadvantages; however, none of the. alter- <br />natives is clearly superior to EBMUD's proposed diversion from the Am~_rican <br />River via Folsom-South Canal. Other than diversion from the American River <br />(Alternative tJo. 1), diversion from the Sacramento River (Alternative No. 2) <br />appears to be the most feasible. <br /> <br />LIMITATIONS TO THIS CASE <br /> <br />Because o~' limitations in this case, there ts no certainty that the water E~'-'.~ <br />could be prohibited from diverting via the Folsom-South Canal will remain <br />available for use in the lower American River. <br /> <br />The principal limitat(on in this case stems fr~n the fact t~e Bureau of Reclama- <br />tion is not a party to this suit. The Bureau's operation of Folso~ Reservoir <br />controls the flow in the lower American River during the summer monthS. <br /> <br /> 14 <br /> <br /> <br />