RES 87212 - Laserfiche WebLink

the lower American River, irrespective of whether EBMUD diverts wat_-r. EBMLJ~'s · maximum proposed diversion of 150,ODD AFA represents approximat-.ly 12~ Of the maximum projected diversion of 1,200,000 AFA by the Bureau and other inbasin users, This lawsuit does not address the Bureau's water right permits and its operation of Folsom Reservoir, nor does it address the use of water by other tnbasin water users. l'he lawsuit only addresses EBMUD's obligation to limit diversions to protect public trust uses and does not evaluate the obligation of other water users. In many respects, the complainants appear to seek general instream flow standards to protect public trust uses that could then be applied to oth.~r water users. However, an order issued by the Board or the Court as a result of these proceedings is not applicable to any party other than EBMUD. The absence of the Bureau as a party has several consequences. First, no can be issued by the Court as a result of these proceedings that would ~o~i;~ the Bureau°s operation of Folsom Reservoir, Second, prohibiting ER'IL'.} fr~ diverting water through the Folsom-South Canal may not result in any more flowing in the lower Amrican River. If EBMU9 is required to divert belnw confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers, the water released by the Bureau to meet the 2SD cfs minimum instream flow standard could also be use~ to satisfy E)UD's contractual denand, Third, the Bureau's absence may result additional, expensive litigation against the Bureau, or other agencies seekin0 to divert water through the Foist-South Canal. Lastly, this lawsuit tends ~o ' place the burden on EBMUD for maintaining adequate tnstream flow, without addressing the obl igation of other parties who use water from the American River. 16