RES 87212 - Laserfiche WebLink

Alternatives This decision is a "close call". Rather than diverting water from the Folsom-South Canal, EB~IUD could divert water from the Sacramento River near Hood. This alternative would be consistent with one of the conmlainant's proposed physical solutions. There are advantages and disadvantages to this proposal. In addition to allowing water to flow down the lower American River, this alternative has advantages for EBMUD in terms of lower construction cost and greater assurance of the availability of water. The disadvantages of this proposal include poorer water quality and probable adverse effects on fishery resources in the Sacramento River. ~ Limitations As described above, there are limitations in this case which influence the physical solutions. Because of the Bureau's operation of Folsom Reservoir, prohibiting EB.~iU3 from diverting water at the Folsom-South Canal may not result in additional flow in the lower American River. We do not believe that it is reasonable to' propose a physical Solution that would prohibit E~'.:G.~ from using water from the best available source, if the ohysical solution would not provide additional protection to public trust uses in the lower American River. This lawsuit does not address the Bureau's water right permits, nor does it address the use of water by other inbasin water users. Cnnsequently, no order can be issued by the Board or the Court that coud be applied to any party other than EBMUD. Nee~ for Certainty Under Article X, Section 2, EBMUD's water quality needs should be balanced against the need of instream and other beneficial uses in the lower Am~_rican River. In Audubon, The California Supreme Court held that decisions granting appropriative water rights can be reexamined based on changing public trust values. On the other hand, the court also stated "[nlow that the economy and population centers Of this state have developed in 21