Quote Originally Posted by Darian View Post
the TRRP Proposal appears to be based on the assumption that downstream water rights holders (e.g. major valley water contractors/growers/users) won't object or litigate in opposition. After all they've attempted to enforce their rights to water stored in the Trinity drainage in opposition to other projects in the past. Nothing here is chiseled in stone yet. Based on past history not sure I think those users won't exercise their influence/money to try either modify or scrap this proposal.

Add: the tone of the responses to the original post and the one under the "Conservation Forum" were clearly inappropriate. Hopefully, we can get back to a civil discussion of this topic....
Darian,

I can't envision that to be a valid concern. As Redband mentioned this isn't a proposed addition to ROD flows, merely a change when some of those flows are released. No amount of bitching and whining by water interests changes the fact that they lost that battle 21 years ago.

Releasing water in the winter is something they'd like to see happen IMO because it could under the right circumstances, lead to more actual carry over storage than the current fixed flow hydrographs based on water year designation. Ex: Say we're in a normal water year and they shoot 120k acre feet down the river in the winter during a year when Trinity is at the high end of conservation pool and approaching an elev-temporal flood control trigger point. Releasing that water earlier could prevent that trigger from happening.