Klamath BasinAdjudication

Alterntive Dispute Resolution Meeting Summary

PUBLIC MEETING #2

OCTOBER 21, 1997

Over 60 people attended the second Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) meeting as part of the Klamath Falls adjudication. Martha Pagel, Director of the Water Resources Department (WRD) provided an introduction to the meeting. The meeting attendees introduced themselves and then Martha gave a quick overview of the last meeting in September.

Attendees were provided a list of regular claimants, claims from the Klamath Allottees Water User Association, Federal, Klamath Tribes and Project claims as well as non-claimant water right holders who want to be involved. Reed Marbut provided a summary of the claims. He also mentioned that the database that generated the claimant lists can be used in many ways and WRD will look to the claimants or input on how to develop the most informative databases. Next meeting, WRD will try to provide a more extensive federal claims list.

Summary of the federal and project claims:

• Forest Service: 214 claims forms claiming 416 water rights. Claimed rights for six different consumptive uses, instream flow for channel maintenance, fish and recreation, instream rights for lakes and springs and five wilderness areas.



• BLM: Filed claims for 51 water holes and one wild and scenic river.



• USFWS: Filed claims for water rights in four wildlife refuges 9 claims for irrigation of over 63,000 acres, 12 claims for over 200,000 af of water per year for wildlife refuge uses and one claim for over 80 cfs for stockwatering



• BIA/Tribes: Filed claims on behalf of the Klamath Tribe for consumptive uses, minimum water levels in Upper Klamath Lake and Klamath Marsh, instream water rights and claims for 334 wildlife seeps and springs within the former Klamath Indian Reservation.



• BOR: 7 consolidated claims for the Klamath Project. These 7 claims state that the Bureau diverts 3,505 cfs to irrigate 218,654 acres in the project. Also filed claim to store 486,830 af of water in the Upper Klamath Lake, 92,300 af in Gerber Reservoir and 481,300 af in Clear Lake.



• National Park Service: Crater Lake, instream and consumptive uses.



• Project water users: Irrigation for 178,000 af, 780,000 af for storage in Upper Klamath Lake.

Representatives from the federal agencies, tribes and project claimants gave brief presentations on their claims.

Walter Echo-Hawk, from the Klamath Tribe, explained the U.S. v Adair case and acknowledged that their claim may cause concern in the area. He proposes working with the community to be creative, seek an organizational structure to resolve issues and break tribal claims into sub-basins to make it easier in the ADR process.

David Harder, US Dept. of Justice, explained that they are only part of the tribal negotiating team working on the tribal claims and that other federal agencies have their own representation, however, they are working closely with other federal agencies.

Michael Cheleta, US Dept. of Justice, is working on non-tribal claims and explained the Reserved Rights Doctrine which allows federal agencies to reserve water to fulfill the purpose the land was set aside for. The USFS, USFWS, NPS and BLM all have claims for different uses such as:

USFS: firefighting, road dusting, campgrounds, silvaculture, instream uses

USFWS: refuges

NPS: Crater Lake and streams

BLM: Consumptive, stockwatering and instream uses

WRD will compile a list of the types of uses for the non-tribal and non-federal claims (included here). It was also suggested that we develop a framework of who is involved from the Department of Interior.

The next part of the meeting focused on process. The next couple of meetings will still focus on process and figuring out how to conduct the meetings. By January or February we should be getting into the heart of the ADR process. Possibilities include breaking into small groups to discuss specific issues or claims. Having a goal setting session facilitated by a professional facilitator was suggested.

Since the September meeting, WRD received several letters with comments and concerns and a list was compiled and handed out at a meeting. Martha reviewed the list entitled, "Summary of Comments/Suggestions." The following was discussed.

Engineering Reports: This is a technical review of a claim which is available for open inspection. There are no policy decisions or legal conclusions made in the report. Type of information available is maps, irrigable land, size of diversion. In summary, it is a factual analysis of a claim.

Presentations: At the next meeting, it was suggested that major claimants provided detailed briefings of their claims, their goals and objectives, maps and the theory behind the claims. Identify potential overlaps if possible.

Goals and Objectives: Goals and objectives of the ADR process need to be identified and agreed upon by the participants.

Hydrology of Basin: Basic information on water supplies and current uses was requested. However, there is some mistrust of the data from agencies. One suggestion was to have data gathered and analyzed independently so that there is a model everyone is comfortable with. WRD offered to take the lead on collecting hydrologic information from all sources who have information. Participants were invited to submit bibliographies, names of consultants, and reports to Reed Marbut before the next meeting. Methodologies used to collect and analyze data was identified as being very important.

Major Policy and Legal Issues: Lawyers will not drive the process, legal constraints will be identified by Steve Sanders, Attorney General's Office. All the lawyers will be invited to provide advice on implementation. Legal issues will be further discussed at an upcoming meeting.

Confidentiality: Senate Bill 160 provided guidance on what is protected. The ADR meetings will be open discussions, however, information presented will not be admissible in the adjudication process.

Other comments and suggestions:

• Breakdown issues geographically, by sub-basin
• Identify ideas for sub-committees
• Identify legal tools for confidentiality
• Identify claims that are not controversial
• Provide meeting minutes

Next meeting data and time was selected.

End of meeting.