Klamath Basin Alternative Dispute Resolution - Meeting SummaryJune 9, 1998

After introductions, a couple of participants expressed concern about the times of the meetings which often preclude farmers and ranchers from attending the meetings. The meeting was being videotaped so that those in the agricultural community have an opportunity to see the tape of the meeting. This launched a discussion on whether the meetings should be videotaped. The Operating Principles Subcommittee agreed to discuss it at their meeting.

Hydrology Questions

The group was asked to provide questions to the Hydrology Subcommittee so that they can begin work on providing technical information to the group. The questions to the subcommittee are summarized below:

1. Based on the state's water availability model, how much water is available in each claim reach in the Klamath Basin? The response should address:

• both the depleted and undepleted conditions for the claimed reaches in the tributary drainages



• by month



• for 20%, 50% and 80% exceedence levels



• standard error for each of the estimates

2. Where are the existing stream diversions in each claim reach within the Klamath Basin?

• What are the average (50% exceedence) diversions for each claim reach in a monthly basis?

3. Look at consumptive uses with different scenarios in sub-basins. i.e. evaporation, consumptive use of project water on crops, open water storage, wetland restoration vs. crop uses, etc.

4. What information is available on current off-stream uses, i.e., irrigated acres, duty, crop types and crop patterns, return flow, etc.

5. Can we look at different water use scenarios and see how they affect water quantity and quality?

6. Evaluate raising Upper Klamath Lake level one foot. What effect would it have on water availability and lake levels.

7. In relation to questions 1&2, how would information be ranked? Mt. top to valley?

8. Is there instream flow data that would be helpful for the committee to use? The state and USGS has data, others should come forward with data.

9. Elevation claims vs. those that are in acre feet: compare to lake elevations.

10. Will analysis include already adjudicated claims?

11. What is total volume of storable water in the basin, from all sources including lower river and Lost River. How do we develop and incorporate the Lost River system? WRD's water availability analysis does not include this.

12. How do you measure late season return flows? i.e. sponge effect on irrigated pasture.

There is some concern regarding how claims that have been filed relate to existing uses. A summary of the claims is needed to answer many of the hydrology questions and compare to the water availability model. A list of long-term questions needs to be developed and prioritized. The current list of questions also needs to be prioritized and resources found to staff the effort.

Subcommittees met for the rest of the morning and the Administrative Subcommittee met during lunch.

Subcommittee Reports:

Hydrology Subcommittee:

During the ADR process: - all data must be made available to the subcommittee

- staff is needed

- timing is an issue, info. and agreements need to be in place now

The subcommittee didn't formulate a response to the morning's questions because more time is needed. By the July meeting they will better define the questions, prioritize and develop a timeline. The state has offered a position if funding can be made available.

Concepts Subcommittee:

The tribal settlement group postponed their sub-basin meeting one month to allow time to resolve some procedural issues. The Hatfield Working Group agreed to support E-Board funding for the adjudication. As part of a supply augmentation study, they will rank projects in basin so support can be found for the projects. The subcommittee also agreed to pursue funding for a feasibility study of increased lake levels.

Administrative Subcommittee:

The Administrative Subcommittee had their first meeting and discussed how agendas should be developed and noticed and how meetings should generally be conducted. Also discussed was how to apply the confidentiality and admissibility rules.

The timing of the ADR process was discussed. A draft timeline was prepared by facilitator, Mike Golden.

Phase I - Completed 7/99

Need summaries by 3/99 - Available for open inspection

Phase II

Open Inspections - 80 hours minimum

Contests begin - end of open inspection

Back to ADR to solve contests - if and when agreement is reached, point of findings

Need to hear summaries of claims by claimants over next few months. Presentations should include amount of water, irrigated acres, location accompanied by maps.

The committee will help set the agenda, which will be outlined at the end of each meeting.

Water Quality Follow-up Discussion:

Dick Nichols from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) talked about the assessment of water quality problems, the cause and establishment of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). Designated management agencies are identified to develop management plans to meet water quality standards. In the Klamath Basin, the schedule for setting TMDLs does not coincide with the ADR process. An additional FTE would be needed to work on it now.

Walter Echo-Hawk emphasized the linkage between the ADR process and the state's water quality framework (DEQ, ODA). The tribes think they should be linked. The programs provide incentives for land owners, make state and federal money available and could ultimately make more water available. An inter-agency memorandum of understanding (MOU) was recommended by the Tribes.

Others felt that water quality was not relevant in the ADR/adjudication process. Martha Pagel explained that since the Tribal claim is related to instream flows, water quality has a bearing on the quantity of water needed in-stream. This is new compared to other adjudications so there is no precedent on how water quality issues should be handled. We won't know until we look at specific claims and understand water quality needs. Water quality issues will not impede the adjudication process.

Dave Wilkinson from the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) related that a draft Water Quality Management Area Plan (required under SB 1010) will be completed in the spring of 2000, with a draft ready in the fall of 1999. The Soil and Water Conservation District will implement the plan. ODA would be willing to enter into an MOU with WRD and DEQ.

A question was put to ODFW regarding the importance of water quality. The response was that ODFW deals with fish and water quality is part of evaluating fish needs, but they can't answer the question.

Mike Golden recommended that ODA, DEQ and WRD develop an MOU. Once claims are on the table, we can identify streams that have water quality concerns. The purpose of an MOU is to formalize an agreement to cooperate and negociate, something agencies do anyway, but this is more of a public declaration. A draft MOU will be put together for the next meeting.

The Tribes emphasized that water quality is central to their claim and to establishing their water needs as well as to their negotiations.

Operating Principals:

The operating principals are almost complete and ready for adoption at the next meeting. A finalized version incorporating today's changes needs to be made. They addressed videotaping and reserved rights and other pending issues. All changes will be reflected in the final version which will be mailed with next meeting's agenda.

Other Business

WRD will be going to the E-Board in June to request funds for the adjudication to cover legal fees and staff for the sufficiency review. Two letters of support have been written to the committee.

Next month's agenda was outlined.

End of meeting.