Klamath Basin Alternative Dispute Resolution Meeting Summary

July 14, 1998

Coordination Agreement

Martha Pagel gave an update on the water quality and quantity issue. A draft memorandum of agreement (MOA) was handed out for comment. It includes a coordination statement and background information.

There was a question regarding whether the EPA has a role in the MOA or whether they delegate their authority to the state. If they were a participant, they could be useful in providing funding.

There was a concern expressed that the MOA may affect those involved in the SB1010 process. The response was that it was not intended to affect any work that has been done or to in any way impair the SB1010 process. The MOA would formalize the coordination that occurs already between agencies and provide an opportunity for additional cooperation.

Since this was the group's first opportunity to review the document, it was agreed to schedule a discussion about the MOA at the next meeting. No action was taken.

OAR 690, Division 4 Rules Hearing (Proposed Mediation Communications Rule):

Time was taken during the meeting to conduct a hearing on the Division 4 rules. Martha gave an overview of the rule. The issues addressed by the proposed rules are as follows:

The comment period closes at 5:00 p.m., August 3, 1998.

Operating Principles:

Martha Pagel reviewed the latest revisions to the Operating Principles. After some clarification, the Operating Principles were adopted without further changes. Appreciation was expressed for the sub-committee who worked so hard on getting the Principles finalized.

Delegation Agreement:

Martha handed out and reviewed the delegation agreement. People had an opportunity to comment during the meeting and if no further concerns are expressed, the delegation order will be signed.

Water Supply Augmentation Presentation:

Jim Carpenter, Alice Kilham, Karl Wirkus:

Jim Carpenter of the Klamath Basin Working Group highlighted the retreat the Working Group had earlier this year. They identified their hopes for accomplishments, big picture ideas and generated a list of projects (handout). There was also a list of "If I Were King" projects that they would like to work on. This list was put together very informally and represents the view of those in the working group. Lastly, Jim handed out a work-up of his own proposal.

Karl talked about the Klamath Basin Water Supply Initiative, a joint effort by the Bureau of Reclamation, State of Oregon and California, and Klamath Compact Commission. The initiative was undertaken to address the issue of how to meet short-term and long-term water supply needs. The process included the development of a list of water supply options submitted by agencies and citizens throughout the basin. All options were included on the list. Projects were then ranked using criteria described in the report. A "short list" has been prepared of those projects which met the criteria and were ready for further feasibility analysis and pilot projects. The Water Supply Initiative may provide useful information for the ADR process about projects which could add to the overall water supply in the basin. Options include looking at the whole basin, surface and groundwater supply, timing, and water quality in lieu of quantity. Projects are ranked by the level of information available. Raising the lake level did not make the list because very little information is available. The first group of projects includes ones that they can get funding for. A draft report is available and a final report should be available in the next couple of weeks. Karl also mentioned that BOR, WRD and the State of California is starting a ground water study in the basin.

There was some discussion of making a master list of possible projects from all of the different forums and tracking them. All agreed this would be useful and WRD will work on putting that together.

Alice Kilham talked more about the Klamath River Compact Commission Initiative and the Klamath Basin Working Group.

Paul Simmons talked about the Tribes and Klamath Project Irrigators. They have worked on a letter to the Secretary of the Interior in support of the water supply initiative. A group has been meeting for the past few months to identify projects that were attractive and feasible and that warrant additional study. The letter identified a list of things that need further study. They include: increasing storage in upper Klamath lake; improving or raising the dike and lake level; increasing storage or yield of Clear Lake; development of ground water upstream of Klamath Lake; management techniques to improve water quality and quantity in/above Klamath Lake; re-operation or modification of dams on the Klamath River to improve water quality and quantity.

Hydrology Sub-Committee Report:

Steve Sweet gave a brief presentation based on the 13 questions that were raised at last meeting. He handed out the questions and the responses of the committee. The handout includes the response to each of these questions.

Bob Main told the group that WRD is in the process of hiring of hydrologist for the ADR. Funding was provided by BOR. Hopefully, the new person will be on board by the next meeting.

The new hydrologist will not supply information to the adjudication, but has been hired solely to support the ADR process. A question was raised about the confidentiality of the information generated by the hydrologist. Raw data that is otherwise discoverable is public information, however, the analysis of the data for the ADR group is not admissible. The Operating Principles should help define how the ADR staff and Adjudication staff work together. One suggestion was to have a separate filing system for ADR material and stamp ADR hydrology information as an ADR document so there is no question how and where the data and information is being used.

A group may be set up to deal with procedural issues regarding the hydrologist's work tasks, line of authority, etc. WRD will draft something for discussion. It was decided that the administrative sub-committee and hydrology sub-committee will do this on behalf of the group.

Claimant Presentations:

Bureau of Reclamation: Steve Palmer - BOR

BOR filed two primary claims; a direct diversion claim (direct use) and one storage claim.

Direct Diversion Claim: (inputs into the project) points of diversion were shown on an overhead and listed for the project.

Total: 3505.45 cfs

Lands Irrigated: CA, OR and lands within refuges:

Total: 202,995.3 (50,647 USFWS refuges) acres

Inchoate Claim: 15,659 acres

Duty: 547,950 af based on maximum use, using 86-87 as a maximum year.

Priority Date: May 19, 1905 (When project filed notice of appropriation, congressional authorization)

Overheads were shown of the diversion points, storage and regulating reservoir locations, quantities, etc. Steve mentioned that many maps were submitted with their claims.

Storage Claim:

Primary Storage: Upper Klamath Lake, Gerber Reservoir, Clear Lake

Regulating Reservoirs: Anderson Rose, Tulelake, Wilson, Spring Lake, Keno, Harpold, Malone, Miller Creek, Miller Lake, Nuss Lake, Lower Klamath Lake.

These storage claims serve the same number of irrigated lands with the same priority date. There was very little information on the use of water prior to 1905. Six claims were filed with earlier priority dates. BOR purchased these rights prior to the construction of the project.

Horesefly and Langell Valley lands are excluded.

Klamath Project Claimants: Paul Simmons, Attorney, Tulelake ID

The project claimants' claim is very similar to the BOR's claim and in fact they coordinated to put claims together. The major difference is who is the actual claimant is and who is entitled to the certificate.

A list of the Project Claimants was handed out. This group has an agreement on how they will work together. The agreement defines relationships, retention of experts, confidentiality, etc. They paid $180,000 in filing fees. Total cost of preparing and filing claims was about $1 million.

Don Kienlen, an engineer hired to help prepare the claim, discussed the specific parts of the claim. It was filed in four parts: natural flow, storage, use of stored water, and Tulelake: storage and use of water. The claim is for irrigation and stock watering. It defined irrigation as including crop watering, landscaping, parks, cemeteries, schools, golf courses, frost protection, etc. There are several priority dates associated with the claim. They vary from 1868 to 1905. There is no separate flow attached to a priority date, but a total diversion for each of the rights.

Natural Flow:

3280 cfs (numerous points of diversion)

Storage:

735,000 af Upper Klamath Lake including Agency Lake

18,500 af Lake Ewauna

753,500 af - Storage claim is based on the total capacity of the reservoir, not active capacity like BOR claim. Storage claim is not tied to annual use

Use of Stored Water:

753,000 - maximum rate 3280 cfs.



Storage and Use of Water from Tulelake:

34,000 af (active capacity since total capacity unknown)

860 cfs maximum rate

Don showed a list of 28 points of diversions and 67 points of re-diversion from natural flow.

Regarding duty, the irrigators calculated this differently than BOR. They calculated an applied water duty of 5 af/acre from April to October. They also identified a duty of 2½ af/acre for frost protection, pre-irrigation and other uses outside of the growing season. This is not a use on all acres. Also, they did not identify an annual quantity of water such as BOR's maximum annual historical diversion, but provided an applied water duty.

There was a question that the claim seems to be larger based on duty and number of acres. The irrigators' applied water duty does not attempt to account for reuse. It is not the same as consumptive use or total diversion.

Dave Solem from Klamath Irrigation District talked about their mapping efforts. Their consultant digitized about 200 sections using aerial photographs and GPS survey. The was some discussion of the districts' mapping processes generally and the involvement of landowners.

Other Business:



Bob Anderson mentioned that he and Martha went to California to meet with the California Water Resources Board to explain the ADR and Adjudication process and solicit their support of the process. It was a good first step in coordinating with them in the adjudication and with the exchange of technical information.

Administrative Sub-Committee:

The sub-committee put together a proposal for claim presentations based on geographic areas. They are as follows:

August

September - Sprague River, Sycan Marsh

October - Wood, Williamson, Klamath River, Upper Klamath Lake

Allottees will present at the end. WRD will present a summary of the private claims in each geographic area, but private claimants are encouraged to make their own presentation if they would like. WRD will also include adjudicated rights for each geographic area.

Future Agenda Items:

WRD to follow up on compiled list of water supply projects

Develop new sub-committee to coordinate input on development of the project operating plan until we have a settlement agreement.

Don't forget to visit our web site at: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/programs/index.html