MEETING SUMMARY - KLAMATH BASIN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

July 11, 2000

Welcome

Mike welcomed the participants. The June 13, 2000, meeting summary was reviewed and approved with one minor modification. On Page 6 of the June summary, Ed Bartell noted that his comment should read, "... people would have problems with the package." Therefore, Ed's comments about the Settlement Framework and its water budget concepts at the June 13, 2000, meeting should read: "Ed feels people would have problems with the package."

Reed introduced Paul Cleary, the new Water Resources Director. Paul spoke briefly to the group about his new role as Director and his support for the ADR process.

Hydrology Subcommittee Report

Bob Main reminded everyone that Jonathan LaMarche's funding runs out at the end of September.

Jonathan said that for the next couple of months he'd be working on a document that summarizes his work in the Klamath. In addition, he will be taking stream measurements at different locations on the Sycan, Upper Williamson, and Sprague.

He is currently finishing work on a model run for the Upper Williamson Working Group.

Bob Main asked if there were any model runs that anyone would like to have done. Is so, let Jonathan and/or Bob know.

Bob said that a design for a gaging network needs to be done even if it can't be implemented.

Steve Kirk (FLIR), DEQ, gave a Power Point presentation on FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared Radiometry). Pictures were taken that depict water temperatures. This information is available on CD (11 total).

The information that was presented consisted of the following:

  1. Comparison of instream temperatures to radiant temperature for the Sprague River Subbasin.
  2. Time and duration of the FLIR Survey on the Williamson R in relation to daily maxim for data logger locations.
  1. Median Stream temps versus river mile for the Sprague River.
  2. Pseudo-color thermal image of the Sycan River.
  3. Spring on the LB of the Sprague River at River Mile 16.2.
  4. Confluence of the Sprague River and Kankaun Spring at River Mile 23.6.
  5. Confluence of the NF Sprague and SF Sprague.
  6. Small surface inflows like this one at the River Mile 2.6 are common on the lower NF.
  7. Spring inflow is visible on the LB of the NF Sprague River at River Mile 12.3.
  8. Confluence of Sprague River and Williamson River.
  9. Confluence of Spring Creek and Williamson River.
  10. Confluence of Williamson River and Irving Creek.
  11. Williamson River at Wickiup Spring.
  12. Williamson River at spring inflow from the left bank.
  13. Canal Return on the SF Sprague River at River Mile 3.9.
  14. Sycan River surface inflow is detectable at River Mile 4.5 of the Sycan River.
  15. Sycan River, spring input at Rive Mile 25.2.
  16. Sycan River, spring at River Mile 25.4.
  17. Torrrent Spring.
  18. Detection of Paradise Creek.


For more information on TMDL and Water Quality Management Plan documents prepared for waterbodies designated as water quality limited on the 303(d) list, the web site is:

http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/TMDLs/TMDLs.htm.

Steve also has a Consultant's report if you are interested.

Contest Filing Report

Reed Marbut, discussed the contest filing report figures. (A copy of the contest filing summary is attached.) There were a total of 5654 contents filed. The Contest database is in the waiting list to be added to the Department's web site as soon as possible.

Reed brought a sample of the database on a laptop computer and showed the group what it looks like and how it works. The Database will show you the Contest Number, data received, claim contested along with other pertinent information. He encourages everyone to visit the web site and use the database and come back to the next meeting with comments.

If any claimant, contestant or participant needs information on specific contests, they will need to contact the Salem Office. Either Cory Engel or Gerry Clark can help with inquiries.

Several participants asked if dates for contest hearings had been set. No schedules for contest have been developed to date. The Adjudicator does not envision developing a case management schedule for several months. And, he has indicated that he would like to see negotiated settlements of contests wherever possible. He intends to contact individuals who have contested their own Preliminary Evaluation to see if settlement is possible without scheduling a hearing.



The contest database will have a field or fields for case management as needed. We hope to keep the database in as simple a format as possible to be sure it is available for general use.

Discussion of Questions and Answers and Adjudication Update

Copies of the Contest Questions were made available at the meeting. At last count there are 72 questions. Question # 42 has not been answered.

Question #42 is as follows:

Is the Circuit Court proceeding a trial de novo?

Meg Reeves said that the Department will attempt to answer Question #42 before the next meeting.

Shirley Kerns asked is a new adjudicator will be appointed since the Water Resources Department has a new director? Reed said that the former Director (Martha Pagel) had delegated the adjudication to Dick Bailey, and it is at the new Director's (Paul Cleary) discretion to either leave the delegation in place or reassign the duties of the Adjudicator. Paul indicated that he has no plans to change the delegation.

Dividing-The-Waters ADR Workshop Follow-Up Report

Reed Marbut gave a follow-up report on the Dividing-The-Waters Workshop that was held in Klamath Falls on June 27 and 28, 2000. The Workshop was well attended by ADR participants.

The people who put on the Dividing-The-Waters workshop are interested in working with the Klamath ADR participants in some sort of follow-up. It has been suggested that a two-day follow-up workshop with focus on specific Klamath issues would be helpful. The same facilitators that put on the June Workshop in June would be asked to assist with the follow-up workshop. Several participants suggested that a follow-up workshop not be scheduled until after harvest season in the fall.

The Dividing-The-Waters representatives are interested in helping with funding a follow-up workshop. Reed will continue to work with Dividing-The-Waters people on follow-up issues. He will work with the local community on the structure and timing of the workshop.

Settlement Framework Follow-Up (Participant Comments)

Mike Golden - Asked if anyone had comments or corrections to the draft Settlement Framework.

Paul Simmons said that project water users feel that a sub-group (subcommittee or negotiating group) to work on the framework would be appropriate. He indicated that his clients feel that process issues are more important right now than substance. He said that everyone involved needs to agree to what is being discussed. The project users would like to be involved. The make-up of the subcommittee or negotiating group is critical.

The substance of the framework needs to be the subject of negotiation as well.

Ed Bartell said that he feels it is premature to go forward with a framework at this time.

Barbara Scott-Brier said that the ASC visioned the Settlement Framework as a general concept, only a starting point.

Paul said that there were items that were brought up orally that are not in the framework and would like more input. Barbara asked Paul to put together a list of what was left out.

Mike Golden asked that people submit written comments on the framework by the next meeting.

Wally Watkins suggested creating another subcommittee that communicates back to the ASC.

Rick Glick suggested that small groups of people consisting of individuals who can make decisions be established to send representatives to a framework subcommittee.

Kip Lombard said it would help those who were not at the ASC meetings to know what was talked about. For example, where issues not discussed because there was no agreement.

Reed Benson asked if there was a more central negotiation that is basin wide.

Mike Golden said that the ASC is open to the public. If someone is interested in coming to these meetings, they are welcome.

The following is a list of framework items discussed at the ASC meeting:

1. Develop a process

2. Need to be function of negotiation group

3. Who has sign off on it

4. How do feds fit in

5. UBWG working on same concepts and have same interests

6. Concerns with some individuals concepts

7. Those are concepts - starting point

8. List of what couldn't be agreed to

9. Settlement forums outside ADR

10. Send new concepts to ASC by next meeting

11. New subcommittee

12. Use Dividing-The-Waters tohelp

13. When do lower river tribes need to be involved

14. Do we want to solve Adjudication only or other issues also

15. All at table or scoping

16. Smaller groups from reps from each interest

- address topic

- bring recommendations to full group

- by subject matter or subbasin

17. Needs to be a document that stimulates discussion or settlement

- not a basis for argument

- proceed or drop depending on group

18. One big settlement is not a necessity

- settling claims is important

19. Have a laundry list of concepts that negotiating groups can use but not be bound to

20. Do we want to have a bigger basin-wide settlement

Water Augmentation Legislation (Federal)

Paul Simmons said that Senator Smith is planning to introduce legislation to make more water in the basin. A few years ago, the Compact Commission and the Bureau put together a list of 80+ possible enhancement projects and increase water supplies. Two years ago, the Klamath tribes and project water users, jointly wrote to the Secretary of Interior identifying projects which appear to have the most promise. A year later, the tribes and irrigators shared the progress they had been making with Interior officials. The consensus was that it is better to have more water to work with.

The legislation would authorize specific investigations throughout the basin in regards to water quality and quantity augmentation. Legislation would authorize a feasibility study regarding these issues and implementation of projects after studies in compliance with applicable law.

This legislation would also mean some increased visibility from the basin and maybe a foot in the door to make things happen. Hearings could be as early as the end of July.

Updates

Williamson Group

Kip Lombard, summarized that morning's meeting. The Tribe submitted new list of concepts for settlement. There was a consensus to discuss the concepts. There was general optimism that the tribes made a significant move. The Williamson Group will meet again in a couple of weeks. The Discussion hopes to become more focused.

Klamath Project update/near term legislation

Jim Bryant said that cool weather has helped to meet that July 13 elevation on the lake. Things are rolling along.



Fish and Wildlife Service

Barbara Scott-Brier said that the Fish and Wildlife Service finished Phase I Study and things look promising. Wells have good production. They are in the process of going into the next phase on where to put test wells in basin.

Fish Kills

Troy Fletcher, Yurok Tribe, gave an update on fish kills. There have been articles written on this issue. There are 1000's of fish, mostly Chinook Salmon and hatchery salmon, observed to be dead. The fish kills are attributed to the river being to high. The river is being more actively monitored this year. The Yurok Tribe has discussed that they will look at what data is out there and focus more on this issue during the next water year.

Other Business

The ASC will meet immediately following this meeting.