MEETING SUMMARY - KLAMATH BASIN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Welcome

Mike Golden welcomed everyone. The September 12, 2000, meeting summary was approved.

Hydrology Subcommittee Report

Jonathan LaMarche reported that a synoptic measurement study on the Sprague was completed in early November. The results were similar to an earlier study by the USGS in 1970.

In summary, he said two general groundwater discharge areas were found in the Sprague. One area extends just below to several miles upstream of Beatty Gap. The other area was around McReady and White Horse Springs east of Chiloquin. This means that consumptive use could be measured in any area outside of the two groundwater discharge areas by setting up temporary gages to measure surface inflows and outflows from a region. In general, the difference between the inflows and outflows would be the consumptive use, since there would be no groundwater influence. That information would be useful for validating the distribution model results and for clarifying peoples perception about how much water is or is not being used in the basin. Due to the amount of effort needed to set up consumptive use measurements over the course of an irrigation season, Jonathan asked the ADR group if this information would be beneficial to negotiations and if they wanted him to proceed with setting up the study. He also stated an immediate response was not needed, but some direction is needed by March at the latest whether to proceed with the study.

There was one difference between the Department's study and the USGS study in 1970. They USGS identified the areas between Trout Creek and Lone Pine as groundwater discharge areas. The OWRD study did not find any groundwater discharge in this area. The USGS did their measurements in mid-October, the Department did their measurement during the first of November. The difference could be related to return flows occurring in mid-October that were not present in November. Jonathan said that he is going to do one more set of measurements just to verify what has been found.

Jonathan said that he is going to do a distribution model run with the lake having some additional storage capacity and look at the ESA impacts as far as deliveries into the project areas. This was at the request of Earl Miller.

Jim Carpenter asked if the data was compared to the FLIR data.

Jonathan said that he had not done that as if yet, but was going to.

Report of Administrative Subcommittee - Dividing the Waters Negotiation Session

Reed Marbut gave an update on the Administrative Subcommittee (ASC) discussion.

The Dividing the Waters group received their funding approval from their grant source. They can fund a workshop/negotiating session for the ADR. It appears that funds are also available to prepare for the session.

The ASC formed a sub-subcommittee. The sub-subcommittee prepared a memorandum for the ASC describing the scope and schedule for the spring negotiating session. After substantial discussion, it was decided that the sub-subcommittee would ask select parties to circulate draft agreements in principle (AIP) by February 1, 2001, to the ASC. These AIPs would be discussed at the February ADR meeting discussion. The spring negotiating session is scheduled for the week of April 16 through April 20 or the week of April 23 through April 27. In general the spring negotiating session would consist of a core group of negotiating parties that would meet for several hours and check back with their individual caucuses at the end of each day's session.

Reed said that he hopes to come back to the February or March meeting with specific procedural recommendations. The Dividing the Waters facilitators have been asked to attend a pre-meeting, likely at the February monthly ADR meeting.

Reed said that the sub-subcommittee is going to try to have a draft basin-wide (global) agreement in principal (AIP) available by February 1, 2001. Representatives of the irrigation community will discuss with the Project irrigators whether the irrigators could prepare a draft basin-wide AIP based upon the structure of the two existing AIP (the Tribes/Williamson, and the Tribes/ Project draft AIP).

Federal participants are asked to discuss internally among themselves, how they must be represented at the table. The goal is to have the actual negotiators be a relatively small number of people reporting back to a constituency groups or caucus.

The Administrative Subcommittee will be meeting again in January.

Reed announced that the December ADR meeting was canceled.

Reed said that the memorandum that was circulated was very aggressive in scoping the discussions around getting settlements.

The purpose of the Negotiating Session will be:

a. Secure agreements in principal on the terms of settlements.

b. Flesh out details of the agreements in principal as much as possible.

c. Establish specific process and time lines for completing negotiations.

In other words, when the negotiating session is completed at the end of April, everyone should know where the ADR is heading or, in the alternative, the ADR is stalled.

Reed said that the ASC members are very optimistic. There are parties that are dedicated to getting settlements completed. That commitment is what's needed to get results. There will be more information after that January meeting.

Mike Golden said that anyone can bring forward principals for inclusion. The Dividing the Waters people will help determine how to structure the session.

Contest Hearing Report

Reed Marbut said that there is not a lot of change in the status of contest processing and hearing schedule since the last ADR meeting. A small batch of contests have been referred to the State Hearing Officer Panel (HOP). The Adjudicator and the HOP administrator have been discussing what information needs to be transmitted to the HOP and how the file information should be made available to the individual hearing officers. The Adjudicator re-emphasized that where there is a potential for settling issues with claimants that have contested their own preliminary evaluation, he wants to move these contests to settlement where possible.

The Adjudicator is working aggressively to settle where possible and where necessary move contests to hearing.

Reed noted that, where possible, information will be put on the Department's web site.

Legislative/Legal Subcommittee Report

Barbara Scott-Brier reported that the L/L Subcommittee had a productive meeting. Reed brought forward some answers to questions that the Subcommittee had asked. The Subcommittee wanted to understand the HB 2525 processes and how the 2525 process compared to the adjudication process under ORS 539. The L/L Subcommittee was especially interested to see if the two processes are compatible, if there is conflict, and if there are issues that need to be resolved. It was helpful to have the Attorney General's office help with those questions. Barbara said they have come up with a few more questions for the State. However, most of the questions have been answered.

Reed said that he would make a list of questions and bring answers to the next meeting where possible.

Barbara said that they are getting close to having all the questions answered.

Barbara said that the L/L Subcommittee feels there is a concern that we may be near intensive negotiations, and that the federal parties feel that it is important to protect confidentiality in all discussions. She said that the USDOJ has put together a draft proposal for mediation confidentiality for the Subcommittee to review.

Earl Miller asked how do you get broad base support in the agricultural community or the community at large if it's tied up in confidentiality. Barbara said you can discuss it within your own group as long as everyone agrees to be bound by a confidentiality agreement. The concern is that details of the discussions might be used outside a particular negotiating group.

Ed Bartell asked if we are going to sell an agreement in the community, how are we going to sell it to a number of individuals who may or may not be participating in the process in general, or a negotiating group in particular.

Barbara said that the draft proposal has been handed out for review and will be discussed again at the January meeting.

Mike Golden said that it is important to note that the subject of confidentiality was discussed earlier and we need to get it back on the table. It may have a bearing on how in depth the federal representatives can participate. He reminded everyone that it will be brought up again for discussion at the January Legal/Legislative Subcommittee meeting.

Updates

Upper Basin/Tribal Negotiation

Bud Ullman said that they are trying to move forward with the agreement in principal between the Tribes and Williamson area irrigators and to try to expand the circle of this AIP to include in particular, the Resource Conservancy (Sprague and Wood River irrigators).

SB1010 - Klamath Soil & Water Conservation Service

Jim Carpenter said that the local advisory committee is at the point where after one more meeting they will have a draft ready plan for public review.

Reed Marbut asked what is the geographical scope of the group.

Jim Carpenter said it consists of the Upper Basin minus Lost River.

Upper Basin Working Group

Marshall Staunton said that they had a big turn-out for the watershed restoration program.

Steve Lewis said that the Upper Basin Working Group's request for proposals for a facilitator has had an overwhelming response. He said the group will be meeting again on December 11.

Reed Marbut introduced Jeff Mitchell. He participated in prior ADR meetings as chairman of the Klamath Tribal Council in the past. He now has a position with the Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish and Water Commission. The Commission is comprised of the four tribes (Klamath, Yurok, Hoopa Valley and Karuk). His role with the Commission is as the upper basin liaison. He looks forward to this and will be in contact with many of the individuals at the meeting.

Jim Carpenter asked what the Commission's mission statement is.

Jeff Mitchell said that the mission statement is really dealing with water and fisheries issues and the Klamath main-stem and tributaries. The tribes are interested in protecting the tribal resources, that include the fisheries from the headwaters down to the mouth. All the issues that you see in the Upper Basin are of interest and concern to the various tribes. The mission is to be a central clearinghouse for the tribes and be able to pass information on back to the various tribal councils.

Other Business

Paul Cleary said that he felt one of the main message at Senator Smith's, community forum was that it is time to get moving. He said that Senator Smith wants to form a "sooner rather than later solutions" committee. The forum was held November 4, 2000, in Klamath Falls. Congressmen Walden and Herger participated in the forum.

Paul said he is interested to see steps taken to avoid a meltdown of the ADR process and a repeat of last year's late season conflicts. The congressional delegation is interested in the same thing, but will be working on the longer term solutions as well.

He thought that the congressional forum went well. Paul reported that he heard a uniform message that people are committed to solving problems, want to have an inclusive processes, want to see openly discussed solutions ­ because they recognize secret deals don't last ­ and lastly, federal resources will be necessary for implementation. It is going to require commitment of money and energy from the federal government to bring lasting solutions to the Basin.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.