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:
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:
Next meeting data and time was selected.
End of meeting.