Klamath Basin Alternative Dispute Resolution

Meeting Summary - September 9, 1998


CORRECTIONS TO AUGUST SUMMARY

It was suggested that the name of the claims presenters be included in the summary. The presenter for the refuge claims was Barbara Scott-Brier and for National Parks was Michelle Gilbert.

INSTREAM WATER RIGHTS / DATABASE UPDATE

Reed Marbut discussed instream water rights, including a brief history, types and agencies eligible to apply. He pointed out that instream rights are junior to those involved in the ADR process. A summary of all certificated instream rights was handed out.

Reed presented a status report on the claims database. Private claimants' quantities are now entered. Entry of federal claims and places of use are still in progress. Overheads showed what the finished product will look like. Although there are some "bugs" still being worked out, the database should be completed by the end of the month, with all available entries included. The database will show only what has actually been claimed. As previously noted, Reed will present a monthly update on the database.

Mike Golden will provide a detailed progress report on the ADR process under separate cover. There was brief discussion as to whether reports from subgroup meetings could/should be available. Martha indicated this would be possible if necessary. Bud Ullman commented that the Tribes would be happy to report. Bill Kennedy suggested that time lines be given at each meeting. In the same vein, Mike emphasized the need to keep focused and the importance of including goals in each update.

REVIEW OF OPERATING PRINCIPLES / FORMATION OF NEGOTIATING GROUPS

There are two types of agreements: Those that areagreed to by all parties to the ADR, and non-ADR agreements. Only agreements negotiated within the ADR process and agreed to by all parties, and found to be legally acceptable to Martha Pagel, are assured to be sent to the court without change for inclusion in the adjudication; non-ADR agreements may or may not be included by the adjudicator and the Court. The question was asked how to handle corrections to claims in response to a Department letter sent to individual claimants requesting more information or corrections. Martha explained that in order to process claims, all legally required information must be in the file. She advised any claimant who receives such a letter to respond and supply required information to ensure inclusion the ADR and adjudication processes. Questions were raised about the Department's approval requirements for claims. Martha responded that upon internal legal review, claims must demonstrate they are in fact valid and that they comply with Oregon water law. Martha emphasized that there is a single set of state law governing claims. It was asked if Martha's legal review will be subject to public comment, to which she replied "yes."



Operating principles are flexible insofar as the formation of negotiating groups is concerned. Groups are encouraged but not required to report at monthly meetings. Their discussions may be conducted under the confidentiality and admissibility requirements.

HYDROLOGIST POSITION

Discussion centered on the methodology to be used and whether the information generated can be made available to the adjudication process. Discussion ensued regarding the neutrality of the process and the potential conflict of interest because the position is being funded by a claimant, i.e. BOR. Martha stated the WRD position: The ADR hydrologist is an employee of the WRD, and is answerable to WRD and the ADR participants. To serve the ADR, it is necessary for the ADR hydrologist and the WRD chief hydrologist (Rick Cooper) to work out the fundamental hydrologic characteristics of the Klamath basin. It is important that the hydrologic charcteristics used by the ADR and the adjudication not be in conflict. For that reason WRD seeks the permission of the participants to make these fundamental characteristics available to the adjudication process. The work done in determining the fundamental characteristics will be available to all participants for peer and public review. Because there was no agreement on this topic, it will be revisited at the next ADR meeting.

WATER QUALITY COORDINATION UPDATE

Steve Kirk of DEQ reported on water quality issues for both DEQ and DOA (SB1010). DEQ conducted water quality discussions with local advisosry groups and reported to EPA. The EPA has responded that DEQ must address water quality upstream of Klamath Lake. DEQ is taking steps to do so.

CLAIM PRESENTATIONS

USFS: (Presented by Holly McLean)

Location of lands on which claims have been filed are primarily upstream from private rights in the Klamath Basin. These lands were transferred to the Forest Service pursuant to various acts, and claims will be made pursuant to various statutes containing purposes of the forest reserves, or management direction. Generally the priority date for a particular claim will be the date when the particular parcel was transferred to the National Forest System, or was otherwise set aside by Congress for a specific purpose, (i.e. Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers). The two types of claims filed are non-consumptive, i.e. channel maintenance, fisheries, etc., and consumptive, i.e. administrative uses, livestock grazing, etc. Non-consumptive claims have been filed on approximately 30 stream segments. The amount of water claimed for non-consumptive favorable conditions of flow starts at a trigger flow. The trigger flow is the amount of water necessary to start moving a majority of the bed sediment in the stream reach. Non-consumptive fisheries claims were quantified using IFIM modeling. Non-consumptive recreation claims were determined by polling the public as to amount needed to provide a positive floating, boating or other recreational experience (such as scenic). Consumptive uses, including consumptive fire claims, were outlined with the range of claims made for each claim, with the amount claimed based on actual use.



Klamath Tribes: (Presented by David Harder)

David Harder reported that the Tribes claim quantifies rights recognized in the Adair case, which recognized water for both non-consumptive and consumptive uses. Non-consumptive uses in the Sycan and Sprague River systems encompass instream flows and claims on seeps and springs. This type of claims looks to protect physical and riparian habitat and is based on the amount of water that is necessary to maintain these in beneficial condition. Structural habitat and channel maintenance refers to keeping a channel open and the amount of water required to do this. The cap flow for this type of claim is based on the twenty-five year flood. Claims will not be "stacked" one on top of the other; as each claim requiring a lower cfs is satisfied, it would drop away. The priority date for non-consumptive claims is "time immemorial". Consumptive claims will have a priority date of October 10, 1864.

David Harder clarified that the BIA and the Klamath Tribes have separate claims, but they each claim the same amounts of water for the same purposes. When the amount of the tribes' water rights are determined, those rights will be held in trust by the BIA for the benefit of the Tribes.

Concern was expressed by private claimants that in some months, the Tribe is claiming over 2,000 cfs, which constitutes the entire flow. Walter Echo Hawk reminded the group that this claim is a starting point for future negotiations. He also made reference to possible trade-offs based on water quality concerns. David stressed commonality among claimants and the need for trust in these settlement proceedings. The public was urged to attend a meeting in Chiloquin this evening at which time the Tribe would present a settlement proposal.

Nature Conservancy: (Presented by Cathy MacDonald)

The Nature Conservancy described the history and mechanics of the irrigation system on the Sycan Marsh, which provides grazing for livestock, supports wildlife and wetlands, and regulates flows.

The Marsh is essentially divided into eastern and western sections. The priority date for the east portion is 1879; the west side (former tribal lands) receives a priority date of October 14, 1864 in the claim. Conservancy staff developed their claim based on historic operations and water budget modeling which evaluated water use under average, wet, and dry conditions. The claim covers 18,234.6 acres and approximately 72,000 acre feet (3.99 af/a), with maximum diversion rates equal to the "30 minute" maximum flow.

Private Claims: (Presented by Reed Marbut)

Reed distributed four sets of handouts summarizing data available to date on private claims. He will work on refining the database for generation of future reports.

The Department has completed a mass mailing to claimants and interested parties and will compile a master mailing list based on mailed-in response slips. He explained the difference between certificated and adjudicated rights and the fact that people will have to eventually choose between the two.

Allottees: (Presented by Paul Hamai)

As with the Tribeal claim, the allottee claims are based on the Adair case. Overheads detailing the claims were shown listing total acreages for claims and total water to be claimed. The claims will be undergoing changes as the process moves forward due to land sales which may result in the withdrawal of claims. At present, the claims cover 7,386 acres and other consumptive uses.





OTHER BUSINESS

Barbara Scott-Brier announced that there will be a meeting in Fort Klamath on October 14, 1998 with the Naitonal Park Service negotiating group to begin negotiations on the Park Service claim.

OCTOBER AGENDA ITEMS

1. Subgroup report.

2. Hydrologist position discussion. Review hand out. Martha and Reed will be available by phone prior to next meeting to answer questions. Martha will make address next month.

3. Martha to initiate conference call on role of ADR process in preparing Klamath Operating Plan for 1999. Subcommittee members include Messrs. Simmons, Fairclo, Ullman, Anderson and Wirkus. Report at next meeting.

4. DEQ/ODA report.

5. Reed: monthly database update.

4. Subgroup report from Chiloquin meeting on September 9, 1998.

5. Claimant presentations: Williamson River, Wood River, Klamath Lake, Klamath River below lake by Tribe, USFS, FS, BLM, private.

6. Tribal subgroup meeting at noon hour.