MEETING SUMMARY - KLAMATH BASIN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2000

Location: Klamath County Courthouse, Klamath Falls, OR

Mike Golden welcomed those present, and reviewed the day's meeting agenda.

Hydrology Subcommittee Report (HSC) - Jonathan La Marche's presentation, titled

"Klamath ADR Hydrology Report," covered three topics: 1) distribution modeling results;

2) overview of the long term historical gage record as it relates to instream claims; and 3) model accuracy. In addition, Jonathan stated that the model runs for the Upper Williamson have been completed and results will be written and distributed to the Williamson sub-basin negotiating group.

Distribution Model Results: Jonathan stated that four of the eight new modeling requests had been completed. The first part of his presentation explained results from the four new model runs which consisted of:

1) The Upper Klamath Basin (i.e. Klamath Basin in Oregon) is separated into two areas that, although hydrologically and hydraulically connected, did not interact on the basis of priority (run D5).

2) All instream claims above Klamath lake were turned off (run D4).

3) Deferring all claims below Klamath lake to claims above Klamath lake (run D8).

4) Using the adjudicator's preliminary findings for instream claims (run D6).

The first three runs were made to isolate effects of lake levels, instream claims, and irrigation claims below Klamath lake on claimants above Klamath lake. The last model run demonstrated effect of the instream claims as identified in the preliminary findings on irrigation in the basin.

An overview of the results was shown in terms of yearly demands and deliveries above and below Klamath Lake. Results from the first three runs demonstrated that instream claims were the major cause of irrigation shortages above the lake. In contrast, lake level claims were found to have no direct effect on irrigation above Klamath Lake. However, the lake level claims could have an affect on post-1905 users above the lake by creating shortages for irrigation claimants below Klamath Lake. These claimants could then call on water from junior users upstream.

For irrigation claimants below Klamath Lake, opposite effects were demonstrated. The lake levels claims greatly reduced irrigation below Klamath Lake. However, instream Tribal claims above Klamath Lake actually increased the amount of water available for downstream use.

Results using the Adjudicator's preliminary findings showed that during wet years, irrigation shortages were minimal. During average and dry years, shortages above Klamath Lake were roughly half of the historic demand. However, results varied greatly by sub-basin. Shortages in average and dry years below Klamath Lake were minimal. Shortages would be greater if downstream ESA requirements are to be met.

Historical Record and Instream Claims/Permits: Jonathan compared how monthly median flow at long term gage sites could be used to qualitatively examine the general effects of instream claims on historical water use. Historic monthly median flows represent the monthly flow that occurred in the river or stream at least 50% of the time. If the instream claim amounts are equal to the 50% flows, then some type of shortage would be expected half of the time (since historical flows would be below the claim amount half of the time). Jonathan presented several graphs showing median historical flows at several locations (where long term gage records existed) versus the tribal claims (as initially filed and as described in the adjudicators preliminary findings) and instream permits. Copies of the graphs were made available to ADR participants.

Model Checks: Jonathan presented data that was used to check some of the model results. On an annual or monthly average basis, the model results looked promising when compared to available diversion and evapotranspiration data. However, due to the scarcity of data and time constraints, a more rigorous check of the model results was not possible. Jonathan noted that for determining

the interactions of large groups of claimants, the model accuracy was probably sufficient. However, to determine interactions at a finer temporal or spatial resolution, model refinement may be necessary if it is possible. The Hydrology Steering Committee will continue to evaluate which questions can and cannot be answered, given the model limitations and hydrologic

complexity of the basin.

Discussion of Contest Filing by Non-claimant Water Right Holders

Upon advice from the Oregon Attorney General, on February 11, 2000 the Adjudicator sent a notice to individual water right holders within irrigation districts, informing them of the upcoming contest period and their right to file a contest. Originally, only the irrigation district board/manager had received notice. The recent mailing has resulted in additional request for contest filing information. Reed Marbut announced that he will be available at the Watermaster Office in Klamath Falls on Wednesday, March 16 to answer questions about the contest period and contest filing. Interested parties were asked to contact him to set appointments.

Adjudication Update

The legally mandated period filing contest will open April 3 and close May 8, 2000. At close of the contest period, contests will be evaluated and grouped according to common claims and/or issues as is practical. As detailed in the Phase II ADR Operating Principles, an ADR procedure will be developed for contest resolution within the groups. The ADR focus will be on contest settlement. It is expected that there will be many claimants contesting their own preliminary evaluation. The Adjudicator has indicated that he will seek to settled as many of these contests as is legally possible. Unresolved contests will go to hearing before a hearing officer from the State's central hearing panel. Preliminary orders from the hearing will be sent to the Adjudicator for incorporation into the findings and order of determination.

After findings of the Adjudicator are transmitted to the Klamath County Circuit Court, the Klamath Basin Watermaster will begin to regulate water supply based on the priority dates set out in the findings and existing water right permits and certificates.

General discussion included: (1) contest hearings may begin as early as this fall for simple contest cases (those with simple fact questions or narrow legal issues); (2) the Department is beginning work on a draft overall basin settlement plan; (3) if no contest(s) is/are filed against a claim and the preliminary evaluation did not question any part of the claim, it would go directly to findings; and (4) individuals who which to challenge the Adjudicator's preliminary evaluations ­ which proposed to reject claims in previously adjudicated areas ­ must file contests on those preliminary evaluations.

Contest Questions: Copies of responses to adjudication questions were distributed, dated March 13, 2000. In future, all questions and responses will be posted on the Water Resources Department web site. Public computer access in Klamath Falls is available at the Watermaster Office and in the Klamath Public Library.

To locate the Contest Questions and Answers, access the Department's web site at:

www.wrd.state.or.us

Click on Programs, then find the blue bar labeled "Alternative Dispute Resolution." You will see a subheading titled "Contest Questions."

The following new questions were asked at the meeting:

  1. If a preliminary evaluation accepts a claim as filed and there are contests, does the claim go to the findings unchanged, or can the Adjudicator himself reconsider his preliminary evaluation before development of the findings?


  2. If so, should everyone file a contest to verify the preliminary evaluation and have standing to challenge any change?


  3. Is there a cutoff time for adding information to a file?

  1. In case of an obvious "typo" by the adjudication staff on acreage, does a contest need to be filed?


  2. Will the new WRD director assume control of the adjudication?


  3. Can a claimant safeguard their claim by contesting any adversarial claim (that is, should a claimant contest a claim that, if decreed, would deprive the claimant of water in times of shortage)?


  4. If a claimant has new information that will be helpful in settling a claim and wants it to be considered in the settlement, should the claimant provide copies of such information to the file to support the position?

  1. Does WRD intend to develop lists of contests by stream basin for convenience of the claimants?


  2. Can such lists be developed?
  3. With data base problems, how can the contest period be opened in one month?

  1. Is there a minimum time period between the date notices are sent out and the end of the contest period?


10. Is there a due process minimum notice for the contest period?

Upper Klamath Basin Ground Water Study - Marshall Gannett, Hydrologist and Project Chief with the U.S. Geological Survey, explained that a cooperative study of the Klamath Basin is underway with the Water Resources Department. Results of the study are intended to provide sound quantitative understanding of the regional groundwater resource of the upper Klamath Basin, including the relationship between groundwater and surface water. The study will provide a basis for properly considering groundwater in understanding and solving groundwater issues.

Marshall presented a report titled "Investigation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Klamath Basin". The report described driving issues, overall objectives, and what will be included in the four part investigation. Phase 1 of the project is nearing completion, and consists of data compilation and evaluation, preliminary data collection, well inventory and detailed planning for the second project phase.

Phase 2 of the study will focus on measuring the quantity of ground-water moving through the Klamath Basin system, and path of ground-water movement. Watershed modeling will provide recharge and discharge information. Examples of the Deschutes Basin study were shown. Flow system analysis includes study of the dynamic behavior of well levels and their relationship to stream flow.

Phase 3 of the study will address numerical model development and simulation of management scenarios. It is intended to provide a sound quantitative understanding of the regional groundwater resource of the upper Klamath Basin including the relation between groundwater and surface water. This information will provide a basis for properly considering groundwater in understanding and solving groundwater issues. Data collection will occur in the next few months, and will include contacts with landowners. Due to financial constraints, there are no plans to drill additional test wells in the Klamath Basin.

Additional information about the ground water study is available through the Water Resources Department web site www.wrd.state.or.us by selecting Groundwater.

Proposal to Create a Draft Water Rights Settlement Plan

Mike Golden reviewed a concept proposal that received consensus at the March 14 ADR meeting that is intended to move the settlement process forward. The proposal involves development of a draft basin-wide settlement plan. The concept is being developed by Martha Pagel, Bob Main, Reed Marbut and Mike Golden for review by the Administrative Subcommittee.

The Administrative Subcommittee has met to discuss plan alternatives. Issues under consideration are tasks, time lines, oversight, budget, objectivity and trust. The Subcommittee favors the selection of an outside consultant, but also sees the advantage of using Water Resources Department assistance during the startup phase of the project. Hydrology modeling from Jonathan LaMarche has been identified as a resource.

The Administrative Subcommittee welcomes feedback on the settlement plan concept from all ADR participants. Comments and discussion included: support for WRD work on the concept; problem with the short time frame for fund raising; question of ADR leadership coordinating an alternative process; suggestion that Udall Center for Environmental Conflict Resolution may be a source of expertise (probably not funding); suggestion that WRD continue to develop the concept and provide early direction; concern that consultant cost estimates of $75,000 may be too low; concern about interface with federal entities; and value of a proposed settlement in prompting input and responses from water rights holders.

After calling for objections and hearing none, Mike Golden stated that he will coordinate additional development of the draft settlement plan concept by responding to questions raised by the Administrative Subcommittee and full group and providing additional details. This information will be presented to the Administrative Subcommittee for review.

Updates

Williamson Group

The group is involved in negotiations, but had nothing to report.

SB1010

Jim Carpenter reported on progress being made on draft plans. A draft plan presentation was recently discussed by the Lost River group. The Headwaters group draft plan is nearing completion.

TMDL/303(d) list

A meeting of the TMDL Citizens Advisory Committee is planned for April 5 at Oregon Technical Institute, to be held from 1-3:00 p.m. in the Mt. Shasta Room. The meeting will address the process and provide a forum for questions.

Klamath Project and Near Term Legislation - BOR

Consultations are still underway with National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Forest Service. It appears that this will be a better than average year for water, with good snow pack but less than normal precipitation.

Lost River Adjudication

Barbara Scott-Brier reported that issues have been briefed and the judge is preparing a decision.

Dividing-The-Waters ADR Workshop

Reed Marbut gave information about the workshop that is intended to provide dispute resolution training to participants in the ADR process. The workshop is scheduled for June 20-21 in Klamath Falls. Trainers will be Steve Snyder and Lucy Moore. Steve Snyder was present at the ADR meeting and stated that the training approach will be relevant to ADR participants rather than just general in nature. The program will provide ideas for problem-solving, useful processes, and insight into negotiation. A round-table discussion will be designed so that participants facing similar issues can work together on negotiation concepts. Although the workshop will be funded, there will probably be a materials cost to participants of $10-20. Approximately 50 applicants can be accommodated. All interested parties should contact Reed Marbut at (503)378-8455 x292.

Klamath Watershed Coordination Group and Hatfield Group

Klamath Compact Commission - plans to meet Monday, May 8 and the morning of Tuesday, May 9 (prior to the ADR afternoon session.)

Klamath Watershed Coordination Group - now has a web site to provide a point of contact for watershed-wide information. Still under development, the web site is klamathgroup.org

Hatfield Group - is developing a one page document to describe issues and solutions. Intended to synsthesize the varying perspectives into solutions, the document will be used for purposes such as raising awareness at the upcoming WaterFest and to assist in gaining funding for Hatfield Group activities.

Other Business

- The next ADR Meeting will be held Tuesday, April 11 from 1:00-5:00 p.m. at the Klamath County Courthouse, Room 20 in Klamath Falls.

- The Williamson Landowners will meet Tuesday, April 11 from 9-11:00 a.m. at the Klamath County Courthouse in Room 20, Annex #1.

- The ADR Administrative Subcommitee will meet Tuesday, April 11 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Klamath County Courthouse in Room 20, Annex #2.