May 9, 2000
Welcome
Mike welcomed everyone present. The April 11, 2000, meeting summary was reviewed. There
were no comments and the meeting summary was approved.
Hydrology Subcommittee Report
Jonathan LaMarche gave a report on the Hydrology Subcommittee. He presented a handout
which explained the frequency analysis of gauged flows and the consumptive use summary of
streams above Klamath Lake.
Flow statistics from discharge frequency analysis are often used in water supply planning to
determine withdrawals, instream flow needs, and reservoir operations. In general terms, flow
statistics describe the probability that a certain discharge will occur given historic land use
practices over the gauge record. In order words, these flow statistics (derived from gauge data)
represent that status quo with regards to historic irrigation practices and the corresponding
streamflow.
In the context of the Klamath Alternative Dispute Resolution process, these statistics can be
compared to instream claims to identify the probability of any irrigation shortages associated
with the instream claims at the long-term gage sites. For example, at a specific site, one out of
every 10 years, the median flow for August is 50 cubic feet per second (cfs). If the instream
claim at this location were 51 cfs, then one out every 10 years an irrigation shortage of 1 cfs in
August is expected.
How this shortage would affect irrigation depends on the amount of irrigated acreage above the
site compared to the shortage amount. If there were 10,000 acres above the site, then the effect
of a 1 cfs decrease would be minimal. However, if there were only 100 acres above the site, then
a 1 cfs decrease would have a more dramatic effect on irrigation. In other words, the amount of
the shortage should be compared to the affected acreage. To assist in this comparison, a
summary of the estimated consumptive use, zero demand flows and irrigated acreage above each
gage is summarized in the handout. It should be noted that the distribution model automatically
quantifies any shortages associated with instream claims. However, the comparison provides
another method of evaluating potential shortages or water augmentation requirements.
Bob Main said that staff will add to the report with flow duration curves. Jonathan will produce
the flow duration curves and distribute them at the next meeting. He also encouraged everyone
to ask questions.
Discussion of Contest Filing with Questions and Answers and Adjudication Update
Reed Marbut discussed the questions that were presented at the April 11, 2000, meeting. He
noted that there are still eight or nine questions pending. Due to the technical nature of these
questions, the answers to these questions have been delayed. We hope to have answers for the
June 13 meeting.
New questions brought forward at this meeting
1. In cases where a claim was filed describing a water right on property that has changed
hands since the original claim was filed, has the Oregon Water Resources Department
given any thought as to how to advise the new owners that their property has a claim?
2. What is the responsibility of the contestant to notify a new owner of the filing of a
contest?
3. Put another way: Does a contestant discharge his/her duty to notify the contestee
(claimant) if the contestant mails a copy of the contest to the name and address of the
claimant that appears in the statement and proof of claim, even if this name and address is
no longer current?
4. If the only contest filed on a claim is filed by the claimant challenging the Adjudicator's
Preliminary Evaluation, can the contestant/claimant and the Adjudicator settle the contest
without a hearing?
5. If so, how will be settlement be memorialized to ensure that the settlement if reflected in
the Adjudicator's findings of fact and order of determination?
Reed said that as of the deadline (May 8, 2000) over 5000 contests had been filed. Because of
the number of contests, it will take a couple of months for staff to prepare individual files for
each contest and begin development of the data-base. A database will be created after the
contests are filed and organized. Multiple contests verses single contests will be determined as
the contests are organized and reviewed.
Martha Pagel said that according to the Operating Principles, contestants will receive a letter
inviting them to participate in the ADR settlement process.
Reed said that the Adjudicator hopes to work with claimants to resolve small issues without
going through the hearing process.
Martha noted that there was a temporary restraining order filed to extend the contest period in the
Water for Life Lawsuit; the judge denied injunction.
Report on Klamath Compact Commission Meeting
Alice Kilham, said that they had a very successful meeting. Everyone exchanged information
and they have new avenues of communication within and between the basins.
Martha said that the Compact Commission might be having a follow-up meeting to work with
state/federal agencies on coordination between agencies.
Updates
SB1010 - Jim Carpenter said that conditions were nailed downs on implementation.
Steve Kirk said that data was being evaluated regarding TMDL and the headwaters. This
information is available to the public. It is available in Arcview or on CD. He noted that the
data is very good and their objectives were achieved. No TMDL model is set up yet. He said
they were shooting for having TMDLl's done this year. If you have questions, you can call Steve
at (541)388-6146 ext 235.
Jim Bryant (BOR) said that projected flows downstream are up. Not a lot to report now.
Reed said that he is working on contest questions for next meeting.
Reed reminded everyone that the initial deadline to sign-up for the ADR Workshop was last
Friday. If you would like to be invited or know of others interested in attending, please get the
names to Reed ASAP.
Mike Golden gave an update of the activities of the Administrative Subcommittee (ASC). The
ASC has been working on several settlement concepts, including how the settlement process
should proceed and who should oversee the settlement planning. The ASC discussed a
preliminary draft a settlement framework. The ASC hopes to bring a settlement planning
proposal to the full ADR group a the June meeting.
Earl Miller asked if the hearings officer's will have training to deal with the adjudication
contests.
Martha assured that some level of training will be provided. She said that anything resolved in
the ADR process will not have to go to the Central Hearing's Panel. Martha reminded the
participants that the ADR process is not intended to be a formal process.
Jim Carpenter said that the Hatfield Group is mid-course. They are re-identifying their role
Issues are being dealt with through watershed councils.
Other Business
Martha raised the question as to whether there may be a need for legislation to clarify how the
contest procedure (either through the ADR process or through the Adjudicator's hearings) will
jive with the state hearing panel process. If the group feels there are issues that should be
addressed, they should begin to pull together legislative concepts as soon as possible. The Legal
Committee, which has not been meeting, could be a forum for discussion of possible legislative
concepts.
The following individuals volunteered to serve on the reconstituted Legal Committee:
Bob hunter
Barbara Scott-Brier
Kip Lombard
Ed Bartell
Dick Fairclo
Rick Glick
Paul Simmons
The next ADR meeting is scheduled for June 13, 2000, at 1:30 p.m.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.