MEETING SUMMARY - KLAMATH BASIN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

June 13, 2000

Welcome

Mike welcomed everyone present. The May 9, 2000, meeting summary was reviewed. There we no corrections or additions and the meeting summary was approved.

Hydrology Subcommittee Report

Jonathan LaMarche gave a report on information presented at the Hydrology Subcommittee meeting. He made available four handouts and made presentations for the first three handouts described below. The first handout was a copy of a PowerPoint presentation explaining how flows were estimated in the Wood River. The second handout explained the frequency analysis of estimated flows and consumptive use summary in three ungauged sub-basins above Klamath Lake. The third handout described the accretion study performed in the Upper Williamson basin. The last handout presented flow duration curves for three gauged basins above Klamath Lake.

The presentation for "Flow Estimation in the Wood River Valley" detailed how the combined discharge of the Wood River and Crooked Creek was estimate at the mouths of the streams. Due to the commingling of water between tributaries, the unknown location of sub-surface return flows, and the limited number of discharge records, a mass balance approach was used treating the basin as a single entity for inflows, consumptive use, and outflows. Based on the limited available discharge data, the approach seemed to work reasonably well.

The second handout and presentation was entitled "Consumptive Use Summary and Frequency Analysis in Three Un-gauged Sub-Basins above Klamath Lake. The analysis was similar to "Frequency Analysis of Gauged Flows and Consumptive Use Summary above Klamath Lake" paper supplied at the May 9 ADR meeting. The May handout was based on the long-term historical gauged record for the given sub-basins. This June handout presented similar information for three un-gauged sub-basins above Klamath Lake. Since the sub-basins have limited or no historical records, the frequency analysis was based on an estimated historical record. Flow estimation for the sites was based on the process presented in the first handout/presentation.

In general terms, flow statistics describe the probability that a certain discharge will occur given historic land use practices (i.e., diversions). In other words, flow statistics represent the status quo with regard to historic irrigation practices and the corresponding historic streamflow.

Jonathan also presented results from an accretions (inflows) study in a reach of the upper Williamson (above Klamath Marsh). The limited data gathered in the study demonstrates that groundwater accretions make up a significant portion of the gains (inflows) in the reach during the winter. Surface water contributed 3.8-cfs to the reach, while groundwater was calculated to contribute 17.6-cfs to the same area. The groundwater contribution may not represent average conditions for the year, as some snowmelt had occurred in the previous month, which would tend to elevate baseflows to the reach. However, the findings do support the conclusion that groundwater contributes a significant portion of flows to the reach in most years, and may contribute considerable flows during the irrigation season. In addition, the study supports the conclusion that surface inflows by themselves are not a conclusive indicator of accretions in this particular reach.

A presentation was not given for the last handout on flow duration curves. However, the handout detailed on how to read the information.

Jonathan said that he would post this information on the Department's website for your convenience.

Contest Filing Report

Reed Marbut reported that the contest filing database has been developed and basic information on the contests has been entered. He hopes to be able to bring a CD or some other form of media to show how the database works at either the July or the August meeting. The contest database will cross-reference the claims database. This will allow an individual to go from the contest database to the claims database to access information about a contested claim. The contest database will show the basic information about the contest (e.g., contest number, name and address of the contestant, and claim challenged in the contest. By cross-referencing to the claim number in the claim database the individual can view information about the claim, including the preliminary evaluation of the claim. The actual contest is not present in the contest database and the actual claim is not shown in the claim database. The claim database, including the preliminary evaluations are on the Departments web page, the contest database will be on the web page in the near future.

An overhead was used to show the number contests filed, and an approximate breakdown of the contests. The Department will attempt to provide precise analysis of the numbers and categories of contests for the July meeting. However, the contests have not been evaluated, nor has the Adjudication staff attempted to find duplicates or errors in the contests. In addition, it appears that many of the contests are very similar; however, staff have not attempted to assess the degree of similarity or whether there are redundancies.

Staff is beginning to organized the contests to show how many claims each contestant has contested.











Discussion of Questions and Answers and Adjudication Update

Reed Marbut, discussed the questions that were presented at the May 9, 2000, meeting.

He said that the Adjudication staff continue to sort through the contests. They would like to get through the un-complex issues as soon as possible. Reed will be keeping the ADR group updated at future meetings.

Ed Bartell asked when hearings are scheduled to start. Reed said he was unsure when hearings were to begin. Martha Pagel said there will be a time period when everyone will be invited to participate in the ADR process and inter-discussions.

Ed Bartell asked when the database was to be available

Reed said the database should be available within the next week or so.

Updates

The Legislative Subcommittee canceled the June meeting.

SB 1010 - Jim Carpenter said that they are massaging the document.

Steve Kirk said that the FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared Radar) data is on file with the Soil and Water Conservation District. He would have brought it to the meeting, but it is to large a file to fit on a laptop. He can bring it in a different format if interested. It would be a half- hour presentation.

Jim Bryant - They are operating in accordance with the 2000 operating plan. They are meeting elevation controls on lake. He said there is a pending lawsuit, and should the court find in favor of the filer, it could cause problems downstream.

Jim Carpenter said he had heard from Sen. Wyden's office. He will be in the area on August 12.

Administrative Subcommittee Report and Settlement Framework

Mike Golden, said that the Administrative Subcommittee (ASC) has approved a draft "settlement framework." The Framework describes a settlement planning process and charts a supply/demand water budget. Martha handed out the Framework and a draft "Parties and Interests outline.

The Framework represents an overall look at what a long-term water supply program for the Basin could look like. The Framework development process started as an attempt to pull together settlement ideas for review by the ASC. The ASC agreed that the Framework gives a sense of general thinking. If you build in what everyone needs, there is less likely to be disagreement. Martha noted that this is a draft, and is open to comment and revision if necessary.

The Framework is an effort to bring parties together to work toward common solutions in the Klamath Basin. The Framework does not obligate any party to any action or commitment of funds. The Framework begins with a catalog of general settlement concepts for consideration by the Klamath Basin ADR participants and then sets out suggested principles for development of a Basin water "supply-demand" budget. The settlement concepts are intended to provide an outline for ADR discussions. The water supply-demand budget is intended to help ADR participants to focus on constructive efforts to create a closer balance between available water supplies and basin water demands. Without limiting other options that may be developed by ADR participants, the water budget section includes a list of possible options for water supply enhancement to be considered as a part of a water budget balancing effort.

General Settlement Concepts

  1. Settlement will address all claims and water needs in the Upper Basin.


  2. Settlement will include instream flows, water levels of Upper Klamath Lake (Lake) and Klamath Marsh (Marsh), and water to sustain park and refuge habitat and resources to provide for a biologically sound, healthy, functioning watershed and long-term sustainability of resources. Strategies for transition to a balanced water budget will be developed and may include a provision for a sharing of shortages among instream and out-of-stream uses.


  3. Settlement will include appropriate provisions for drought and low flow years.


  4. Settlement will include strategies for significant water quality and habitat improvements throughout the Basin and for Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act compliance. Current and previous efforts and projects by federal, state and private parties shall be reviewed and incorporated as part of this process, as much as possible.


  5. The Klamath Project long-term operations plan will be modified as necessary to be consistent with settlement.


  6. Settlement of contests and negotiating group agreements will be supported where possible.


  7. Settlement will address basin-wide measurement, reporting, monitoring and enforcement.


  8. Sub-basin partnerships, or special districts, may be formed to assist in long-term oversight and implementation of the settlement.
  9. Allocation of water and other measures in the Upper Basin to meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) obligations will be addressed in settlement to provide as much legal certainty as possible, consistent with applicable law, to water users and other affected parties.


  10. Agreed upon water quality improvements, including applicable mechanisms for enforcement, will be addressed in settlement, and to the extent possible made a part of the state TMDL and SB 1010 programs.


  11. Funds will be sought to implement settlement where necessary.


  12. Former Klamath Indian Reservation Lands


  1. The parties will consider supporting a request for funding to purchase former Klamath Indian Reservation lands for the Klamath Tribes from willing sellers;


  2. The Klamath Tribes and the federal agencies that manage federal lands with the boundaries of the former Klamath Indian Reservations will continue to implement existing agreements or develop agreements involving management of the federally held lands; and


  3. Regarding the Klamath Tribes' goal of restoring the former Klamath Indian Reservation lands now in federal ownership to the Klamath Tribes, the non-federal parties will consider options to work toward recovery of such lands as part of the tribal process of broader community discussion of this matter; however, the federal agencies that manage such federal lands are not in a position to agree to restoration of those federal lands.


  1. Settlement will identify the Upper Basin obligation and contribution toward downstream federal tribal trust requirements. Federal legislation will be sought as necessary to recognize satisfaction of this obligation so as to provide legal certainty to Upper Basin water users and other affected parties.


  2. Settlement will identify and implement water supply augmentation and water demand reduction strategies.


  3. Settlement will address fish passage issues.
















Water Budget Concepts

  1. Meet the water needs of the Basin's agricultural industry and other consumptive water uses.


  2. Meet instream flow, Lake and Marsh water and habitat needs.


  3. Meet tribal and federal consumptive water use needs.


  4. Address future water needs.


Martha said these ideas can be used as a tool.

Ed Bartell said that he sees this as a road block and that it complicates matters. It needs more work to reflect more balance.

Martha said that the overall package was supposed to be balanced.

Ed feels his people would have problems with this.

Mike Golden asked, where do we go from here? He suggested that everyone take the Framework back to individuals groups and see what else needs to be added or deleted. If you have more ideas, bring forward at the next meeting.

Mike gave an update on the Dividing the Waters Workshop that is being held on June 27 & 28, at the Shilo Inn in Klamath Falls. There are currently 42 registrants.

Other Business

Martha said that the State does not have any specific ideas for legislation.

Martha introduced Meg Reeves, Deputy Director of the Water Resources Department. She also announced that Paul Cleary will be the Department's new Director and will be starting in July.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.