Print Version
Email this story
Comment
Basin talks are just the start of things
Published Nov. 9, 2003
The first vexing problem among all the vexing problems about Klamath Basin resource issues starts with tables and chairs: Who should be at the negotiating table, how should the talks be conducted, how can bargainers be sure a deal will hold?
These are vexing questions because it's evident that all the biggest issues - land for Indians, water guarantees for farmers, habitat for fish - have to be settled as a package that large numbers of people in the Basin can accept. It's either that, or decades more of scrapping over unhappy results.
The talks that have been under way at the Shilo Inn are the most recent attempt to find a suitable venue for resolving the Basin's problems, and the players could cite oodles of others - alternative dispute resolution, the Hatfield working group, and on and on.
The times and circumstances, though, are auspicious for some sort of negotiations. Among other things, it's clear that the Bush administration wants local interests to arrive at a deal that it can support.
There's an irony in the negotiations: You can hardly build a boat ramp from federal land or to federal water without creating paperwork as tall as the ramp's pillars. But the federal government can begin bargaining over the most fundamental and far-ranging resource issues behind closed doors.
While the participants in the bargaining are largely representatives of private interests, they also include the Bush administration's point man in Basin land and water issues, William Bettenberg, and the local officials of the various federal agencies.
Not including the substance of any agreement, which will be vexing enough, the participants will have to figure out how to be inclusive enough to ensure that their conclusions stick, how to be flexible enough to be able to conduct effective negotiations, how to be open enough to allay suspicion among their constituents and the public at large, how to bargain freely enough to keep the talks going.
This is an incredible balancing act; it would be remarkable if there weren't missteps along the way.
Sooner or later, the group will give an accounting of itself. It can't succeed if it doesn't. The players understand that - they have begun talking more freely, designating a spokesman after last Friday's session to comment in general terms about the talks. A story about this is on today's front page. No doubt, the process will open up as the talks go further.
This is a momentous set of negotiations, but even if these talks succeed, the task will have only started. If the players can come to terms, they will have to win support in the Basin, and they will have to make a winning pitch to the Congress and, no doubt, to some judges. All this will make for matters of wide-open public debate.
This is a promising start toward a resolution arrived at in the main by local interests. The Basin should be wishing the players well, and paying close attention.
The "H&N view" represents the opinion of the newspaper's editorial board, which consists of Publisher John Walker, Editor Tim Fought, City Editor Todd Kepple and Opinion Editor Pat Bushey. Fought wrote today's editorial.
The first vexing problem among all the vexing problems about Klamath Basin resource issues starts with tables and chairs: Who should be at the negotiating table, how should the talks be conducted, how can bargainers be sure a deal will hold?
These are vexing questions because it's evident that all the biggest issues - land for Indians, water guarantees for farmers, habitat for fish - have to be settled as a package that large numbers of people in the Basin can accept. It's either that, or decades more of scrapping over unhappy results.
The talks that have been under way at the Shilo Inn are the most recent attempt to find a suitable venue for resolving the Basin's problems, and the players could cite oodles of others - alternative dispute resolution, the Hatfield working group, and on and on.
The times and circumstances, though, are auspicious for some sort of negotiations. Among other things, it's clear that the Bush administration wants local interests to arrive at a deal that it can support.
There's an irony in the negotiations: You can hardly build a boat ramp from federal land or to federal water without creating paperwork as tall as the ramp's pillars. But the federal government can begin bargaining over the most fundamental and far-ranging resource issues behind closed doors.
While the participants in the bargaining are largely representatives of private interests, they also include the Bush administration's point man in Basin land and water issues, William Bettenberg, and the local officials of the various federal agencies.
Not including the substance of any agreement, which will be vexing enough, the participants will have to figure out how to be inclusive enough to ensure that their conclusions stick, how to be flexible enough to be able to conduct effective negotiations, how to be open enough to allay suspicion among their constituents and the public at large, how to bargain freely enough to keep the talks going.
This is an incredible balancing act; it would be remarkable if there weren't missteps along the way.
Sooner or later, the group will give an accounting of itself. It can't succeed if it doesn't. The players understand that - they have begun talking more freely, designating a spokesman after last Friday's session to comment in general terms about the talks. A story about this is on today's front page. No doubt, the process will open up as the talks go further.
This is a momentous set of negotiations, but even if these talks succeed, the task will have only started. If the players can come to terms, they will have to win support in the Basin, and they will have to make a winning pitch to the Congress and, no doubt, to some judges. All this will make for matters of wide-open public debate.
This is a promising start toward a resolution arrived at in the main by local interests. The Basin should be wishing the players well, and paying close attention.
The "H&N view" represents the opinion of the newspaper's editorial board, which consists of Publisher John Walker, Editor Tim Fought, City Editor Todd Kepple and Opinion Editor Pat Bushey. Fought wrote today's editorial.
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of HeraldAndNews.com. Comment Disclaimer: The editors of heraldandnews.com reserve the right to refuse publication of any comment posted for consideration. We may refuse for any reason, including use of profanity, disparaging comments, libelous comments, etc. Any reader who notices a comment they believe is particularly offensive, should notify us at webmaster@heraldandnews.com.
RSS