Print Version
Email this story
Comment
Oregon law could nix proposed water agreement
 |
By Ty Beaver
H&N Staff Writer
An Oregon law could threaten the future of the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. State lawmakers from Klamath Falls said Oregon Water Resources Department staff violated state law by participating in closed-door meetings with the Klamath Tribes during two-and-a-half years of settlement talks. 8:15 a.m. Friday, March 7, 2008: Some irrigators are against the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement because they say key components were changed from a framework agreement created a year ago. At a Herald and News roundtable forum Feb. 26 at Oregon Institute of Technology, representatives were asked: Q: “Can you give us, in a nutshell, what the framework entailed?”
A: Off-Project representative Ed Bartell said the framework had assurances regarding electrical power costs for irrigators. He also said the agreement freed off-Project users from adjudication of water rights. “It really, I felt, accomplished the goal of peace on the river,” Bartell said.
Klamath Tribes attorney Bud Ullman said the new agreement is still structured to protect off-Project irrigators.
“The way it’s structured is to leave the door open for resolving these sorts of questions,” he said.
View video of Question No. 3.
4:45 p.m. Thursday, March 6, 2008: Take a look back to 2001 when water deliveries to the Klamath Project were curtailed. "I was there," is a collection of video interviews with Basin residents about their experiences.
2:30 p.m. Thursday, March 6, 2008: For a look at Herald and News coverage of the Klamath Basin Restoration agreement, see our Watermarks section on this site. Part three of a four part special report "Watermarks" will be in the Friday, March 14 Herald and News.
Part three will look at what key players in the agreement are talking about. Noon,Thursday, March 6, 2008: Segments of a roundtable discussion Feb. 26 at Oregon Institute of Technology are available to view at these links: Question No. 1: "Are there firm guarantees in the agreement that ensure irrigators get service of the water?"
Question No. 2: "Are there firm guarantees in the agreement that ensure irrigators get service of the water?"
Question No. 3: Question: "What did the original framework of the agreement entail?"
The main presenters at the forum were Edward Bartell, representing Upper Klamath irrigators; Bud Ullman, representing the Klamath Tribes; Paul Simmons, representing the Klamath Water Users Association; and Toby Freeman, representing Pacific Power.
What do you think? The proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement allocates water in the Klamath River watershed among irrigators, tribes, fisheries and refuges. It also advocates removal of four hydroelectric dams along the river. (Click here to take our survey)
Proponents of the water settlement said Wednesday they hadn’t yet heard about the law, but said it needs further review and shouldn’t take away from settlement efforts.
“I think we’re going to have to take a fair look at it,” said Jeff Mitchell, Klamath Tribes council member, adding he wonders why state lawmakers are bringing the issue up now instead of earlier in the settlement process.
“They’ve known all along these meetings were going on,” he said.
Stakeholders released the proposed agreement Jan. 15. It allocates water in the Klamath River watershed between irrigators, tribes, fishermen and conservationists and also advocates removal of four hydroelectric dams owned by Portland-based PacifiCorp.
State Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls, said he raised the legal issue about the settlement talks during a mid-February meeting of the House Environment and Energy Committee.
The potential violation concerns Oregon Revised Statute 539.310. The law says state agencies can negotiate with sovereign nations, such as tribes, but must do so in public meetings and allow public comment.
The settlement talks were closed to the general public and did not permit public comment
Garrard said Phillip Ward, director of the Oregon Water Resources Department, was at the meeting as well as a representative of Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s office. They said they would look into the matter.
“Their response was basically ‘oops,’ ” Garrard said.
The department has not signed the agreemen,t but if it does an individual or organization could sue it for violating state law, a battle the plaintiff would likely win, Garrard said.
State Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, is working with Garrard on the issue. The senator said he would withhold comment until the Oregon attorney general responded to his questions. Whitsett has publicly spoken against the proposed settlement.
Ruben Ochoa, Oregon Water Resources Department spokesman, said the department wants more information to better understand how it may have violated state law, specifically the definition of what a negotiation is, before responding to the concerns.
“When we have more information we’ll be happy to discuss it,” he said.
Anna Richter-Taylor, spokeswoman for Kulongoski, also said she would need to look into the issue before commenting.
Oregon Department of Justice staff confirmed that Whitsett contacted the department and natural resources attorneys are scheduled to meet with him.
Luther Horsley, president of the Klamath Water Users Association, said he was not clear on the public meeting requirements, but said he it would be disappointing if the state was not allowed to participate.
“The talks needed to be confidential to get a product out,” he said.
Edward Bartell, president of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users said he was not familiar with the situation enough to comment.
He did say that he and other irrigators have been concerned about the Oregon Water Resources Department’s approval of the agreement because it has a role in the water adjudication process.
Garrard said his concerns were not meant to destroy the agreement and he is not planning any legal challenges, but thinks that stakeholders need to address the issue before moving forward.
A: Off-Project representative Ed Bartell said the framework had assurances regarding electrical power costs for irrigators. He also said the agreement freed off-Project users from adjudication of water rights. “It really, I felt, accomplished the goal of peace on the river,” Bartell said.
Klamath Tribes attorney Bud Ullman said the new agreement is still structured to protect off-Project irrigators.
“The way it’s structured is to leave the door open for resolving these sorts of questions,” he said.
View video of Question No. 3.
4:45 p.m. Thursday, March 6, 2008: Take a look back to 2001 when water deliveries to the Klamath Project were curtailed. "I was there," is a collection of video interviews with Basin residents about their experiences.
2:30 p.m. Thursday, March 6, 2008: For a look at Herald and News coverage of the Klamath Basin Restoration agreement, see our Watermarks section on this site. Part three of a four part special report "Watermarks" will be in the Friday, March 14 Herald and News.
Part three will look at what key players in the agreement are talking about. Noon,Thursday, March 6, 2008: Segments of a roundtable discussion Feb. 26 at Oregon Institute of Technology are available to view at these links: Question No. 1: "Are there firm guarantees in the agreement that ensure irrigators get service of the water?"
Question No. 2: "Are there firm guarantees in the agreement that ensure irrigators get service of the water?"
Question No. 3: Question: "What did the original framework of the agreement entail?"
The main presenters at the forum were Edward Bartell, representing Upper Klamath irrigators; Bud Ullman, representing the Klamath Tribes; Paul Simmons, representing the Klamath Water Users Association; and Toby Freeman, representing Pacific Power.
What do you think? The proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement allocates water in the Klamath River watershed among irrigators, tribes, fisheries and refuges. It also advocates removal of four hydroelectric dams along the river. (Click here to take our survey)
Proponents of the water settlement said Wednesday they hadn’t yet heard about the law, but said it needs further review and shouldn’t take away from settlement efforts.
“I think we’re going to have to take a fair look at it,” said Jeff Mitchell, Klamath Tribes council member, adding he wonders why state lawmakers are bringing the issue up now instead of earlier in the settlement process.
“They’ve known all along these meetings were going on,” he said.
Stakeholders released the proposed agreement Jan. 15. It allocates water in the Klamath River watershed between irrigators, tribes, fishermen and conservationists and also advocates removal of four hydroelectric dams owned by Portland-based PacifiCorp.
State Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls, said he raised the legal issue about the settlement talks during a mid-February meeting of the House Environment and Energy Committee.
The potential violation concerns Oregon Revised Statute 539.310. The law says state agencies can negotiate with sovereign nations, such as tribes, but must do so in public meetings and allow public comment.
The settlement talks were closed to the general public and did not permit public comment
Garrard said Phillip Ward, director of the Oregon Water Resources Department, was at the meeting as well as a representative of Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s office. They said they would look into the matter.
“Their response was basically ‘oops,’ ” Garrard said.
The department has not signed the agreemen,t but if it does an individual or organization could sue it for violating state law, a battle the plaintiff would likely win, Garrard said.
State Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, is working with Garrard on the issue. The senator said he would withhold comment until the Oregon attorney general responded to his questions. Whitsett has publicly spoken against the proposed settlement.
Ruben Ochoa, Oregon Water Resources Department spokesman, said the department wants more information to better understand how it may have violated state law, specifically the definition of what a negotiation is, before responding to the concerns.
“When we have more information we’ll be happy to discuss it,” he said.
Anna Richter-Taylor, spokeswoman for Kulongoski, also said she would need to look into the issue before commenting.
Oregon Department of Justice staff confirmed that Whitsett contacted the department and natural resources attorneys are scheduled to meet with him.
Luther Horsley, president of the Klamath Water Users Association, said he was not clear on the public meeting requirements, but said he it would be disappointing if the state was not allowed to participate.
“The talks needed to be confidential to get a product out,” he said.
Edward Bartell, president of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users said he was not familiar with the situation enough to comment.
He did say that he and other irrigators have been concerned about the Oregon Water Resources Department’s approval of the agreement because it has a role in the water adjudication process.
Garrard said his concerns were not meant to destroy the agreement and he is not planning any legal challenges, but thinks that stakeholders need to address the issue before moving forward.
 |
||
| Watch for elk |
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