Greater klamath river basin community tulelake conference the situation, short and long term vision and strategies



Download 313.13 Kb.
Page1/6
Date conversion14.06.2018
Size313.13 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6


1CONSENSUS ASSOCIATES Beyond Conflict To Consensus

====================================================================

PO Box 235 Terrebonne, OR 97760 (541) 548-7112


GREATER KLAMATH RIVER BASIN COMMUNITY
TULELAKE CONFERENCE
THE SITUATION, SHORT AND LONG TERM VISION AND STRATEGIES

“To Conserve, Restore and Enhance Watershed Resources

That Nurture Life in the Klamath Basin”

Tulelake, CA
March 15-18, 2005

Prepared By:


CONSENSUS ASSOCIATES

PO Box 235

Terrebonne, OR 97760

(541) 548-7112

(541) 548-4701 FAX

wick5836@aol.com


GREATER KLAMATH RIVER BASIN COMMUNITY

TULELAKE CONFERENCE
THE SITUATION, SHORT AND LONG TERM VISION AND STRATEGIES
“We All Live in the Klamath Watershed.... We Will All Make it Better”
REPORT CONTENTS

TOC \f \* MERGEFORMAT \l "1-3"

DEVELOPMENT APPROACH 1
THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP 3

A SUMMARY 3

THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP 4
THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP 8

A SUMMARY 8

OUR SHORT TERM PURPOSE 10

THE KEY UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN 15

OUR BASIN TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW 21

A SUMMARY 21

OUR BASIN TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW - OUR COMMON VISION 24
EXPLORING A CEASE FIRE BETWEEN ALL PARTIES IN THE BASIN 31

THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF A CEASE FIRE 32

THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF A CEASE FIRE 33

STRATEGIES AND ADVICE TO TROY AND ROB 34


EXPLORING WAYS TO MANAGE THE DROUGHT OF 2005 36

THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF NOT ADDRESSING THE DROUGHT 37

THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF ADDRESSING THE DROUGHT 39

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS WE SUPPORT 41


EXPLORING WAYS TO ADDRESS POWER ISSUES FOR THE ENTIRE BASIN 43

THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF DEALING WITH POWER 44

THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF DEALING WITH POWER 45

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS 46


REPORT CONTENTS

TOC \f \* MERGEFORMAT \l "1-3"


EXPLORING THE PROPOSAL FOR A KLAMATH BASIN CONGRESS 47

THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF CREATING A KLAMATH CONGRESS 48

THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF CREATING A KLAMATH CONGRESS 49

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS FOR THE KLAMATH CONGRESS 51


THE NEXT STEPS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS TO ACHIEVE OUR 20 YR VISION 52

APPENDIX 59

* A RELATIONSHIP CONFRONTATION/RESOLUTION PROCESS 60

* COLLECTIVE STATEMENTS 63

* DEVELOPING A COLLECTIVE STATEMENT 64

* THE COMMUNITY IS TELLING A STORY 68




GREATER KLAMATH RIVER BASIN COMMUNITY

TULELAKE CONFERENCE
THE SITUATION, SHORT AND LONG TERM VISION AND STRATEGIES
DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
On March 15-18, 2005, 90+ community members of the Klamath River Basin, representing the Greater Klamath River Basin Tribes, Ranchers, Environmentalist, agencies, elected officials and other members of the public, met in a three day workshop with three key purposes:


  • Explore and update the present situation and how it got to be that way, integrating the views of the new participants.

  • Develop a short and long term vision for the Klamath River Basin, and short and long term strategies that would foster those outcomes.

  • Listen to, and understand, the concerns and needs of the Upper Basin Farmers and Ranchers and others.

  • Establish a movement to reverse the decision making process so it’s from the ground up.

  • Experience and learn an approach for confronting and resolving relationship and resource issues in the Klamath River Basin, and reach consensus.

This meeting was the result of advice provided to the sponsors at the last meeting (Klamath, CA report, February 2-5, page 31).


Get us together in March. The March meeting is important. Invite people to March meeting—the most contentious you know!

On March 15, 2005, a 4 hour listening sessions was held in the Winema Hunting Lodge, Tulelake, CA, with 5 Project farmers and ranchers. Ranchers, elected officials, and agency people participated as listeners.. The ranchers and farmers expressed the views they have of the situation and how they felt about it. The listeners told them what they heard, an assurance that they listened. At the end of the each session, all expressed ideas on how to resolve the situation. The speakers provided their ideas, the listeners what they learned.

This document contains the key information developed into collective statements during this conference. It includes a short term purpose statement, along with strategies and actions for the next year that would help the people most affected by the situation in the Greater Klamath River Basin to create their short term and long term futures. It includes a long term, 20 year Mission or Vision for the Basin.
DEVELOPMENT APPROACH (cont.)
This is an interim report which presents and summarizes key information the participants developed and want to focus their efforts on. This report is an extension of the Somes Bar Interim report, the Scott Valley Interim Report and the Klamath, CA interim report for the previous conferences in May, November, and February. A more comprehensive report will be developed as more members of the Basin, representing all stakeholders, participate.
These collective statements are developed from individual statements made during the workshop, and represent the perceptions of all the participants. As such, they represent the collective views of the participants, and not necessarily a consensus.
Note that the first sentence in each paragraph is in bold as a focus and summary statement for the paragraph. These sentences can be used to create summary statements for the collective statement. Words in italics are added during the collective statement process to clarify and complete the perceived intent of the statement. These are kept to a minimum.

The process and activities that developed this report are described briefly at the beginning of each section of the report. It must be emphasized that these are collective statements and not consensus statements. They include all the words and statements that were expressed. They represent the views of all the participants, but not all participants would agree with all the assertions in the statements. These can be developed into consensus statements. The process for developing collective statements is described in the APPENDIX.

THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP

A SUMMARY
(Note: the summary is created by taking the first sentence in each paragraph.)


  • If I end up with a feeling that my time was wasted and unproductive. People will be more angry than they were before, and I will have wasted my time.




  • Nothing was accomplished. I will sit on these hard seats and walk away with nothing to hold onto for the future. We set up another meeting to do the same thing over again.




  • We leave here and not accomplish what we came here for. Not working together for a solution of some kind for our problems NOW!! No forward movement will be made toward gaining an answer toward Klamath water and community restoration.




  • We leave and retreat back to our fixed positions as stakeholder in the Klamath Basin. We listen to, we hear each other’s pain, but we do not feel it!




  • That people will leave without a better understanding of people’s diverse views on this situation. Things are worse than they were before the session. That new members of the circle will leave unchanged and frustrated because of unmet expectations, and that true “community building” will stop or seem meaningless.




  • We fail to form relationships that help solve the problems we face. That people remain entrenched in adversarial relations with one another... status quo.



  • All of the dialogue went nowhere. There is an inability to conceptually engage in problem solving from any other perspective other than “my” individual situation. That we will walk away and ignore the trust, and good faith we have developed here, and go back to the old, unproductive attitudes and distrust.





  • We don’t have the courage to start talking about real solutions to the real problems facing this basin and their consequences to the basin community.




  • A plan or part of a solution is developed and then not implemented or not carried out by one group such that the whole group loses faith. We will be open and honest to the agencies and groups who feel farmers should not be in the basin, and our facts and words will again be used against us.




  • There is no change in the basin situation and no follow through to real action. I will wish I had stayed at the office and caught up on my work load. I take time away from family.




  • My biggest trepidation about attending is that there is a possibility of offending someone such that I am not welcomed back to learn.




  • We are letting someone else create the solution.

THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP
The small groups explored the worst possible outcomes of the workshop, answering the question; “What are the worst possible outcomes of spending 3 days in this workshop?” This was recorded on 3 x 5 cards, read off to the large group, then developed into a collective statement.
These worst outcomes affect the beliefs, strategies and behaviors of all the groups. They affect relationships so that information exchange is severely hindered. Openness and honesty are inconceivable. Hidden agendas are paramount. This actually may foster the worst outcomes of an issue.

These worst outcomes are possible. They have probably been experienced by the group members in other Basin meetings. They may create the reactive force that develops the negative actions, strategies and behaviors of the participants.

If I end up with a feeling that my time was wasted and unproductive. That this was a waste of time. Another waste of time and energy. It was a waste of time. I wasted three days of potentially solving problems and not learning anything that will help solve future challenges or problems. A waste of time and emotions.
People will be more angry than they were before, and I will have wasted my time. It will be a complete waste of time, resources and opportunity leading to disappointment and violence by those who can agree on a future vision for the Klamath River Basin. A waste of three days and work piles up.
Nothing was accomplished. Nothing changes. Nothing will be accomplished. No tangible results. Nothing will change and I will just be very far behind at work.
I will sit on these hard seats and walk away with nothing to hold onto for the future. We just get lip service. I get bored. I don’t learn anything. I feel the tools are useless.
We set up another meeting to do the same thing over again. Those who have been to all meetings become sour with the process and burned out.
We leave here and not accomplish what we came here for. Nothing translates into direction or resolution outside the door. For nothing to be done about the water use and everyone goes home and forgets about it all. We will solve nothing and the water shut off 2001 and the fish die off 2002 will happen again.
Not working together for a solution of some kind for our problems NOW!! We lose the chance to get people together to discuss water problems right now. We do not come together as a community and do not move towards resolution or watershed wide issues. The next step toward working together will not happen because people won’t know what to do as a next step.
THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP (cont.)

No forward movement will be made toward gaining an answer toward Klamath water and community restoration. No positive movement forward that is concrete and real. We will have moved no closer to long term solutions.

We leave and retreat back to our fixed positions as stakeholder in the Klamath Basin. No one is any more inspired than they were before to move forward to solutions...worse...someone is less inspired. Project irrigators can’t and won’t be here tomorrow or Friday and a critical piece of the puzzle will be missing as we move forward. We don’t move forward, don’t move towards solutions to Basin wide issues.
We listen to, we hear each other’s pain, but we do not feel it! We use our individual arsenals of our preferred scientists research facts to justify why our group is not to blame for the basin’s problems.
That people will leave without a better understanding of people’s diverse views on this situation. We haven’t connected enough to the process to understand how important salmon are to the Tribes, how important ranching is to the Upper Basin, Scott and Shasta farmers.
Things are worse than they were before the session. People will be more divided than when the workshop started. Greater polarity and distrust results. Specific groups are driven further apart. We fight among ourselves to a point of violence and someone gets hurt. We go home and teach our children to hate. We go home and intentionally abuse family, animals and resources in anger and frustration. What we focus on grows.

That new members of the circle will leave unchanged and frustrated because of unmet expectations, and that true “community building” will stop or seem meaningless. People leave angry and frustrated. Everyone leaves angry and threatening new lawsuits. No outcome, no progress, diminished hopes for real progress resulting in more burnout. Retrograde action.

We fail to form relationships that help solve the problems we face. People who now have spoken don’t listen. We maintain personal conflicts, have no respect for others, and we grow further apart. When we leave here the trust and relationships made are not remembered and appreciated.

That people remain entrenched in adversarial relations with one another... status quo. People will be discouraged and the status quo will continue. That people will go away unaffected and ineffective. People will be discouraged and the status quo will continue. I will lose my optimism.
THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP (cont.)

All of the dialogue went nowhere. If all of this energy and enthusiasm didn’t make it to the policy people and decision makers. People won’t take what they have learned here back out to their “usual” circle of friends, groups, associations and community.
There is an inability to conceptually engage in problem solving from any other perspective other than my individual situation. Not keeping an open mind. Not listening, or turning someone off because you didn’t care for them or their way. Discovering most people are too set in their ways and perceptions to be able to think about a new way of doing things that might put an end to conflict in the basin. People will look a round and think “I am going to fight for mine” and everyone else be damned.
That we will walk away and ignore the trust, and good faith we have developed here, and go back to the old, unproductive attitudes and distrust. People don’t leave here with an expanded range of possibility. I will be identified by my organization only. Farmers and ranchers will not come back and share knowledge and gain confidence in this process. 2001 repeated!
We don’t have the courage to start talking about real solutions to the real problems facing this basin and their consequences to the basin community. Spending three days at this meeting and we come up with no solutions. No solutions to issues developed or no consensus on solutions.

A plan or part of a solution is developed and then not implemented or not carried out by one group such that the whole group loses faith. No solutions or agreement to continue to learn from each other. That one entity or community experiences failure so that the rest can survive and have success.

We will be open and honest to the agencies and groups who feel farmers should not be in the basin, and our facts and words will again be used against us. They learn information they will use against my family and valley. People leave with ideas on how to utilize information gained here for litigation purposes rather than collaborative purposes. Family and business will suffer. Participants become less inclined to communicate and compromise.
There is no change in the basin situation and no follow through to real action. Not finishing what is going on. People are mad and discontent that the solution for the basin was not attained or developed. Great potential but no follow through. There are no results. We will not find enough in common to commit to working on specific actions. Klamath irrigators and community would lose some or all water.
THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP (cont.)

I will wish I had stayed at the office and caught up on my work load. Other work won’t get done, deadlines won’t be met. I will miss an important phone call. Late reports, missed opportunities, missed deadlines, work this weekend. I will get someone’s cold. Missed four days of work for nothing. I miss some important deadlines. Will miss important deadlines on other work with no benefits. Disastrous delays at job. Massive workload gets bigger. All of this will happen.

I take time away from family. I arrive home exhausted.
My biggest trepidation about attending is that there is a possibility of offending someone such that I am not welcomed back to learn. That I will not keep my emotional distance.
We are letting someone else create the solution.

THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP

OUR SHORT TERM PURPOSE - A SUMMARY

What are the purposes that would justify “investing” 3 days at the workshop? If we are going to be successful, we need some description of what “success” is. How will we know if we have achieved our goal? Each group members answered the question on a 3 x 5 card; “What will be the best possible outcomes of investing three days in this workshop?” These were read off to the larger community group.

These statements describe the short term purpose the participants want to create. They are a balance to the worst possible outcomes. They provide a focus, or aim, for the meeting and post-meeting activities. The individual statements can be used as measurable goals.
These best outcomes are possible. They have probably been experienced by the group members during this meeting and in other Basin situations. They may create the positive force that develops the actions, strategies and behaviors of the participants.
(Note: the summary is created by taking the first sentence in each paragraph.)


  • We begin a lasting dialogue to unravel the conflict we face. We will be fully honest with one another to the best of our ability so that issues are clearly understood.




  • People leave here with a greater respect and understanding of each other. Everybody participating will have an unprecedented understanding in regards to basin wide issues. We come to a mutual understanding that we can all live with.




  • Opposing viewpoints are heard, understood and respected, leading to a cooperative and substantial approach to Basin wide restoration. Everyone speaks, is heard and is respected. We don’t just listen to each other’s pain ~ we feel it.




  • Positive working relationships are established. There is greater trust and understanding, better communication, significant progress towards consensus and an eagerness to continue. We are forging new relationships that result in tangible, concrete actions that restore fisheries, allow farmers and ranchers to continue their way of life, and we are more responsible stewards of land and water.




  • There is recognition that a whole basin solution is possible if we come together to work on that goal and that it is unlikely to happen if we don’t. These three days serve as a springboard to the development of a Basin wide strategy for restoration of the fisheries while also maintaining thriving rural economies and communities of the Basin.




  • People will use the skills and techniques and relationships and understanding gained these three days to formulate a basin wide forum to implement long term solutions. Solutions to issues are presented and agreed upon.

OUR SHORT TERM PURPOSE - A SUMMARY (cont.)



  • That we will find solutions to the challenges we face and implement them successfully and the fisheries will recover. That this group comes up with a creative solution to the water allocation problems in the basin and specifically addresses what should be done in wet years and drought years. That we all can come together to a water use plan.




  • That we will all take personal responsibility for moving forward with actions that will result in solutions for the basin. This process has clearly moved forward with specific ideas and actions to support each other.




  • A watershed wide sense of community is established. We develop an ability to work together on some real solutions to solving problems in the Klamath Basin.



  • Healthy, vibrant fishermen, farmers and ranchers, fish and wildlife, tribal, business, communities and intergovernmental entities are created, starting here, and we continue to come together annually to support the above.





  • We make real progress on basin restoration.




  • We decide our future in the Klamath Basin. That the role of elected local government in decision making in basin issues will be recognized, respected and validated. Participants come up with workable plans to solve our dilemma and present them to legislators.




  • We have a new ability to address hard issues and divisions while we hang tight and see it through. That the greater basin becomes a model of what can go right when people work together toward a common cause.




  • I arrive home energized and feeling positive.




  • The project farmers are invited to the C’wam ceremony and go freely and can help fish the next day.

To imagine what might be possible. We begin to believe that there is a way that basin wide progress to solving land and water use problems will occur.”



THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP

OUR SHORT TERM PURPOSE
“We move toward a time when we treasure our differences instead of fearing them.”
We begin a lasting dialogue to unravel the conflict we face. We will try to share openly what we are trying to do to make the situation better. There will be improved communication among ranchers, farmers, fishermen, tribal members, elected officials and agency representatives so that real solutions can be implemented.

We will be fully honest with one another to the best of our ability so that issues are clearly understood. We learn from one another, understand each other better, and continue to work toward equitable solutions to the basin’s problems. We will not learn about each other through press bytes - instead through direct communication.

People leave here with a greater respect and understanding of each other. Everybody participating will have an unprecedented understanding in regards to basin wide issues. We understand what other’s need for their future and how it is similar to our own needs. We understand each other’s situation, and find common solutions. “People will know I feel the 100,000 AF mandatory water bank is unjustified and depleting our aquifer, and our power rate is made in exchange for water and cheap power is justified and my farm didn’t kill fish.”
Everybody participating will have an unprecedented understanding in regards to basin wide issues. We learn from one another, understand each other better, and continue to work toward equitable solutions to the basin’s problems. We understand what others need for their future and how it is similar to our own needs. We understand each other’s situation, and find common solutions.

We come to a mutual understanding that we can all live with. We gain a better understanding and insight of each other leading to mutual understanding. We all gain compassion and respect for each other and find a basin-wide solution that works for all parties. There may be some understanding that project water enhances mainstream flows in stored dry years that helps in the joint solution. There is the adherence and understanding that we (farmers) are not polluting the water.
Opposing viewpoints are heard, understood and respected, leading to a cooperative and substantial approach to Basin wide restoration. That all peoples will leave here more enlightened to other people’s situation, and that they will share that new knowledge and respect with others in their own communities. People are willing to speak to their constituents about what they are learning.
OUR SHORT TERM PURPOSE (cont.)

Everyone speaks, is heard and is respected. That all stakeholders feel heard and have ownership in the proposed solutions. That we have heard one another and another meeting is set up. Knowing that all people at this workshop actually listened, worked on a solution and decided the best way to work for a successful outcome for all concerned in the Basin/Klamath River area.

We don’t just listen to each other’s pain ~ we feel it. This compassion allows us to embrace a course of action that acknowledges and mitigates the causes of this pain basin wide - not just our own. We will stay in very close contact with one another up and down the basin through this drought to ensure that neither 2001 nor 2002 will happen.
Positive working relationships are established. New relationships will be formed, healing takes place and the work moves forward.
There is greater trust and understanding, better communication, significant progress towards consensus and an eagerness to continue. Trust will be built and fears alleviated. People feel part of a basin wide community and feel there is a foundation of trust upon which they can stand together to work out solutions together that heal the ecosystem and honor everyone’s ways of life.
We are forging new relationships that result in tangible, concrete actions that restore fisheries, allow farmers and ranchers to continue their way of life, and we are more responsible stewards of land and water. Key relationships cross a threshold, beginning the momentum toward real solutions that bring peace and prosperity. Relationship building across group boundaries results in planning and implementing significant watershed projects.
There is recognition that a whole basin solution is possible if we come together to work on that goal and that it is unlikely to happen if we don’t. People in the group will be empowered to affect their future and they share their enthusiasm with the community to shape and accomplish their mutual objectives. Knowing we are one big community; knowing we must solve the conflicts as a community and knowing we will solve these conflicts as a community.

These three days serve as a springboard to the development of a Basin wide strategy for restoration of the fisheries while also maintaining thriving rural economies and communities of the Basin. That the total Klamath Basin will develop a survival strategy for solving the conflicts confronting us. A tangible compromise and/or plan.

People will use the skills and techniques and relationships and understanding gained these three days to formulate a basin wide forum to implement long term solutions. The group develops an action plan with definitive steps that will meld “bottom up,” locally driven restoration with Federal and state funding and planning (i.e. CIP). A quick tie in between Chadwick and Top down planning ~ Integrate! Specific steps will be outlined to move the CIP forward in the right direction i.e. from the grass roots.

OUR SHORT TERM PURPOSE (cont.)

Solutions to issues are presented and agreed upon. Fair and durable solutions are reached. The desire for a peaceful solution overcomes our fears. Lawyers are excluded from the process of reaching solutions.
That we will find solutions to the challenges we face and implement them successfully and the fisheries will recover. Together we come up with collective solutions that can be implemented by the individuals and groups themselves. We find a set of solutions and implement in a respectful manner, helping each other by being generous to all life honestly and successfully.
That this group comes up with a creative solution to the water allocation problems in the basin and specifically addresses what should be done in wet years and drought years. Further, this solution will be supported by the Klamath Basin Community at large and the influential politicians. We develop a process to gain security for irrigation and fisheries for 2005 and beyond. It gets implemented this year.

That we all can come together to a water use plan. If we could all agree and work together on the water problem and work together to make it work for everyone involved. One or more breakthroughs that lead to a sustainable, secure water future for all water dependent stakeholders (including ranchers, farmers, fisherman, tribes.) That it will benefit all users in the basin.

That we will all take personal responsibility for moving forward with actions that will result in solutions for the basin. We agree to continue to work towards outcomes that enhance communities, resources, and people. We collectively come up with good solutions and I understand what I can personally do to help. Agencies will be inspired to work together to help communities work on solutions that will help themselves while supporting the others.
This process has clearly moved forward with specific ideas and actions to support each other. We establish a process that can help the stakeholder achieve something that they are satisfied with and that can achieve sustainable results.
A watershed wide sense of community is established. We find and all agree on ways to get enough water in the rivers for fish, that will take only a little sacrifice on all our parts, equitably distributed. By doing so, we boost our feeling of community, sense of empowerment, security and happiness. The people in this room will be the seed corn for a thriving, harmonious, caring atmosphere for the greater basin where all our children can expect to nurture and prosper. We think of one another as neighbors and begin work on watershed wide solutions to issues. A healthy, vibrant watershed results.
OUR SHORT TERM PURPOSE (cont.)

We develop an ability to work together on some real solutions to solving problems in the Klamath Basin. Massive watershed restoration gets underway. We have accountability and are finding solutions towards restoring the watershed with a feeling of interconnectedness and big picture thinking.

Healthy, vibrant fishermen, farmers and ranchers, fish and wildlife, tribal, business, communities and intergovernmental entities are created, starting here, and we continue to come together annually to support the above. All parties and ecosystems are winners. We recognize and advocate for economic stability for all stakeholders. Some aboriginal land is given back to tribes. Irrigators and tribe create a corporation together. The river has more water than it did before the Klamath Project.

We make real progress on basin restoration. We find something tangible that we can agree to work on together and make it happen. We become better land stewards. We agree on and complete successfully one connected enhancement project. A mechanism is set in place to deal collaboratively with the upcoming water issue for this summer. The disaster relief letter is supported by all of the groups represented here.
We decide our future in the Klamath Basin. Participants come up with workable plans to solve our dilemma and present them to legislators. We recognize a political issue that other groups, individuals and organizations can support that will result in a benefit for the Klamath watershed and successfully lobby for it.
That the role of elected local government in decision making in basin issues will be recognized, respected and validated. That we take to decision makers and the political world a mutual vision as to how our communities and the resources on which they depend can not only survive but can thrive as they have in the past.
We have a new ability to address hard issues and divisions while we hang tight and see it through. Renewed inspiration results. Everyone advocates for detente’ and everyone gives in order to receive. “It is as good as it gets.”
That the greater basin becomes a model of what can go right when people work together toward a common cause. We become aware of ourselves as a single precious resource to the rest of the world. Skilled practitioners of the ancient crafts, the ancient art of making food come out of the earth. We receive a National Award from the Bush Administration for the natural resource work that we have accomplished in the Klamath Basin.


OUR SHORT TERM PURPOSE (cont.)

I arrive home energized and feeling positive. We get snowed in by a blizzard that dumps 10 feet of snow on the upper basin. It will snow till May. I get a huge raise.

The project farmers are invited to the C’wam ceremony and go freely and can help fish the next day.
To imagine what might be possible. We begin to believe that there is a way that basin wide progress to solving land and water use problems will occur.”
THE KEY UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN
At the listening sessions and during the workshop, the participants from the Upper Basin expressed their frustration at not getting answers to questions that they have about the science, biological opinions, historical flows and the role of the Klamath Project plays with flows and fish. The participants, in small groups, identified these key questions, or issues, that they feel need to be resolved in order to restore the river, the fish, agriculture, the communities and the Tribes, and foster their long term 20 year mission. Each participant recorded the issues or questions they agreed needed to be answered on a 3 x 5 card. This was developed into a collective statement.
EDUCATION:
We need to learn! The issue: Ignorance.


  • We have insufficient knowledge of real planning and geography and availability.

  • We need more details about skills and practices used daily.



MANAGING THE DROUGHT:
Calendar a schedule and plan to interact with the tribes.
How will we get through this water year and fishing year without irreparable harm to the communities.

  • In a drought year what should be priority allocation be? Should it be equally distributed or should some hierarchy of distribution be established and on what basis?

  • We need to learn the potential impact to the basin constituents, farmers, fishing, tribes.

  • Farm water assurance.
  • Where next? We need to make some river basin calls Soon! Most important NCA - 50,000 AF trinity flow.



The role that the environmental/conservation community can play or could or should.

  • The role of the environmentalists. That radical environmental interests have the power to strangle this process.

  • Image of the environmental community and local environmental support.

  • Farm workers are not here. Environmentalists are not here.


How and who will speak in the united core?

  • We need Strategies to deal with disasters, an agent to speak for us.

  • Who is going to be the spokesman for the project farmers?

  • To whom will he or she speak, the tribes, the press, commissioners?

  • Legislative representatives and planning.


THE KEY UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN (cont.)
SCIENCE AND THE ROLE OF AGENCIES:
There is distrust of the biological opinions. The distrust of biological opinions.

  • What are biological opinions?

  • Examining the role of the Biological Opinion / Section 7.

  • The mis-perception that all biological opinions are the same.

  • The mis-perception that meeting the biological opinion requirement equates to a fully functional .....for all fish species.


Faith is needed in a biological opinion that is truly science based and can be supported by all affected entities.

  • The ESA needs to be amended so that a formal peer review process is always followed.


The scientific background for the fish.

  • Historical range and distribution of anadromous salmonid.

  • Predation of introduced species on Threatened and Endangered species. (2)
  • The Link River used to dry up and the fish survived.


  • A belief that suckers are not endangered. Sucker habitat and water needs. Suckers can live in the mud.

  • How much spawning habitat could be available upstream? Refuge water needs.

  • Salmon disease.

  • How much water and when does the Klamath River ecosystem need to be healthy and support the fishery?


The misconception that agency biologists can’t get anything right. That technical people disagree.

  • That Federal Agencies must make tough decisions even in the face of a lack of all the information they would like to have.

  • Also that all biological opinions are the same.

  • The integrity of basin scientists.

  • How can they serve the community of the Klamath Watershed?


We need someway to understand and incorporate the complexities and uncertainty of science and management without using those complexities and uncertainties to tell a tale that benefits our interest but rather the interest of the watershed.
THE KEY UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN (cont.)

The role of the agencies in response to the issues.

  • Understand that Agencies and folks can negotiate together as resources to each other.

  • How will that group move forward to begin ranking priority projects?

  • State and Federal coordination, CIP and role of KIW.


A belief the government wants to see farms and ranches go away. The feds want to take our land. The government wants to take our water.

  • That the government thru the CIP process could hijack this process for their own ends.


Not letting the law write the story of the basin because it will write a different story than yours.
  • Finding a way to write a story that reconciles the question of “whose land is this?”


  • How can understanding on “solutions” by stakeholders influence mandates by government Agencies?

UNDERSTANDING HISTORICAL FLOWS AND PROJECT INFLUENCE:
Historical flows in the upper Klamath basin. Pre-development hydrology.

  • To understand more about the hydrology of the basin past, present and future possibilities.

  • Historic flows, surface and ground water from key watersheds.

  • Understanding empirical and historical facts and data regarding the project and the river.

  • The historical natural flow of Klamath River and it’s contribution to flows at the lower river timing and amounts.

  • Difference between river flows pre-project versus now (evaporation loss versus irrigation amount.) Pre-project hydrology especially Lower Klamath River flows.

  • The reef elevation at the Upper Klamath Lake and what were lake levels prior to the link river dam?

  • Facts about Historical water on the basin versus what is current use.

  • Where does the water come from (UKL)?

  • “UKL used to dry up every year.”

  • “UKL has always been eutrophic.”


Influence of the Klamath project on downstream water quality.

  • The relationship between flows in the main stem Klamath and fisheries populations and health. To what degree the klamath project is responsible for those flows.

  • Understand and accept that there are only small difference in the amounts of water that go down the Klamath river now versus pre-development.

  • The mis-perception that just getting more water from the project into the Klamath will solve all the problems and that the dams can’t be touched.

THE KEY UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN (cont.)

Influence of the Klamath project on downstream water quality. (Cont.)


  • More water goes down the Klamath River now than before the Project.

  • That project water will solve the fish problem in the klamath river.

  • Link River water quality related to algae growth.


Can increased downstream flow from the upper klamath help provide the cool, clean water needed for salmon survival downstream?

  • The hot green water flows in the river for the fish, while the cold clean water is for crops.

  • Clear water flows on the crops. Green water flows down river or into the lakes.



SOLVING THE WATER PROBLEM:
How the water problem will be solved and the time it will take. Water right adjudication.

  • A belief there isn’t enough water for all uses.

  • Water allocation, resources misinformation and Agriculture misinformation.

  • If it turns out that the amount of irrigated land needs to be reduced to protect riparian areas and increase flows, how can we compensate farmers to keep them on the land?

  • If it turns out the amount of irrigated land needs to be reduced. Find out what farmers want, what tribes want, what wildlife needs.

  • How to improve efficiency.


Managing for an increased population and demands on finite or unpredictable natural resources.

THE DAMS ROLE REGARDING FISH AND WATER QUALITY:
The role the dams and the respective managers play in the loss of the salmon resources.

  • What needs to change at the dams to make it work?

  • Timing of water releases from the upper basin. How is the outflow from Iron gate determined?
  • Perception of amount and timing of flows by down river people from Upper Klamath Basin is incorrect. Insufficient knowledge of real planning and geography and availability to it.


  • Below Iron Gates flows and discharge and temperature above.

  • Facts about the dams and the fish passage.

  • Appropriate for today an approximate expectation of water from Irongate relative to other rivers and waters below for the benefit of river resources and commit to provide that share.

  • That link river dam creates more storage.

  • A belief that flow rates don’t matter, only temperature matters.

THE KEY UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN (cont.)

What is the upper basin community perspective on Iron Gate?

  • What is the habitat above Iron Gate?


The dams: the mis-perception that dams can’t be touched.

  • KR hydro re-licensing.

  • Are the dams and the return of anadromous fish comparable?

  • What is the value of PacificCorps dams?

  • What other sources (existing or otherwise) that could compensate for their electrical generating volume to PacificCorps shareholders?

  • Power infrastructure restructuring.



RESTORATION EFFORTS:
The extent of restoration efforts, ongoing and accomplishments.

  • Restoration projects in the big picture have a net benefit to the river.

  • What restoration projects have already occurred? What can we learn from them?

  • Success, collaboration, on the Chiloquin Dam, proposed north irrigation settlement.

  • The Barnes property will provide 50,000 acre feet of storage and sucker habitat.

  • The Wood river wetland project is a failure.

  • How can we get the word out about the great efforts of Klamath Basin folks?


Overall benefits and liabilities of the large wetlands.

  • The role of wetlands in water quality, sucker habitat and evapo-transpiration versus agriculture, yearly and seasonally..


  • A misconception that wetland restoration will decrease water supply. That wetlands use more water than Agriculture fields.


The relationship of upper watershed forest lands.

  • Juniper trees waste 50 gallons of water a day.

  • Forests were all open pine stands that burned every 5-10 years.



BUILDING COMMUNITY:
Finding a way to build community.

  • One step at a time with a vision in my mind.

  • Taking more ownership. Vulnerability

  • Successes and stories.

  • More details about skills and practices used daily.

THE KEY UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE KLAMATH RIVER BASIN (cont.)
Our direct communications and improved human relations must also have the understanding of our different locations and the specific rights and the ecosystem and human relations of each. These still must be respected.

  • More clarity regarding ecological/hydro/bio differences between our respective homelands.

  • A mis-perception that all Agriculture in the basin has the same interest and operates under the same laws and rules.

  • The mis-perception that all tribes in the basin have the same interest and operate under the same laws and rules.


A start has been made, but we have not resolved the communication issue.

  • We have resolved to do something, the what is still to be determined.

  • Communication. A communication breakdown.
  • There is still some distrust. Remaining distrust. We need more trust. Spontaneity



Identify ways to communicate in a meaningful way when lots of entities are still apprehensive about dialog.

  • Understanding the actual intentions driving people’s actions versus the interpretation by others of those actions. When something happens before doing anything, call the other guy to get the facts straight.

  • Control... each group needs to temper their self righteousness based on impacts to others.

  • Be patient with all people and things being worked on and prepare for the coming!

  • Resolution. Find a way to really talk and form friendships, even if the fighting continues.

  • Forgive and try to understand what’s now and historically.

  • Talk and talk and talk until the talking starts relationships and trust.


We need someway to embrace the past conflicts between agriculture and tribes so that we can move forward with common interests and goals as true neighbors.

  • More sharing of culture and history including reconciliation.

  • The difference between the Agriculture “culture” and the tribal culture lies in the fact that Agriculture has to go to the bank and risk economic livelihood based on the amount of production. That amount of production is tied to irrigation water.

  • The tribes do not have to get a loan to be repaid based on the number of salmon they catch. If Agriculture gets hit with another year, for many there will be NO next year. The tribes have been here for millennia and will be here next year.

  • What parts of the current infrastructure are food and work for all?


What forum, like Chadwick, will continue to bring diverse stakeholders together to share issues without confrontation?

  • The relationship of this process to the CIP and other more formal groups.


“Keep praying for snow and rain.”

OUR BASIN TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW

A SUMMARY
I’m sitting on my horse, snow on the mountains..still ~ watching the fish wiggle past ~ thinking of the sun setting over the waves where this water finally meets the sea. I can see a man on a rock with a net, and he is thinking of me.”
“Goals realized. Vision reached.”


  • In 20 years the Klamath Basin will be known as a good and peaceful place to live, work, and raise a family for all of its human, fish, and other wildlife inhabitants. A United Basin–from the headwaters to the ocean–with sustainable fishery, agriculture and recreational opportunities. We wish for a complete community that provides opportunities for all to enjoy work, enjoy family and life in general.




  • Twenty years from now each of us will clearly see that listening to each other with respect was worth the time it took. Upper and lower basin people will continue to communicate face to face when issues and concerns arise. People in the basin are proud to have come together to resolve the old self centered ways of looking at river issues.




  • Stories are told and passed on to the next generation about how you came to be this community. We understand the moral imperative to keep all peoples in the Klamath Basin as a whole. People in the watershed gather annually to celebrate unity.



  • The Klamath Basin will be a fully functioning ecosystem supporting thriving populations of fish and wildlife that are enjoyed and appreciated by all citizens. The people of the Klamath Watershed have learned to live sustainably within the watershed boundaries and beyond to the coastal communities that fish for salmon. A healthy, functioning ecosystem with prospering communities, an example of how powerful and successful grassroots efforts can be.




  • There will be a healthy Agriculture community with clean rivers flowing through benefitting fish and wildlife. The historic hydrologic regime will be restored within each watershed. This will be accomplished

  1   2   3   4   5   6


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page