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


We are the prime example, where old processes ended



Download 313.13 Kb.
Page3/6
Date conversion14.06.2018
Size313.13 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6

We are the prime example, where old processes ended. Attorneys will not use the Klamath for job security. And where peer reviewed information and agency coordination and public participation continues to strive for the best outcome for people and the resources. The greatest controversy is a bad call at a high school basketball game between Chiloquin and Lost River. We are peaceful and content.
The people of the Basin created a Klamath Congress and Klamath Stamp to promote sustainable rural communities to provide a model for peoples of the world. Traditions and cultures helped reduce the need for regulations and tribal and public trust is not only honored but thriving. There is an end to prejudice. Because we held a Klamath River Congress, we have a photo of Klamath Stakeholders with the President, Senators, Congressmen and our supervisors and commissioners commemorating the Klamath River Act including a National Conservation Area designating 20,000+ acres of restored upper Klamath Lake habitat.
We are a symbol of the power of humans to effectively find solutions through collaboration and understanding. We become a worldwide example of a cooperative process that solved extremely difficult challenges and restored an entire river basin to ecological, social, economic health and sustainability. If the kind of success that has been realized in the Klamath Basin is possible ~ given the complex nature of those issues ~ that success should be the model on which all other endeavors are based.
“The Klamath River Basin Community... a town with really long streets.”

EXPLORING A CEASE FIRE BETWEEN ALL PARTIES IN THE BASIN

A proposal was made to establish a “cease fire” between the parties in the Basin Community. This would provide a breathing space so further “small steps” could be taken to build trust and move towards a collaborative approach to resolving the Basin issues.

Two small groups were established to explore this proposal. Each group was facilitated by members of the Basin community. Each group followed this process:
STEP 1: Each member recorded their answer to this question on a 3 x 5 card: “What are the worst possible outcomes of implementing this proposal for a Basin Community cease fire?” This was then read off to their group.
This allows the participants to bring their fears of the approach to their consciousness. They are making themselves aware of the possible failure events.
STEP 2: Each member recorded their answer to this question on a 3 x 5 card: “What are the Best Possible Outcomes of implementing this proposal for a Basin Community cease fire?” This was then read off to their group.
This allows the participants to express their hopes, or a “purpose” for this proposal. 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 strategies and actions taken at this meeting and post meeting activities. The individual statements can be used as measurable goals.
STEP 3: Each member expressed their answer to the question: “What specific strategies or actions will foster the best possible outcomes for this proposal, and create our 20 year vision?”
This allows the participants to explore approaches that would foster the short and long term outcomes they want. When all have spoken, they recorded on 3 x 5 cards the answer to this question: “What strategies or actions did you hear that you agree with, including your own?”

This was an exploration of the issue, not decision making. It is a prelude to decision making, creating a sense of consciousness and purpose for the issue. The information from all these activities was developed into the collective statements that follow.


THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF A CEASE FIRE

BETWEEN THE YUROK TRIBE AND THE KLAMATH WATER USERS

That we will agree here to implement them, but when we leave here, the agreement falls apart and the bridges we’ve built are permanently burned. One side starts slinging mud and taking shots. It falls apart.
Each group gains information to use and uses it against each other. Both parties would declare a cease fire and then one or both would betray the cease fire and backstab each other, with the result that people return to and dig in further into polarized dehumanized positions.
Rob and Troy are shot by their constituents or Rob and Troy lose trust together and we all lose as a basin.
Third party influence (bricks) split the unity and anger replaces communication. Outside groups and individuals interfere and destroy the best efforts of Troy’s proposal. There is legal intervention that limits communication.

Negative support from other entities ~ communities of tribes and farmers and ranchers. That we can’t come together with a unified front and our congressional delegation become frustrated that we remain divided.
That even our unified voice goes unheard or is ignored. Lack of governmental support to allow community decision making to take action contrary to Federal ESA.
Further ruptured basin relationships.

THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF A CEASE FIRE

BETWEEN THE YUROK TRIBE AND THE KLAMATH WATER USERS

Groups use this years challenge to solidify next steps toward people’s 20 year best outcomes.

There is positive support from most of these people. The representatives work together.

That trust will be built between the Klamath Project irrigators and the Yurok Tribe so we can take the next step to building durable, long term solutions. Rob and Troy serve as a model for all of us that it is truly possible for former adversaries to eat fish and potatoes together and mend the fences that have kept us from the path to solution. We are ignited by their example to do the same mending of fences in our own communities to make a real success.

Not only is a cease fire declared, but both sides walk the talk. We speak jointly in response to the realities of the drought, stand up for each other when one is attacked by other groups or interests, find ways to actively help each other deal with the pain caused by the drought.
The Tribes and Agriculture acknowledge each others needs and concerns and reach common agreement on the need to support each other through these times. True communication, the development of a common “real” desire to work together to make vision happen. No matter what ~ and do it! No press bytes.
There are unified solutions and support for all issues. That we can elevate our power dramatically by taking a unified position forward to our delegation. More things get done because we were unified (for all). A joint approach. We develop stronger relationships and for both our credibility is worth its weight in gold.
There is a sense of connectedness. A deeper understanding of exactly how the ecosystem is interdependent for people, river, species and therefore how to heal it (the Basin.)
A solid working relationship is established. We increase communication.
An agreement is made in water allocation.
STRATEGIES AND ADVICE TO TROY AND ROB

To make a public commitment here to do everything in our power to implement Troy’s idea. I support the idea that the overall strategy can work because it has been successful in other venues. I support the idea that this collaboration has never before been used in Klamath to influence decision makers.
Troy and Rob issue a joint public statement of empathy and commitment to stop “throwing arrows.” Agree to a cease fire. End of sound bytes... do not use events for advantage, end misinformation.
Immediate plan to outline.

  • Make plans/schedule of information times and sessions. Frequency of meetings.


  • Troy and Rob will identify ways that they can work together to reduce the pain. This will include collaboration with individuals and organizations outside of theirs.



Have fun at the first or second meeting. Meet in a relaxed fun atmosphere at first. Having fun. Get good food.
Open lines of communication and share good information.

  • Face to face constant communication.

  • Open time to breathe!

  • Sharing communication in a form besides the newspaper. Build communication.


Rob and Troy start with a list of misunderstandings and systematically educating each other and each others people to promote mutual understanding.

  • Making sure that Troy and Rob have a good understanding of the pain sharing. And then work together in the process.


Jointly support each other. Joint representation. Take the policy and promote it.
Develop a process to work with the media, call the other guy and get the facts straight, making no assumptions.

  • Issue a joint statement when ever a brick is thrown at one or the other.

  • When a third party issues statements or are quoted in the press denigrating either the Klamath Water Users or the Yurok Tribe, the opposite party issues a response.

  • When something happens, before doing anything else, call the other guy. Call Steve Kandra, Gareth, Becky.

  • Get the facts straight; check rumors with your counterpart before reacting. Don’t assume.



STRATEGIES AND ADVICE TO TROY AND ROB (cont.)

Share all available knowledge regarding key issues.

  • Full understanding between tribes and upper basin of what can and cannot be done.

  • Take the issue beyond project irrigators.

  • Acknowledge project irrigators are only a part of the solution.



Thinking out of the box and coming up with new approaches to gather support for.

  • Agreements between tribes and upper basin on the best water delivery.

  • Working with upper basin farmers so they can find their role in sharing water.


Work with congressional delegates once issues have been identified that could not be resolved within their efforts.

EXPLORING WAYS TO MANAGE THE DROUGHT OF 2005
A proposal was made to explore ways the Basin community could manage the drought situation expected this summer. This would develop further “small steps” that could be taken to build relationships trust and move towards a collaborative approach to resolving the Basin issues.
Two small groups were established to explore this proposal. Each group was facilitated by members of the Basin community. Each group followed this process:
STEP 1: Each member recorded their answer to this question on a 3 x 5 card: “What are the worst possible outcomes of not working together to manage the drought in the Basin this summer? This was then read off to their group.
This allows the participants to bring their fears regarding the drought situation to their consciousness. They are making themselves aware of the possible failure events.
STEP 2: Each member recorded their answer to this question on a 3 x 5 card: “What are the Best Possible Outcomes of working together to manage the drought in the Basin this summer? This was then read off to their group.

This allows the participants to express their hopes, or a “purpose” for managing the drought this summer. 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 strategies and actions taken at this meeting and post meeting activities. The individual statements can be used as measurable goals.

STEP 3: Each member expressed their answer to the question: “What specific strategies or actions will foster the best possible outcomes for managing the drought this summer and create our 20 year vision?”
This allows the participants to explore approaches that would foster the short and long term outcomes they want. When all have spoken, they recorded on 3 x 5 cards the answer to this question: “What strategies or actions did you hear that you agree with, including your own?”
This was an exploration of the issue, not decision making. It is a prelude to decision making, creating a sense of consciousness and purpose for the issue. The information from all these activities was developed into the collective statements that follow.

THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF

NOT ADDRESSING THE DROUGHT

2001 and 2002 rolled into 2005. Another 2001 style blown up. Another 2002 style fish kill. News people will have a hay day with pitting tribes against farmers.
Federal government shuts water off to farmers and someone maliciously attributes the call from the tribes and we have devastating numbers of farm failures and fish die off. Federal government BOR sets water allocations that don’t make sense. Another water shut off. More water gets removed from the Klamath and there is another fish kill.
Crops die and fish die. No irrigation, sucker kill, salmon kill, war and national media coverage. Dies off’s of juvenile fish, or spawners, from poor water quality in the rivers, that depress the populations for the next 10 years. Another fish kill. Families might lose their farms.

The good will amongst those here today is overcome by dealing with the crises that arise, setting the stage for more heavy handed government action. Renewed polarization between upper and lower inhabitants. Losing all the progress we have made. More fear and anger are created.

All communications between stakeholders comes to a halt. Farmers and tribes will turn against each other. No collaboration between collaborative groups present here.
Irrigators start a negative campaign against tribes and it begins to divide communities and the nation. All groups file lawsuits. Tribes start suing individual irrigators.
Salmon season ~ what remains of it...completely shuts down for everyone. Tribal people dependent on salmon and suckers go hungry.
The Klamath River Basin will stay fractured and each hanging on to individual fears and issues instead of giving up something to gain a lot. No cooperation between tribes, farmers and environmental groups leads to indecision in agency’s response; fish die, crops die and lawyers get rich.
Social upheaval ~ the people that are addicted to hatred use the drought to blame and generate violence. The peacemakers get discredited and attacked. People will become victims instead of hero’s and diplomats.
Top down solution. The administration gives the Army Corps a billion $$ to solve the problem without any of us.
THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF

NOT ADDRESSING THE DROUGHT (cont.)

The water will be cut off for the irrigators, and there is a massive fish kill anyway. No water flows for irrigators. No water available for flows below Keno dam. No water for anyone above Iron Gate Dam. This undermines everyone’s efforts to avoid catastrophe, furthering the wedge between the rivers communities.
Flows in the Shasta, Scott and Salmon dry up and the only water available for the lower river is bought and/or released from Livingston on the Trinity. All the fish in the river die and farmers go bankrupt.
The people here do not really represent the groups that need to go to Congress together.

All funding will dry up if you are not fighting . Most people here will lose their main income.



THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF

ADDRESSING THE DROUGHT
The entire basin will come together to work as one, to gain entire community support to use for political strength and power for immediate and long term planning and results for community improvements, water development, fish habitat and restorations. Before taking an action for personal gain, community members will deliberate on how their actions have potential to adversely affect others in the rivers community. Thus, people will move forward together and collaboratively choose how to best give, take and compromise.
Farmers, tribes and environmental groups conspire and develop balanced, compromise plan to make it through the drought without lawyers. The Yurok Tribe and hopefully other tribes and KWA keep a 20 year time frame in mind and become each other’s spokesperson when non resident interests insist on focusing on only one aspect of a drought that affects everyone.
Stakeholders start working together. We might be able to find solutions, funding, support for each other. People see our commitment and responsibility to each other.
All parties link arm and arm and prevent a 2001 style blow up. No 2002 fish kill. If a fish kill happens we show up immediately!
Communication from this forum moves forward and alliances are formed. Communication is developed. We will be able to more fully understand each others path.
Legislators are more willing to work with the community we have built. Request for disaster relief for both salmon people, and farmers goes to Governors, Congress and the President. Negotiations regarding water usage are by watershed people, successful and supported by the State and Federal governments.

The drought is a catalyst to bring us together. Drought will offer an opportunity for us to call for and help each other. Troy’s proposal happens and the delegation gets a lot of money for a cooperative, bottom up approach. The fish squeak by because of a cooperative surprising short term solution, giving us the confidence to build a long term solution.

Communities throughout the basin treat each other with respect and we make the best of the situation together. Lower and upper basin resource groups come together before April 15th and agree on an equitable and reasonable share of all the available water which leads to further mutual understanding.
Government, tribes and farmers reach agreement on water allocation and continue to work together. This it is shown without a doubt the galvanizing of the committees can weather through any water situations e.g. worst drought on record yet water was delivered and no loss of fish of any class.

THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF

ADDRESSING THE DROUGHT (cont.)

Cheaper electrical rates for irrigators is supported by all. Farmers continue their current power rate.
The current disaster is alleviated and plans for future watershed improvements move forward. Water quality got better due to projects implemented this spring.
Dam removal is proposed and supported by all stakeholders.
We hold a Klamath Basin Congress. There is less government.
Together we explode the world’s expectations, standing together publically all summer long. It is the start of world peace.

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS WE SUPPORT

IN ADDRESSING THE DROUGHT

Collaboration with the tribes and irrigators go to political entities for drought relief and financial benefits for the whole Klamath basin.


  • Get the big stakeholders together within next two weeks to develop strategy and continue meeting until after October. Incorporate into CIP.
  • Getting together right after the forecast comes out in April and crafting a proposal to get emergency aid to irrigators and tribes and fisherman, and take it “with linked arms” to congress.


  • Plan the meeting ahead of time.

  • “Linking arms” along the watershed to bring our case before elected officials to secure disaster relief.

  • Spread the pain equally through the basin.


Legislation to help support farmers not farming so more water can go into the river and additional funds to help the downstream tribes.

  • Get emergency relief funds for the tribes downstream.

  • Get emergency relief for irrigators.

  • Emergency funds for irrigators to idle farmland so that water can be used downstream for fish.


Funds for idled farmers to do restoration work that can’t be done during wetter years.

  • Give farmers money to implement restoration.

  • Find money to pay irrigators not to use their water.


Watershed restorative funds.
Close interaction with both ends of the entire basin.

  • Joint demonstrations.

  • Have a Klamath drought road show made up of storytellers (poets, musicians etc.) to represent the cultures of the Klamath Basin and the effect of the drought on them. Have free performances up and down the river (need to get funding for it.)

  • Cross section of the basin writing in.


Keep control over media re: Klamath water issues.

  • Representatives to attend press events related to drought and basin issues.

  • Joint cultural publications.

  • Joint press releases. More articles.

  • KBEF chat website. Use web chat page www.KBG.


STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS WE SUPPORT

IN ADDRESSING THE DROUGHT (cont.)

Equitable water sharing for upper and lower river using historical drought flows.
  • Pumps off during the fish run (1 - 2 days.)



Having three additional water masters for ODWR who could work to find willing irrigators to temporarily reduce irrigations on a rotating basis. Support 3 temporary water masters for OWRD. Hire 3 people.
Secure funding from BOR for tribal and/or Agriculture.

  • Travel budget (plane, bus, staff).


Offering support when one group is suffering a tragedy.

  • Send food downstream if fish kill happens.

  • Show up to support if fish kill happens.

  • Send sympathy message from the upper basin if there is a fish die off.

  • support the disaster relief letters.

  • Support tribes in Washington, DC in exchange for flexibility on lake levels.


Step up the CIP and allow all groups to somehow participate.
Present a “public mission statement.”
Explore alternative energy proposals.
Attend the “Fish Dance” at Klamath.

EXPLORING WAYS TO ADDRESS POWER ISSUES FOR THE ENTIRE BASIN

A proposal was made to explore ways the Basin community could address the issues related to establishing power prices and electrification for the entire Basin. This would develop further “small steps” that could be taken to build relationships, trust and move towards a collaborative approach to resolving the Basin issues.


Two small groups were established to explore this proposal. Each group was facilitated by members of the Basin community. Each group followed this process:
STEP 1: Each member recorded their answer to this question on a 3 x 5 card: “What are the worst possible outcomes of not working together to address power issues for the entire Basin? This was then read off to their group.

This allows the participants to bring their fears regarding the power and electrification issues to their consciousness. They are making themselves aware of the possible failure events.

STEP 2: Each member recorded their answer to this question on a 3 x 5 card: “What are the Best Possible Outcomes of working together to address the power issues for the entire basin? This was then read off to their group.
This allows the participants to express their hopes, or a “purpose” for addressing the power issues for the entire Basin. 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 strategies and actions taken at this meeting and post meeting activities. The individual statements can be used as measurable goals.
STEP 3: Each member expressed their answer to the question: “What specific strategies or actions will foster the best possible outcomes for addressing the power issues for the entire Basin and create our 20 year vision?”
This allows the participants to explore approaches that would foster the short and long term outcomes they want. When all have spoken, they recorded on 3 x 5 cards the answer to this question: “What strategies or actions did you hear that you agree with, including your own?”
This was an exploration of the issue, not decision making. It is a prelude to decision making, creating a sense of consciousness and purpose for the issue. The information from all these activities was developed into the collective statements that follow.



1   2   3   4   5   6


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

    Main page