Status quo remains. No electricity in lower river tribal communities, dams remain in place, tribes and fish bear the unaccounted for costs of the Hydro Project, irrigation project retains incentive to not change in positive ways. Status quo.
We create a significant feat (and expensive) that fails to protect the environment and we are worse off than before. People will waste a lot of time and get everyone excited about something they can do nothing about and hate power people and move away.
No solution and things continue to get worse, puts farmers and fishermen out of work. Subsidies are terminated to project farmers and they go belly up. Agriculture and economy collapse. Less water for farms, energy dams and fish.
Power rates increased to outside market rates within the project and no change elsewhere within the watershed. Rates go up as projected. This forces many operations out of business. All community progress goes to hell. Increased revenue 100% pacific power.
Power is too expensive to conserve water or provide water quality improvements. Power is too expensive to move water around in refugees.
No fish passage. Dams remain as barriers to fish passage.
No one will get what they want. No rates for Agriculture. No electric to Yurok village. No voice for everyone involved with an inequitable solution.
Intent isn’t followed through on and no power is provided. No power to Yurok residences and Mid Klamath. No new biomass, wind or solar energy utilized to replace hydro-electric.
Pacific Corp. will get a 50 year license having not met any demands or requests.
One group gets it all. Someone gets screwed.
THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF DEALING WITH POWER
FOR THE ENTIRE BASIN
A solution to benefit tribes, farmers, fish and wildlife. Water conservation, water quality, economy, address electrical needs of all communities. There is no animosity about any power subsidies between farmers. No one gets screwed. Resolution is quick.
People will finally see a life long dream of power to their area come true and will want to stay in the area. Affordable power. Power to Yurok residences and Mid Klamath. A “Klamath watershed rural electrification” program implemented to extend electrical power to those in the watershed that don’t now have it.
A fair power rate where tribes have power. Build in the cost of electrification of down river areas, reasonable costs of power for Agriculture users, and the removal of dams.
Better rates for all communities through development of alternative energy outside the power company. Build new Co-Generation facility next to the existing Co-Gen facility on Keno Reservoir.
Fish passage is linked to alternative energy development. Renewable biomass energy replaces hydro so dams can be managed for fish (cool water/higher flows) and treat up land vegetation for greater flows. We use the small tree business (and other plant biomass) that comes from forests that need thinning to maintain good habitat and health (and left over Agriculture products too like potato vines, scotch broom and fish guts).
We jointly explore alternative power. Find alternative power sources. Assessment of alternative energy sources. Power is replaced by biomass, wind and solar. Hydrogen fuel cell technology.
Improved power supplies create improved economic abundance and the area becomes a model for profitable alternative energy solutions i.e.; 1-10 megawatt, biomass plants in all communities where collaboratively planned fuels projects power the towns and feed the grid. The lower 4 dams are decommissioned. Remove some dams.
In the project, rates remain low, although increased somewhat from current rates. Rates remain or decrease ~ ha! Personal energy is re-directed to solution seeking for the remaining issues, including power to those without favorable rates to others.
Alternative tax credit is available to help the transition. Supply cash to Agriculture operators who run pumps to irrigate so water can remain in stream when needed.
Building basin wide coalitions and working groups.
Create a diverse system of power supply that fits local conditions.
Identifying community goals and interests.
Assessment study of power alternatives.
An assessment of power needs.
Find what works of what we use to generate and distribute electricity.Have many options for change studied.
Look into needs of non-power areas other than power.
Is there something more important to concentrate on?
Economic viability of the changes being supported. It must be viable (support of power) economically (without subsidy) to warrant support.
Build reasonable agriculture power rates and tribal electrification into rate structure.
Negotiation of favorable power rates and power delivery.
Keep in basin rates low but higher than they are now.
Use additional revenue to fund a “Klamath Watershed Rural Electrification” program. Community electrification.
Same as above, but use additional revenues to fund additional costs incurred by Agriculture water users who run their pumps so water can stay in-stream.
Replacement of hydroelectric power with other forms of energy to support dam decommissioning.
Investigate alternative energy sources. Alternative energy assessments.
Biomass - solar and wind power. Gasification.
Biomass exploration. Use biomass where appropriate.
Investigate biomass possibilities in non power areas.
1-10 MW biomass or co-generation for rural towns with excess biomass.
Build a new generator that replaces THE hydro project, which is then removed.
Build small dispersed power generator (biomass, small scale, non dam hydro, wind and solar). Begin to build our own plant.
Investigate dam removal using all available data on impacts.
Fish passage without removal of dams. Volitional fish passage at all dams.
Dam modifications and improvements.
Implementation of watershed positive programs.
EXPLORING THE PROPOSAL FOR A KLAMATH BASIN CONGRESS A proposal was made to explore a proposal for a Klamath Basin Congress that would address a decide issue “from the ground up.” 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 creating a Klamath Basin Congress? This was then read off to their group.
This allows the participants to bring their fears regarding the creation of a Klamath Basin Congress 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 create a Klamath Basin Congress? This was then read off to their group.
This allows the participants to express their hopes, or a “purpose” for creating the Klamath Basin congress. 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 creating a Klamath Basin Congress and fostering 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 CREATING A KLAMATH CONGRESS
Groups will feel left out and work against the Klamath River Basin Congress efforts. Some stakeholders are left behind. The environmental community is left out because they are seen as the bad guys and they feel like litigation, bad press and other attacks are their only avenue. Specific interest groups needs would be lost. My personal issues are not chosen and my rights will be taken
The efforts would not be met with success, distrust and blame would increase. People would return to old positions, fisheries would not be restored. (And prejudices.) Small secret meetings lead nowhere. Fear leads to reptile decisions. Fear creates lack of sponsorship. Grenade throwers block change causing me to lose my livelihood as fish continue to die. Positional. Lost proposals. Posturing. Blame.
It would be another group that folks set high expectations for and it fails ~ dis-bands and makes things worse. We get bogged down in another working group where nothing gets done. People see it as exclusive, lop bricks, gets politicized, defeats best efforts once again. Klamath River Basin Congress will work very hard only to find the resources to make any tangible change are simply not there. Funding did not occur, therefore non implementation of big ticket items. That it would function like the United States Congress!
Communities would suffer more. That people rebel and stop talking about it and the farms and river die and turn the river into a museum. Small remote areas that are the more biologically intact areas such as the Salmon River are either not included, given recognition or provided support.
Peer review science is not adhered to. That a self appointed group of those who can afford to show up, or are invited to show up represent themselves as a basin wide group and throw their power/support behind projects without fully understanding local repercussions, without accountability to local people. That good ideas are put forward by big picture thinkers and quickly endorsed by managers and politicians without a good understanding of what it will take to implement and what the results will be. That those left to implement these ideas are hamstrung by poorly written mandates based on poor understanding of managers and politicians.
County governments are run over by Federal judged without a grassroots congress. And, that the Federal government and Agencies find and implement the projects bypassing local elected governments with it’s accountability, undercutting and circumventing the constitutional authority and jurisdiction over groundwater. Land use planning in California drags planning from local to the Federal level.
Special interest groups (radicals on either end) have another target for their litigation and meaningful projects to restore ecosystems and local communities will never get off the ground.
THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF CREATING A KLAMATH CONGRESS
The Klamath River Basin Congress is a group that speaks the heart of watershed people. It is a group that truly represents all. It doesn’t become entrenched. People move in and out.
The Klamath River Basin Congress is based/governed by agreed upon principles and ground rules for inclusion, respectful listening and understanding and sits in a circle. A group with diverse stakeholders can work toward consensus issues identifying, moving forward. It brings the basin community together in a forum where all communities are heard and respected.
Communities would be unified in the purpose of restoring the watershed,. Funding would be obtained for implementation, locals would take leadership roles, fisheries would be recovered, there would be no need for state and Federal governments to regulate.
All decisions are made in the best interest of the environment and communities. There is a shared sense of ownership and people feel that we are finally getting something done. Broadly supported mutual goals, packages, support by county governments and stakeholders are developed and restore healthy fish and wildlife and communities.
A forum is available and used to work on disagreements, conflicts and misinformation. All stakeholders are included and come to an agreed upon common solutions to develop short and long term plans that provide for everyone’s needs. We promote the diverse needs into the basin. We explore new energy alternatives.
The Klamath River Basin Congress would be the epitome of open communication and mutual support. That everybody would want to be a member because they see the great work the Klamath River Basin Congress has accomplished and the joy the Klamath River Basin Congress members have. It enhances basin wide communication. The knowledge of the river system is spread. We address local rural and remote rural needs (infrastructure.) The group reflects Marshall’s vision of the best possible outcomes.
There is mutual agreement and support for addressing important large ticket problems that cannot be solved without consensus of all interest groups within the basin. We look to the Klamath River Basin Congress support for final support. And the opportunity to encourage basin wide consensus and support is provided.
A blueprint/roadmap will be created to prioritize tangible basin improvements. The Klamath Basin Congress will advocate for projects that benefit ecological ends. Solid proposals to be offered, debated and voted on. It hooks into the CIP and makes it a truly ground up process.
Science is offered, discussed and agreed to. Samorai sword scientific process creates the best possible outcome.
THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF CREATING A KLAMATH CONGRESS (cont.)
We recognize that we have a preliminary Federal government with the Compact. We only need to fine tune it for today’s issues and perspectives.
That celebrations take place frequently. People come together, farm the river, the river people live in peace, wildlife is plentiful.
That there is combined multi - interest voice on funding. That good projects are voted(?) Pooling/leverage know about funding.
Klamath and Yurok tribes get their land back.
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS FOR THE KLAMATH CONGRESS
Exploring an effort to identify various ways a Klamath River Basin Congress could function and how it might form.
Using the Chadwick process to form the necessary foundation of trust the Klamath River Basin Congress must have.
That it is based on most best outcomes.
Expand the Compact.
Identify some initial dialogue from this 3 day meeting to further the Klamath River Basin Congress idea.
That the Klamath River Basin Congress is open to all.
That this idea of a Klamath River Basin Congress is used to be inclusive and exclusive. Keeping it grass roots.
Ask for volunteers from this group of people to represent stakeholders and as delegates (preliminary) for the “congress.”
Representatives get buy in from their interested groups (i.e. this process.)
Support an effort that identify various restoration projects (large and small) in a pre-set forum.
Have proposed projects validated by a body of scientists before being advanced for consideration.
That a mechanism be developed for project review, evaluation and adoption. That following those reviews, there is some sort of “informed” voting.
Big ticket items.
Have projects proposed within the county validated by the county elected representatives before being advanced for consideration.
Broad restoration proposals should be taken to county governance before proposals are taken to the Congress.
Broad restoration proposals should be weighed in on by the community and shown rankings provided by the Congress.
Get some input from stakeholders before ideas get to elected officials. That any proposals are run by a diverse group as well as local elected officials prior to being put on a ballot.
Ask them to explore the feasibility of using the CIP process to continue to work together to identify solutions.
Investigate utilizing the CIP. CIP. Test the CIP.
Do a socio - economic assessment. Hotline bomb squads to diffuse missing information. Don’t call it a congress!
THE NEXT STEPS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
TO ACHIEVE OUR 20 YEAR VISION Each participant, in small groups, expressed their advice on the strategies and actions to take next to foster their long term 20 year vision. When all had spoken, they recorded the strategies and actions they heard from others, and themselves, that they agreed with, on 3 x 5 cards. This information was used to develop the collective statement for strategies and actions. Statements in bold tend to be strategies, while the indented statements tend to be specific actions. “Ask.. and I would give the shirt off my back.
Demand... and I will resist with the same intensity.” Set times for meetings ASAP. Set dates for meetings.
To press on to where we’re going. Be available and keep up on it.
The community... we are one.
Continue with the whole river concept when making decisions as an end to end community. Think of our region as the river.
Choose leaders who understand what we need and who listen to us!!! Stay courageous.
We are part of the history... tribal trust and water rights adjudication, etc. Accept this “moment of history.”
Agree to a unilateral truce, where everyone is at the table. Truce.
The truce needs to be a truce regardless of third parties.
A group cease fire.
A unilateral truce, all stakeholders.
Make a list of actions to get us through the drought and protect the listed species.
Schedule a meeting on April 1 (release of the water plan).
Commit to holding a meeting in early April for setting short term strategies and a gathering in October as a community festival.
Deal with results before they come out. Develop a strategy to “share the pain.”
Water users develop an action plan to deal with the 2005 water shortage.
All interests in the Klamath watershed (tribes, irrigation districts, RCD areas, sub watershed groups, etc.) determine by April 30 what they can do to help the 2005 drought water conditions.
THE NEXT STEPS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS (cont.) We need a short term action; for ALL Watershed Groups and special interests.
Karen’s idea: let everyone tell how as individuals they can conserve. What can you give?
A possible Klamath Irrigation District Plan:
Voluntarily use less water, a “real water bank.” Sell, transfer from less productive land.
Decrease diversion from the river.
Operate one less irrigation diversion this year.
Water bank increase.
Emergency water bank.
Trinity river 50,000 acre fee.
Short to mid term projects... do now.
Tribes and project irrigators and others meet after April 1 to craft a request to legislators for disaster aid for fishermen, including tribal, and the upper basin.
Plan how to send a delegation to DC to present the request and declare that all the basin has joined.
Travel budget and fleet (plane and busses).
Make a Joint Statement: Say it on TV and the Local Papers.
April 1, make a joint statement on TV and in every local paper and newspaper, newsletter. Have recognizable people from every player group standing together declaring a cease-fire.
We need a unified voice for the summer.
Go united to the politicians to get their support for a 2005 cease-fire.
Marshall and the Hatfield group need a strong initial voice to deal with elected officials.
Create cease fire bumper stickers.
“Cease fire” bumper stickers, give them out freely.
A cease fire bumper sticker, magnetic.
A Mr Salmon Potato head.
Hold an Upper, Upper Klamath meeting ASAP. Linda’s circle in the upper, upper basin.
Connect the Basin with the Upper Lake. Chadwick type meetings in the Upper, Upper Basin. Linda another workshop in the upper Lake.
Hold another meeting in Chiloquin focused on implementing our 20 year vision. Have a “Chadwick” meeting in the Upper, Upper Basin, Williamson, Sprague, Fort Klamath, et al. A Chadwick meeting ASAP in the Chiloquin area.
Conduct one, or a series of Chadwick meetings to try to free us up as much water as possible; Sprague, Williamson, Wood River, Klamath Tribes, Pacific corp, Shasta, Scott, Trinity, Yurok, Hoopa, Karuk. Do before May.
THE NEXT STEPS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS (cont.)
Communication must be clear and constant. Increase communication. Communicate.
Communicate... open lines of communication. Communications.
Communication; TV and some paper.
Communicate and build good relationships. Constant communication.
Get good information and involve all people involved (affected).
Articles in newsletters about basin and consensus. Hold meetings during the summer.
Extend communications among upper basin folks.
Communication and website. Do e-mails.
Community outreach by stakeholders to improve communication on related issues, ideas and concerns. Information outreach... the glue for getting the whole basin together.
Implement the ideas for community basin wide information exchange and good will building.
A strategy to share what we have learned over this 3 days to our peers in a way that they can get the understanding that we have worked for. Share good knowledge.
Talk to people we don’t usually talk to. Meeting people you don’t know.
Get constituents groups to hear what has happened here.