An Oregon law could threaten the future of
the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
State lawmakers from Klamath Falls said Oregon Water
Resources Department staff violated state law by
participating in closed-door meetings with the Klamath
Tribes during two-and-a-half years of settlement talks.
Proponents of the water settlement said Wednesday they
hadn’t yet heard about the law, but said it needs further
review and shouldn’t take away from settlement efforts.
“I think we’re going to have to take a fair look at it,”
said Jeff Mitchell, Klamath Tribes council member, adding he
wonders why state lawmakers are bringing the issue up now
instead of earlier in the settlement process.
“They’ve known all along these meetings were
going on,” he said.
Stakeholders released the proposed agreement Jan. 15. It
allocates water in the Klamath River watershed between
irrigators, tribes, fishermen and conservationists and also
advocates removal of four hydroelectric dams owned by
Portland-based PacifiCorp.
State Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls,
said he raised the legal issue about the settlement talks
during a mid-February meeting of the House Environment and
Energy Committee.
The potential violation concerns Oregon Revised Statute
539.310. The law says state agencies can negotiate with
sovereign nations, such as tribes, but must do so in public
meetings and allow public comment.
The settlement talks were closed to the general public and
did not permit public comment
Garrard said Phillip Ward, director of the Oregon Water
Resources Department, was at the meeting as well as a
representative of Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s office. They said
they would look into the matter.
“Their response was basically ‘oops,’ ”
Garrard said.
The department has not signed the
agreement, but if it does an individual or organization
could sue it for violating state law, a battle the plaintiff
would likely win, Garrard said.
State Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls,
is working with Garrard on the issue. The senator said he
would withhold comment until the Oregon attorney general
responded to his questions. Whitsett has publicly spoken
against the proposed settlement.
Ruben Ochoa, Oregon Water Resources Department spokesman,
said the department wants more information to better
understand how it may have violated state law, specifically
the definition of what a negotiation is, before responding
to the concerns.
“When we have more information we’ll be happy to discuss
it,” he said.
Anna Richter-Taylor, spokeswoman for Kulongoski, also said
she would need to look into the issue before commenting.
Oregon Department of Justice staff confirmed that Whitsett
contacted the department and natural resources attorneys are
scheduled to meet with him.
Luther Horsley, president of the Klamath Water Users
Association, said he was not clear on the public meeting
requirements, but said he it would be disappointing if the
state was not allowed to participate.
“The talks needed to be confidential to get a product out,”
he said.
Edward Bartell, president of the Klamath Off-Project Water
Users said he was not familiar with the situation enough to
comment.
He did say that he and other irrigators have been concerned
about the Oregon Water Resources Department’s approval of
the agreement because it has a role in the water
adjudication process.
Garrard said his concerns were not meant to destroy the
agreement and he is not planning any legal challenges, but
thinks that stakeholders need to address the issue before
moving forward.
