From differing perspectives, 45 groups agree on KBRA

By RYAN PFEIL 

H&N Staff Reporter

October 10, 1010

   A diverse group of businessmen, farmers, tribal officials, environmentalists and others attended, with sometimes as many as 26 or 27 representatives in the room. It was a long process, he said, and a difficult one, but one that most attending organizations — 45 signed the agreement Feb. 18 — came to a consensus on.

   It took nearly two years of meetings to write the 369-page Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which aims to resolve water disputes in the Klamath River watershed, stabilize power rates for irrigators and improve fish passage by advocating for dam removal.  

   “It really was a remarkable process,” Sheets said. “ They started, as you know, from very different perspectives. What really impressed me through the process was how they, first, had the courage to sit down and talk to each other.”

   It also was a process where no group had every term met, and most parties attending had to compromise in several areas.

   “I think it’s important for people to understand, I don’t think every party got everything they wanted,” Sheets said. “That rarely happens in a negotiation like this.”  

   But KBRA and dam removal opponent and Siskiyou County Supervisor Jim Cook said the talks didn’t feel like negotiations at all.

   “The way I viewed it was it was set up from the beginning,” Cook said. “You couldn’t join unless you were a proponent of dam removal.”

   "I wouldn’t call it unfair either,” he continued. “They were pretty straight forward with what you had to agree to up front. It was a predetermined end.”

   Siskiyou County representatives still attended negotiations after they threatened to sue, Cook said. He said the discussions he attended were civil.

   “Quite civil actually,” he said. “I would almost use the word tedious.”  

   A lot of work

   KBRA proponent Steve Kandra, a member of the Klamath Water Users Association board of directors, said coming to a consensus was hard work.

   Coming in with an attitude of wanting to be productive and assist with a compromise was important.

   “That wasn’t easy. That took a lot of work,” he said.

   People coming to talk about the politics of the negotiations or personal ideologies did not get very far, he added.

   “People came in with a lot of different posturing,” Kandra said. “Everybody in that room had a different way of looking at what they wanted to do.”

   Sheets said he hoped all parties involved would sign the agreement.  Though some did not, he said the talks were a success overall.

   “It’s just a matter of finding that sweet spot, that common ground on the remaining issues,” he said.