|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
Commissioners push for
more water storage
Klamath County commissioners will
again participate in meetings about the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement, saying they plan to push for more
water storage.
Commissioners met briefly Wednesday
and
unanimously agreed to have Commissioner John Elliott attend
meetings among stakeholders involved in the agreement.
Meetings began Wednesday in Sacramento. Elliott, who was in
Sacramento, participated in the commissioners’ meeting by
telephone.
Proponents of the agreement, which seeks to settle
water disputes between fishermen, farmers, tribes and
environmentalists, have said the meeting could yield a final
draft of the document.
Elliott regularly attended meetings with
stakeholders before, but stopped doing so after county
counsel Dan Bunch raised concerns about an elected official
participating in closed-door and confidential meetings.
Bunch said it’s now clear the county can participate, but it
must follow public records laws.
“I think the county’s participation is going to be
difficult, it’s going to be unwieldy, but legally it can be
done,” Bunch said.
Opponents and proponents of the restoration
agreement attended commissioner meetings the past two weeks
to provide updates. Along with those updates, both sides
called for commissioners to be more involved in the
agreement discussions.
“Both sides have asked us to please participate so
we know what is going on,” Commissioner Cheryl Hukill said.
Bunch said that, after conversations with the
Oregon Attorney General’s Office, he concluded the county
could participate in the discussions and that signing a
confidentiality agreement
would not force the county to sign the final restoration
agreement.
He noted, though, and the attorney
general’s office agreed, that the confidentiality agreement
could not prevent the county from responding to public
requests for any documents the county obtains in the
discussions.
Switzer noted that Elliott will
participate in the talks as a county agent, but he cannot
bind the county to any decision without meeting with and
getting approval of the other commissioners. 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any
copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to
those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml