Opponents criticize KBRA meetings

Critics say discussions should have been public 

By JOEL ASCHBRENNER

H&N Staff Reporter

October 16, 2010

   Editor’s note: This is one of a series of stories about the impact of the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

     The issue: The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement was originally crafted in confidential meetings.  

   Why voters should care: A group of stakeholders made decisions, in both public and confidential meetings, that shaped the KBRA, which will have numerous effects throughout the Basin.

   What opponents say: The KBRA will utilize tax dollars and will impact a great number of people so the meetings should have been public.

   What proponents say: The original meetings were confidential because they dealt with litigation and a private company’s business decisions. Current KBRA meetings are open to the public, and the document was published for public comment.

   The Klamath Basin Restoration  Agreement was created during confidential meetings, and this has been one of KBRA opponents’ main criticisms of the agreement.

   “Meetings should be open when we are using tax dollars to fund them,” said Tom Mallams, president of the Off-Project Water Users Association, and a vocal   KBRA opponent.

   The KBRA aims to allocate water among Klamath River Basin stakeholders. It also advocates dam removal and provides funding for habitat restoration.

   Klamath County voters will be asked Nov. 2 whether Klamath County should stop its involvement with the document.

   Mallams attended several confidential KBRA meetings before withdrawing from the negotiations.

   “It became very clear that what they were talking about behind closed doors should not be talked about behind closed doors,” he said.  

   KBRA supporters, however, say the meetings had to be confidential because they originally involved litigation between stakeholders, and private business dealings between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and PacifiCorp, which owns four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River.

   Anyone could attend the meetings, but those who did had to sign a confidentiality agreement.

   The KBRA came about when PacifiCorp began the process of relicensing the dams prior to 2006.  

   Klamath River stakeholders and interest groups intervened and began meeting with PacifiCorp to discuss the future of the river and other Klamath Basin water issues, said Greg Addington, executive director of the Klamath Water Users Association and a KBRA supporter. These meetings were confidential.

   “When we are sharing sensitive business information, we always insist on confidentiality,” said Toby Freeman, a PacifiCorp spokesman. “It’s just standard business practice. We do it, as I’m sure most any prudent business would.”  

   Going forward

   After those meetings, stakeholders continued to meet, without PacifiCorp, to discuss water issues in the Klamath Basin.

   “Things kind of changed and evolved and it became the KBRA,” Addington said.

   These original KBRA meetings were kept confidential because they involved litigation

between groups like Klamath Water Users Association and the Klamath Tribes, he said.

   “We wanted to be able to talk about these water issues and not see it in (the media),”

Addington said, adding that water adjudication settlements are commonly hashed out in private.  

   Mallams said part of each Off-Project Water Users meeting is closed to the public.

   “I’d admit that there are certain cases when you have to closed - door meetings,” he said, but maintained that the KBRA should have been negotiated in public.

   The 369 - page water agreement was published this year and KBRA committees hold regular public meetings.

Side Bars