|
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.
Set firm goals for water meeting, work in advance with participants
If not, commissioners might as well turn down the request for a meeting
Klamath County commissioners
have been asked to hold a facilitated
meeting on the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement.
If commissioners say yes, they should establish some clear parameters for it that include not just the mechanics of the meeting, such as how long people get to speak, but what exactly its goals are.
Some points to consider:
n Would this be a meeting simply aimed at making sure all the grievances get heard? Or would it be an actual discussion from which representatives of the stakeholder groups could take specific proposals back to the people they represent? If it’s just to be a chance to make noise and play politics, skip it. It would be hard to believe that all of the pros and cons haven’t been pretty well covered by now.
n Would such a meeting be better than letting the major stakeholder groups — Klamath Tribes, irrigators on and off the Klamath Reclamation Project and government agencies — continue trying to work things out among themselves? The facilitated meeting was suggested by the off-Project irrigators. A previous effort to hold a facilitated meeting died when the Klamath Tribes didn’t agree to terms, which made the on-Project irrigators pull out.
n Does the recent agreement in principal on dam removal between government agencies and PacifiCorp, owner of four dams on the Klamath River, fundamentally change things in a way that increases the value of such a meeting?
If commissioners hold the meeting, they should adopt a neutral stance. We recognize they all have personal viewpoints and at some point, they will need to take an official position on the restoration proposal. Bill Brown opposes it. Al Switzer doesn’t like the idea of taking the dams out. John Elliott, who attended negotiations leading to the restoration proposal, is open to the concept of dam removal. But commissioners represent all elements of Klamath County and the meeting has to show that.
If commissioners see value from such a meeting, by all means hold it. But establish not just ground rules, but specific topics and a meeting structure that encourages actual results. That’s going to take some advance work with the stakeholders. Without it, the chance of the meeting doing much is minimal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
If commissioners say yes, they should establish some clear parameters for it that include not just the mechanics of the meeting, such as how long people get to speak, but what exactly its goals are.
Some points to consider:
n Would this be a meeting simply aimed at making sure all the grievances get heard? Or would it be an actual discussion from which representatives of the stakeholder groups could take specific proposals back to the people they represent? If it’s just to be a chance to make noise and play politics, skip it. It would be hard to believe that all of the pros and cons haven’t been pretty well covered by now.
n Would such a meeting be better than letting the major stakeholder groups — Klamath Tribes, irrigators on and off the Klamath Reclamation Project and government agencies — continue trying to work things out among themselves? The facilitated meeting was suggested by the off-Project irrigators. A previous effort to hold a facilitated meeting died when the Klamath Tribes didn’t agree to terms, which made the on-Project irrigators pull out.
n Does the recent agreement in principal on dam removal between government agencies and PacifiCorp, owner of four dams on the Klamath River, fundamentally change things in a way that increases the value of such a meeting?
If commissioners hold the meeting, they should adopt a neutral stance. We recognize they all have personal viewpoints and at some point, they will need to take an official position on the restoration proposal. Bill Brown opposes it. Al Switzer doesn’t like the idea of taking the dams out. John Elliott, who attended negotiations leading to the restoration proposal, is open to the concept of dam removal. But commissioners represent all elements of Klamath County and the meeting has to show that.
If commissioners see value from such a meeting, by all means hold it. But establish not just ground rules, but specific topics and a meeting structure that encourages actual results. That’s going to take some advance work with the stakeholders. Without it, the chance of the meeting doing much is minimal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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