| Date post: | 29-Jan-2015 |
| Category: |
Presentations & Public Speaking |
| Upload: | iap2-cascade-chapter |
| View: | 126 times |
| Download: | 15 times |
Engaging Diverse Communities in Social-‐Ecological Restoration: The Mysterious and Inspiring Case of the Klamath Agreements
Dr. Hannah Gosnell Geography Program | Water Resources Policy and Management Program College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences
Overview • The Problem: Overpromising a Scarce Resource • 2001 to 2010 TransformaKon • How Did This Happen?
• Legal framework • Decisionmaking process/venue • Enhanced social capacity through social learning
• Key Processes for Engaging People • Chadwick Process • Yainix Process • Working Landscape Alliance • ConfidenKal SeUlement Talks
• What About Public ParKcipaKon? • Where Are They Now? • Conclusions/Lessons Learned
1864 Water for Klamath Tribes
1917 Water for Hydropower
1908 Water for National Wildlife Refuges
1997 Water for Coho Salmon
1910 Water for BOR Project Irrigators
Water for Off-Project Irrigators
1988 Water for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers
“America’s AquaKc Jerusalem”
-‐ Simmons 2008
Social Conflict Economic Stress Ecological DegradaKon
Early Efforts to Address Problems • Bans on Indian fishing in Lower Basin (1930-‐1970s) • Resolve water shortages through opKmizaKon and efficiency (change irrigaKon methods)
• Get tribes to drop water claims in exchange for land • Change/weaken Endangered Species Act • Resolve conflict in one part of the system (UKB/LKB) • Single species approach to managing/restoring TES • MisallocaKon of blame
• Tribes, farmers/ranchers, commercial fishermen, feds
• Lawsuits, media wars
Shocks and Surprises in 2001 • Drought • Biological Opinions
• Suckers in Upper Basin • Coho in Lower Basin
• Water curtailment • 1400 farms; 210,000 acres irrigated land • 90% of farms dependent on water from UKL • $35m lost farm income
• Unprecedented social and poliKcal conflict
2001 Crisis
“Death threats reported in Klamath conflict” – Klamath Herald News,
August 2001
Klamath Bucket Brigade “Convoy of Tears” – Summer 2001 “Patriots” figh@ng against “Fourth Reich,” “Green Nazi terrorists” “You’re trying to treat the farming community like an Indian!” Farmer: “You’re dead! Your people are dead!” Karuk Tribe member: “We’ll never die!”
2002 and 2006 Crises
2002 “mortality event” • BOR reduced downstream water deliveries to help farmers
• 35,000+ salmon died • Columnaris • Crowding, stress, heat
• Like losing “salmon people”
2006 closure of Pacific chinook salmon fishery
• 4 years later, no returning salmon • $16 million in damages to fishing
industry
“Whether the measure used is the size of salmon runs, the state of the Basin’s water quality or the amount of water flowing in Klamath River Basin streams and rivers, the 20-‐year effort to restore the Klamath River and its fisheries has failed. Salmon runs now are at greater risk of exKncKon, fishing is more restricted and water quality is more degraded than when “restoraKon” began in earnest 20 years ago. Most importantly, the dewatering of major Klamath tributaries has conKnued unabated during those 20 years. What [is needed] is an honest, pracKcal and hard-‐nosed assessment of failures as well as successes and a probing analysis of why so much taxpayer money has been spent with so liUle posiKve impact.” - Klamath Falls Herald and News, Nov 9 2006
Beyond Zero Sum Games: Klamath Agreements (KBRA, KHSA) • Whole Basin SeUlement Talks grew out of FERC “alternaKve” dam relicensing process, 2006-‐2008
• Formal monthly meeKngs between 28 key Basin stakeholders re: dam removal vs. retrofitng for fish passage
• Hundreds of informal “side meeKngs” involving addiKonal people facilitated by local/regional groups
• New goal: address all the major conflicts in one document • Water, power, dams, endangered species, tribal claims, etc.
• Process transiKoned from consensus to coaliKon in 2007 • Water Watch and Oregon Wild leu negoKaKons in 2007 – NWR issues • TransiKoned from FERC mtg to closed IWR seUlement to avoid FACA • Talks held in strict confidenKality
• KBRA and KHSA signed Feb 2010 – LegislaKon introduced 2011
Beyond Zero Sum Games: Klamath Agreements (KBRA, KHSA)
• Ecosystems • Guaranteed instream flows for sucker recovery • Plan for phased removal of 4 large dams (Klamath Hydroelectric Project) • Salmon to be reintroduced to Upper Basin (exKrpated in 1918) • Guaranteed water for NaKonal Wildlife Refuges
• Tribes • SeUlement of tribal water claims in Upper Basin • Return of some tribal land to Klamath Tribes • $ for economic development, small scale forestry, biomass plant
• Irrigators • Certainty for Project irrigators • Guaranteed flows, reducKons during drought years • Safe Harbor agreement to avoid liability for salmon recovery auer reintroducKon
• ReKrement of irrigated ag on Off-‐Project lands (OPWAS) • Irrigators bought out on voluntary basis – 30,000 af, ~18,000 acres of land
Signatories* on Klamath Agreements, 2010 • U.S. Department of Agriculture – US Forest Service • U.S. Department of Commerce – NaKonal Marine Fisheries Service • U.S. Department of the Interior – BIA, BLM, BOR, FWS
• State of California – CA Dept of Fish & Game, CA Natural Resource Agency • State of Oregon – OR Dept of Environmental Quality, OR Dept of Fish & Wildlife, OR Water Resources Dept
• PacifiCorp • Tribes: Karuk Tribe, Klamath Tribes, Yurok Tribe
• Coun@es: Humboldt, CA; Klamath, OR
• Upper Klamath Water Users Associa@on
• Pacific Coast Federa@on of Fishermen’s Associa@ons
• Envt’l and Conserva@on NGOs – American Rivers, California Trout, InsKtute for Fisheries Resources, Northern California Council FederaKon of Fly Fishers, Salmon River RestoraKon Council, Trout Unlimited
* Not all signed both the KBRA and KHSA; several key players signed neither
Perspectives on the Klamath Agreements • “to achieve peace on the river…”– Klamath Basin RestoraKon Agreement
• “[w]e stand for fish and farms, rivers and ranches. We stand for all the communiKes and the resources of the Klamath Basin.”– Yurok, Karuk, Klamath Tribes and Klamath Water Users AssociaKon; April 2008
• “In the Western water wars, this is the equivalent of the Berlin Wall coming down.”
– San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 14, 2008
Explaining the Klamath Agreements
• Legal Framework and Shiuing Power RelaKons • Tribal trust responsibility – HunKng and fishing treaty rights • Endangered Species Act • Federal Power Act – Dam relicensing
• InnovaKve Approach to NegoKaKon • The FERC alternaKve dam relicensing process • The Klamath SeUlement Group
• Improved Social RelaKons • New alliances, relaKonships • Individual/local/regional scales à Basin scale • CollaboraKve, community-‐based conservaKon/restoraKon • RecKficaKon and reterritorializaKon
Emergence of Community-‐Based Conservation and Restoration
“We’re not in crisis mode, we’re in problem solving mode. We’re just doing it. We need to feel the hope and let it drive us. I’m so Kred of fighKng. I’ve been fighKng for five years in the Klamath and I’m through with it.”
“What we’re doing is part science, part democracy.”
-‐ Mike Connelly, Klamath Basin Ecosystem FoundaKon
Collaboration and Trust Building Lead Ups…
• Klamath Basin Ecosystem FoundaKon (2002-‐2003) • Engaged Sprague Valley locals in Watershed Assessment to begin to develop an Upper Basin restoraKon plan (funded by OWEB); fundraising for local restoraKon projects
• Klamath Basin Rangeland Trust (2002) • Engage Wood River locals in NRCS conservaKon projects, Klamath Water Bank; idenKfy role for Off Project ranchers to play in soluKon (2003)
• Root/Thomas Talks – “Shilo Talks” (2004) • Invited key stakeholders to figure out water balance/hydrology, other possibiliKes for resoluKon, e.g. tribal land for water
• Chadwick Process (2004-‐2005) • Facilitated listening sessions throughout Basin
• Yainix Process (2004) • CollaboraKve restoraKon on Sprague Valley ranch – a model for Basin
Chadwick Sessions (2004-‐2005) • Series of workshops iniKated by Chair of Klamath River Compact Commission auer 5th Annual Klamath Watershed Conference (2004)
• Facilitated by Bob Chadwick • Consensus Associates, Portland • Former Forest Supervisor, Winema NF
• 5 open meeKngs throughout the Basin • Many went b/c of “FOMO” • Tired of “rotaKng crisis” – all felt pain • An opportunity to “purge emoKons” • Diverse communiKes represented -‐ but only ~10% “unaffiliated ciKzens”
• CriKcal role in development of Klamath Basin Agreements • Last Chadwick session morphed into original group of stakeholders in FERC seUlement talks in 2006
“The Chadwick Process" • “Beyond Conflict to Consensus… A TransformaKve Approach…” • Philosophy – Must confront conflict, consensus always possible • Must tap “the inherent wisdom in the group” • Include “the mean, the disenfranchised, the naysayers, the most radical” • “Vegetable stew” – get to know the others, appreciate, respect • Find common denominators -‐ family, livelihood, spirituality, community
• Consensus building techniques • “The Circle” (up to 75 people) • AcKve listening with respect • MoKvaKons, hopes, fears • Best possible outcome? • Worst possible outcome?
• Small group dialogues • Role playing
Chadwick Sessions (2004-‐2005)
“Those were important. That’s when you get the big dialogues starKng across the Basin… Now, it's jerky and it's not very strategic in the sense that it doesn't start building into a plan, but it's very powerful in terms of connecKng people across the Basin for the first Kme.” -‐ CBNRM leader “The Chadwick Process is very heavily socially oriented. It's really about human to human encounter. Respect or empathy or commonality, compassion, I mean just seeing yourself in someone else.. which is different from just having to deal with each other… It's … about power dynamics.. I mean individual power dynamics… about psychology, about emoKon.” -‐ CBNRM leader
“It is slow and it is painful, but it’s a good process… Some of the stuff just sort of makes me uncomfortable, with honoring people and clapping in circles.”
-‐ BLM hydrologist
“I think you could just break it down to respec~ul communicaKon and solu,ons. If you can put those things together I think you start to get somewhere. And without them you have just a state of chaos. Which is not good for land, not good for people.”
-‐ Sprague Valley rancher
“It is slow and it is painful, but it’s a good process… Some of the stuff just sort of makes me uncomfortable, with honoring people and clapping in circles.”
-‐ BLM hydrologist
“I think you could just break it down to respec~ul communicaKon and solu,ons. If you can put those things together I think you start to get somewhere. And without them you have just a state of chaos. Which is not good for land, not good for people.”
-‐ Sprague Valley rancher
“The CeaseZire" – Tule Lake Chadwick Mtg, 2005
“What happened was, you know through the Chadwick stuff, whether Chadwick just wore me down or whatever… I was like, ‘I’m Kred of this shit.’ And I was talking to one of the Indians, and I go, ‘I want to say let’s have a [legal and media] ceasefire and let’s stand down, and I don’t know where we’d go or what happens, but let’s start talking.’ And people on their side [ag] were like, ‘that’s a terrible trick you pulled on us! You want to talk about this now? How dare you do that?’ I stumped ‘em! [At first] people were saying, ‘[He] lost it.’ My guys! And to their credit they go, ‘Holy shit. OK, let’s think about it.’
"I don't know all the answers here, but I do know that what we've been doing just isn't working. Let's do a ceasefire and start trying to work on some stuff together.” (Troy Fletcher, Yurok Tribe)!
New Space for Authentic Dialogue
“The other thing was we sat down and started working on those issues of trust… Sit down and talk about things that here to date you've been very cauKous talking to people about. Some of your fears when it comes to water flows, or why is it we felt fish needed parKcular amounts of water at parKcular Kmes of the year. And it is very challenging for the irrigaKon community to start talking about some of their fears, and where there might actually be savings of water, on both sides. Those kinds of discussions where you have to let your guards down are parKcularly sensiKve… because you put your issues on the table, your bargaining chips, but you're not gaining anything at that moment… But what you are doing is gaining the trust that's going to enable you to get down to that final soluKon.” (TF) * In “Extended Caucus” – confiden@al mtgs, side mtgs
Importance of ConZidentiality Agreement
“I think the only way we could have come to an agreement was in private.” (Interview AB, 21 February 2012) “[T]here is an interplay that I’ve seen in Klamath and I think it would make… most American’s hair rise on the back of their necks. It sounds awful, and it goes something like this: you’re able to show yourself, to be real, to consider alternaKves, in safe spaces. And the more you’re pushed into the public space, and the more you were trying to take a step between where the public is and where you think they ought to be, the less you can show.” (Interview B, 29 August 2012)
Opportunity to Deal With the Past
“There's recKficaKon that has to be done, and without that part of it, this Basin isn’t going to move ahead.”
Alan Foreman, former Chairman, Klamath Tribes
Suckers circa 1900
“But what I did do was listen to them and I don’t think very many people do that. I’m saying, if you’re a fed, an environmentalist, I don’t think very many people have taken the Kme to listen… It‘s really painful when you connect the history of the place with the effect your family has had on it. When you’re able to ‘fess up to the reality with [the Tribes], really get to the like, ‘Oh my, ya know, wow, we are part of what happened here and it’s not good and I’m sorry. I‘m sorry. I am sorry at like a core, spiritual level.’ We need some major accountability for what‘s going on.”
“It shaped a different way of me thinking about all of it.”
“It’s one thing for me to be like, “Shoot, we really blew it.” But it’s another thing for somebody on the other end to say, “It’s okay. And we want you in this community with us, too. Now.. it’s almost like our family got this blanket dropped over the top of us by the Klamath Tribes. They are kind to us everywhere we go, they say hello, they want to know how we’re doing. It’s like we Kpped the dynamics of it.” -‐ Sprague Valley Rancher
Apology… and Forgiveness
“But what I did do was listen to them and I don’t think very many people do that. I’m saying, if you’re a fed, an environmentalist, I don’t think very many people have taken the Kme to listen… It‘s really painful when you connect the history of the place with the effect your family has had on it. When you’re able to ‘fess up to the reality with [the Tribes], really get to the like, ‘Oh my, ya know, wow, we are part of what happened here and it’s not good and I’m sorry. I‘m sorry. I am sorry at like a core, spiritual level.’ We need some major accountability for what‘s going on.”
“It shaped a different way of me thinking about all of it.”
“It’s one thing for me to be like, “Shoot, we really blew it.” But it’s another thing for somebody on the other end to say, “It’s okay. And we want you in this community with us, too. Now.. it’s almost like our family got this blanket dropped over the top of us by the Klamath Tribes. They are kind to us everywhere we go, they say hello, they want to know how we’re doing. It’s like we Kpped the dynamics of it.” -‐ Sprague Valley Rancher
Apology… and Forgiveness
Transformation Through Reterritorialization
“So they want water, right? But they also want restoraKon. And to me, part of what they want is to be included back in lands that have belonged to them for thousands of years. So that’s the point that always gets missed is a lot of this is about being included and it’s a real need. Just to be included."
-‐ Sprague Valley rancher
Yainix Project (2005)
• CollaboraKve restoraKon on Yainix Ranch in Sprague River Valley
• Klamath Tribes, rancher, regional NGO • ConservaKon easement
• Held by Klamath Tribes • Funded by NRCS and outside investors • Includes Duty to Restore to PFC • Tribes monitor easement and restoraKon w/ their Fisheries staff
• Tribes allowed access to land for first Kme • Reconnects the Tribes to old allotments that were once part of core reservaKon and lands
Yainix Ranch 2001
Yainix Project as Proof of Concept • Model for proving compaKbility of working landscape + restoraKon (500 acres, 2+ river miles)
• Model for collaboraKon among ranchers and Tribes • Model for reallocaKng some power from ranchers to Tribes • Model for collaboraKve monitoring, learning, experimentaKon
• Small win à “virtuous cycle of trustbuilding and commitment” • Subsequent water seUlement reallocated power from Tribes to ranchers
• Yainix Project grew into Yainix Partnership • YP played key role in visioning for KBRA, garnering support on Off Project lands
Yainix Ranch 2007
Scaling Up – Working Landscape Alliance Yainix Partnership à Living Room Talks/Potlucks Ranch tours/field days w/ NRST CollaboraKve learning Stream assessments • Interdisciplinary Teams • Joint Fact Finding Goals • Develop common vocabulary • Develop shared understanding of
problem and potenKal soluKons Led to collaboraKve restoraKon projects, monitoring with assistance from KBEF, KWC and state and federal funding (EWEB, NRCS)
Group facilitaKon incorporated into all technical trainings • Elements of Chadwick Process
Connecting to the Land “I don't think you can overstate how important it is that those conversaKons [about restoraKon] were rooted in specific sites and landscapes and not in fluorescent-‐lit hearing rooms in Klamath Falls looking at maps and PowerPoints. One of the things we said is, ‘we have to make the landscape itself a parKcipant in these conversaKons. That's the enKty that is missing from this conversaKon and we can't get anywhere without it.’ So, many of us just sort of moved all conversaKons out onto the land, you know? And instead of saying, ‘What are we going to do with the Klamath Basin?’ we said,‘What are we going to do here?’
-‐ KB farmer
New Alliances
“Woodstock of Capitalism” Tribes and fishermen protesKng at Berkshire Hathaway headquarters
Omaha, NE, May 5, 2007
“When farmers wrote leUers of support for the fishermen, something changed. It can work here.”
-‐ PY, fisher “What’s happening here now is a maturing of people building relaKonships with one another and to me, that’s what changes the environment.” -‐BH, rancher
New Alliances
“Woodstock of Capitalism” Tribes and fishermen protesKng at Berkshire Hathaway headquarters
Omaha, NE, May 5, 2007
“When farmers wrote leUers of support for the fishermen, something changed. It can work here.”
-‐ PY, fisher “What’s happening here now is a maturing of people building relaKonships with one another and to me, that’s what changes the environment.” -‐BH, rancher
What About “The Public”? • No public involvement in development of Agreements
• SeUlement Talks were confidenKal – strategic decision
• NegoKaKons limited to reps of a few consKtuencies • water rights holders, tribes, fishers, enviros, agencies
• 2011 – Public comment on EIS for dam removal (6 hearings) • 2010-‐2012 – Public backlash in media, at meeKngs, peKKons, Klamath County Commissioner recall; feelings of betrayal, fear • OpposiKon from enviros re: water for NWRs; from counKes re: dam removal; from public re: tribal assistance (land return)
• Leaders had limited success gaining support of their consKtuents -‐ Difficult to understand complex issues -‐ No experience with personal
transformaKon and trustbuilding -‐ BUT: Wyden: “This is the model in my view
for water policy in our country.”
Where Are They Now? • 2011 – Klamath Agreements (KBRA and KHSA) introduced in US Senate and House by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-‐OR) and Congressman Mike Thompson (CA1-‐D) as the “Klamath Basin Economic RestoraKon Act” • LegislaKon stalled in commiUee in both houses • Public opposiKon, esp from Upper Basin Off Project irrigators
• Early 2013 – SeUlement of Klamath Tribes’ water claims • Summer 2013 – Tribes put call on water for ISF – curtailment
• Off Project Irrigators moKvated to join process
• April 2014 – Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement • Companion to KBRA and KHSA • Water sharing b/w ranchers, farmers, tribes, fish, refuges + economic aid
• May 2014 – New legislaKon in Senate to authorize UKBCA • Sens. Merkley and Wyden (OR) and Sens. Feinstein and Boxer (CA) • ConKngencies: $495 billion and authorizaKon of dam removal
Conclusions • Laws, good decisionmaking process necessary but not sufficient • Importance of enhanced social capacity, trust • Engaging diverse communiKes through social learning
• Group processes led to transformaKon among individuals • TransformaKon among individuals scaled up to Basinwide soluKons • Importance of meeKng on the land, in specific places, with “others” • Tribal context may require special consideraKon – recKficaKon
• ConfidenKality criKcal for making progress on sensiKve issues • Public parKcipaKon vs. “elite decision making”
• What is possible in private sphere that is not possible in public sphere? • When does public parKcipaKon spark innovaKon, when does it sKfle? • Trade-‐offs when public is brought in later in the process? (LegiKmacy)
• What about IAP2 Core Value #1?
Questions?
“Resource managers need to understand they may well need to facilitate social interac,ons that on the surface appear to only superficially address resource issues.” (Plummer and Fitzgibbon 2006 )
Chadwick Session Participants
Social Learning
® “The collecKve acKon and reflecKon that occurs among different individuals and groups as they work to improve the management of human and environment interrelaKons” ® Personal level – goal setng and monitoring outcomes ® Interpersonal level – briefing and debriefing w/in groups ® Community level – creaKng a common vision ® Social level – evaluaKng impacts of laws, regs, markets
® "Social learning is hampered w/o change in values and ethics.”
(Keen et al. 2005)
Multiple Loop Learning
Triple Loop Learning à How we need to be different to create transformaKonal and sustainable change.
How to catalyze?
Social-‐Economic-‐Ecological Distress
Social: persistent social conflict between groups and interests including state and federal government agencies, Basin tribes, coastal commercial fishing interests, irrigated agriculture groups, and environmental organizaKons
Economic: loss of subsistence (tribal) and commercial fisheries; persistent poverty among tribal groups, regulatory and water delivery uncertainty for irrigated ag; loss of preferenKal power contracts supporKng ag
Ecological: problems of water quanKty, water quality, fish passage, and habitat/funcKonality loss associated with land conversion, irrigaKon diversions and hydropower operaKons
