Common use of Stakeholder views Clause in Contracts

Stakeholder views. While stakeholder views on the Klamath agreements can broadly be divided into those supporting the agreements and those opposed to one or both of the agreements, such a simple characterization may not do justice to the various motives, preferences, and specific interests of many of these groups. Although a majority of interest groups involved in initial settlement negotiations endorsed both agreements, reasons for support among these groups are varied and in some cases are likely to be contingent on specific parts of the agreements (e.g., guarantees related to water supplies, whether or not dam removal is provided for, etc.) going forward. Among those opposed to the agreements, reasons for opposition also vary widely. They include reasons ranging from perceived economic damages resulting from the agreements to the agreements’ overall lack of environmental protections or effect on implementation of existing laws. 41 Klamath Basin Coordinating Council, “Summary of the Klamath Basin Settlement Agreements,” May 2010, at ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇▇▇▇%▇▇▇▇%▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇%▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇%▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇%▇▇▇-▇-▇▇.▇▇▇. 42 For example, see KBRA §§2.1, 19.1, 20.3.1, and 22.5. 43 The 2013 joint biological opinion for the operation of the Klamath Project concluded that the ongoing operation of the project as proposed by Reclamation is not likely to jeopardize the existence of federally listed species. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Opinions on the Effects of Proposed Klamath Project Operations from May 31, 2013, through March 31, 2023, on Five Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, SWR-2012-9372, Klamath Falls, Oregon, May 2013, at ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/mp/kbao/docs/ Klamath_Project_Biological_Opinion.pdf. Among those supporting the Klamath agreements are all the parties listed as nonfederal parties within both the KBRA and the KHSA. For the KBRA, this includes 5 state agencies in Oregon and California, 3 tribes, 1 county (Humbolt County, in California), 25 parties related to the Reclamation Project, some off-project interests, and several other groups (including environmental interests). These same groups are also party to the KHSA.44 Other groups and individuals were not party to the agreements but have stated their support for them. These include, most recently, off-project irrigators in the upper basin who have agreed to support the Klamath agreements under the Upper Klamath Basin Agreement in Principle, signed in April 2014. Notably, supporters have agreed to support authorizing legislation for both agreements (e.g., KBRA signatories have backed enactment of the KHSA) and have generally argued that the agreements themselves must be linked. The states of California and Oregon, as well as the Obama Administration, support the agreements because they represent a potential solution to the protracted resource conflicts in the upper and lower basins. Government representatives also have pointed to the costs that resulted from previous conflicts in the basin, including supplemental aid, crop insurance, mitigation actions, and litigation costs. Other groups have chosen to support the agreements not only for their potential to end conflicts in the basin but also because they include specific provisions that are important to certain groups.45 For instance, environmental groups have pledged to support the allocations for irrigation absent a similar allocation for fish in exchange for assurances of dam removal under the KHSA and other promised fisheries restoration actions under the KBRA. Among irrigators, those on the Klamath Project have pledged to support restoration provisions and less water in wet years in exchange for benefits from water supplies in dry years that presumably would be higher than under the status quo. Approximately half of the off-project irrigators in the upper basin support the agreements, in some cases because the agreements offer potential alternatives that are preferable to losing water deliveries outright due to their junior water rights status.46 For its part, PacifiCorp notes that it supports removal of its four dams under the KHSA because retirement of the dams under the terms of the KHSA reportedly represents a more cost-effective option for its ratepayers than FERC relicensing.47 Previously there have been disagreements over which option the company would pursue in absence of the KHSA: FERC relicensing for ongoing operations on all four dams (which would entail costly improvements for fish passage, and altered operations for water quality) or a surrender of its license and related decommissioning of some or all of the Klamath hydropower projects.48 Both options would likely be costly for PacifiCorp and 44 See KHSA, pp 1-2. 45 General obligations for nonfederal parties to support the agreement are laid out in Part I of the KBRA.

Stakeholder views. While stakeholder views on the Klamath agreements can broadly be divided into those supporting the agreements and those opposed to one or both of the agreements, such a simple characterization may not do justice to the various motives, preferences, and specific interests of many of these groups. Although a majority of interest groups involved in initial settlement negotiations endorsed both agreements, reasons for support among these groups are varied and in some cases are likely to be contingent on specific parts of the agreements (e.g., guarantees related to water supplies, whether or not dam removal is provided for, etc.) going forward. Among those opposed to the agreements, reasons for opposition also vary widely. They include reasons ranging from perceived economic damages resulting from the agreements to the agreements’ overall lack of environmental protections or effect on implementation of existing laws. 41 Klamath Basin Coordinating Council, “Summary of the Klamath Basin Settlement Agreements,” May 2010, at ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇▇▇▇%▇▇▇▇%▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇%▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇%▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇%▇▇▇-▇-▇▇.▇▇▇. 42 For example, see KBRA §§2.1, 19.1, 20.3.1, and 22.5. 43 The 2013 joint biological opinion for the operation of the Klamath Project concluded that the ongoing operation of the project as proposed by Reclamation is not likely to jeopardize the existence of federally listed species. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Opinions on the Effects of Proposed Klamath Project Operations from May 31, 2013, through March 31, 2023, on Five Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, SWR-2012-9372, Klamath Falls, Oregon, May 2013, at ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/mp/kbao/docs/ Klamath_Project_Biological_Opinion.pdf. from perceived economic damages resulting from the agreements to the agreements’ overall lack of environmental protections or effect on implementation of existing laws. Among those supporting the Klamath agreements are all the parties listed as nonfederal parties within both the KBRA and the KHSA. For the KBRA, this includes 5 state agencies in Oregon and California, 3 tribes, 1 county (Humbolt County, in California), 25 parties related to the Reclamation Project, some off-project interests, and several other groups (including environmental interests). These same groups are also party to the KHSA.44 Other groups and individuals were not party to the agreements but have stated their support for them. These include, most recently, off-project irrigators in the upper basin who have agreed to support the Klamath agreements under the Upper Klamath Basin Agreement in Principle, signed in April 2014. Notably, supporters have agreed to support authorizing legislation for both agreements (e.g., KBRA signatories have backed enactment of the KHSA) and have generally argued that the agreements themselves must be linked. The states of California and Oregon, as well as the Obama Administration, support the agreements because they represent a potential solution to the protracted resource conflicts in the upper and lower basins. Government representatives also have pointed to the costs that resulted from previous conflicts in the basin, including supplemental aid, crop insurance, mitigation actions, and litigation costs. Other groups have chosen to support the agreements not only for their potential to end conflicts in the basin but also because they include specific provisions that are important to certain groups.45 For instance, environmental groups have pledged to support the allocations for irrigation absent a similar allocation for fish in exchange for assurances of dam removal under the KHSA and other promised fisheries restoration actions under the KBRA. Among irrigators, those on the Klamath Project have pledged to support restoration provisions and less water in wet years in exchange for benefits from water supplies in dry years that presumably would be higher than under the status quo. Approximately half of the off-project irrigators in the upper basin support the agreements, in some cases because the agreements offer potential alternatives that are preferable to losing water deliveries outright due to their junior water rights status.46 For its part, PacifiCorp notes that it supports removal of its four dams under the KHSA because retirement of the dams under the terms of the KHSA reportedly represents a more cost-effective option for its ratepayers than FERC relicensing.47 Previously there have been disagreements over which option the company would pursue in absence of the KHSA: FERC relicensing for ongoing operations on all four dams (which would entail costly improvements for fish passage, and altered operations for water quality) or a surrender of its license and related decommissioning of some or all of the Klamath hydropower projects.48 Both options would likely be costly for PacifiCorp and 44 See KHSA, pp 1-2. 45 General obligations for nonfederal parties to support the agreement are laid out in Part I of the KBRA.