Applegater., December 01, 2012, Page 21, Image 21

Applegater Winter 2012 21
MY OPINION FROM BEHIND THE GREEN DOOR
Open for discussion
by ChRiS bRAtt
Prologue
In the midst of writing this Applegater
article about negotiating better solutions to
natural resource problems, I received word
that the Farmers’ Ditch concrete dam on
the Little Applegate River has finally been
removed. It’s probably old and virtually
unknown history now, but the Farmers’
Ditch Dam removal project became one of
the most complicated and frictional series
of negotiations on which our community
has ever worked.
After at least 12 years of work
with outstanding contributions by local
individuals like Jan Perttu and Daniel
Newberry (executive directors of the
project) and a host of other members of the
Applegate Partnership and the Applegate
River Watershed Council (ARWC), the
once-blocked coho salmon and steelhead
runs on the Little Applegate River now
have access to an additional estimated 30
miles of upstream fish habitat.  Irrigators
now also have a reliable supply of water.
In the late 1990s, it seemed like
a no-brainer to get rid of the dam and
associated irrigation ditches that were not
functioning well for farmers or fish.  Soon
after initial discussions were held between
ARWC and the 41 irrigators using the dam
and ditches, an agreement was signed by
all participants.
The agreement called for switching
the water rights of the 41 irrigators from
the Little Applegate River to the main
Applegate River (impounded water from
behind the Applegate Dam).
With a very generous outpouring of
financial and other help from federal and
state agencies, environmental groups and
other organizations, enough grant money
was raised to build the new system of
pumps and pipes to supply water at no cost
to the irrigating landowners.  The main
cost to the landowners in the project was
to pay their share of future electricity bills
for pumping water to their properties.
I won’t go into detail about the
extended controversies that ensued
over issues like acquiring easements,
construction problems, self-interest and our personal lives, our environment and
distrust among irrigators, bureaucratic our community’s well-being.
Over the last three decades, I’ve had
hang-ups and bickering over state water
policies. But we learned there are no simple the opportunity to work (volunteer) on any
answers to complex resource management number of local innovative and collaborative
questions.  You can negotiate solutions that approaches to solving controversial
might work for everyone, but you can’t natural-resource issues. After working
in this more collaborative framework,
always make everyone happy.
I wish the project had taken less time I’ve come to believe that a negotiated or
mediated process is a
and energy, but I honor
more positive way to
the process, the long-
solve environmental
suffering participants,
and other problems.
and all the fish that are
Another
Though not always
now able to swim farther
stumbling
totally successful, and
upstream.
block can be
many times contentious,
Having your say
it does empower local
Judging from
who controls
people, helping them
all the politics and
the
negotiation
make better choices
philosophical debates
t h a t i m p rove t h e i r
this past election year,
proceedings
communities.
our local communities
and
produces
Local community
that contain natural
p
a
r
t
icipation in
resources are being
the paper trail...
negotiated solutions
looked at for policy
is a basic principle
changes that will
that allows us to take
supposedly “strengthen
an active role in a
the economy.”  I’ve heard
these policy-change words before.  They democratic society.  I have believed in
usually mean rolling back environmental this tenet for a long time.  It is only by
protections, cutting more trees, building community members getting familiar
more pipelines to move oil and gas, and with local problems, speaking up during
congressional edicts that give up more of negotiations, and being able to protest
poor decisions that can help prevent what
the farm for an industry to exploit.
Here in the Applegate, local people many of us consider to be an ongoing crisis
have worked together for years to in resource management today.  This kind
strengthen our economy while improving of citizen action helps teach all of us about
the environment and forging solutions the need for resource and community
through partnerships with government, sustainability.  Using community ideas in
landowners and business folks.  If new, the negotiating process over the last few
disruptive top-down policy changes are years has brought more confidence that
instituted, they could destroy the trust our public land-management agencies are
we have built while negotiating local capable of managing public resources for
solutions.  It could cause a reassessment our collective interests.  It has also brought
of the right role for people in local an end to some of the more harmful and
communities to effectively influence fair egregious practices, especially in our forests.
solutions regarding the use of our natural Without direct citizen participation and
resources.  I don’t see our community action, there would still be unrestrained
giving up our rights to affect resource clear-cutting, road-building and pesticide
management conclusions.  We definitely use, along with overcutting in the forests
want and deserve a say on issues that affect surrounding our communities.
You can observe a lot
by watching:
Check out your road system
When it’s raining hard is the perfect
time to head outside and check out your
road system. Is water running off the
road—or down the middle? Are the
culverts flowing freely—or plugged up
with sediment or debris? Now is the time
to find out.
The recent debate about the Clean
Water Act and logging roads (which is
now at the Supreme Court) highlights the
importance of disconnecting roads from
streams whenever possible. In a nutshell,
the issue is about keeping muddy water
from roads and ditches from draining
directly into streams. Drainage dips, ditch
relief culverts, and even bales of straw can
be used to intercept sediment or divert it
off the road where it can be filtered through
vegetation instead of draining directly into
a stream. (See diagram at right.)
From the November 2012 E-Newsletter
of SW Oregon Woodland News produced by
OSU Extension Service, Jackson/Josephine
Counties.
Have you seen the
Gater’s online calendar?
www.applegater.org
Send us your events
to post online!
gater@applegater.org
Having
to negotiate
with people
who insist on
Chris Bratt
wanting a say
when questionable issues turn up is not
always an easy or quick way to resolve a
disputed action.  This is true no matter
which side of a controversial issue you’re
on.  Most people will argue fiercely for
their points of view and usually don’t
give up easily.  There is also a question
of fairness when negotiations take place.
Most of the time, people representing the
public agencies or corporate interests are
paid wages for participating, while citizen
groups receive no money for taking part. 
Another stumbling block can be who
controls the negotiation proceedings and
produces the paper trail and decision
documents. Collaboration principles and
protocols must be developed first and
agreed upon before negotiations begin.
Of course, public agencies like the
Bureau of Land Management and the US
Forest Service don’t usually think about
using negotiation as a tool for resolving
contentious questions.  These agencies
are the decision makers by law, but are
often forced into mediation by successful
litigation against them. But I think
negotiations, mediated or not, should be
used first and more often by these agencies
to build public trust, avoid litigation and
to shape better, more acceptable resource
management outcomes.  The agencies also
need to embrace the controversies within
the negotiation process because it teaches
the participants to focus on the facts.  In
addition, it promotes discussion of all
perspectives and can create productive and
innovative solutions.
If you’re ready to have a say, there are
lots of local resource management topics
now open for discussion in the Applegate. 
Let me know and I’ll sign you up for the
next go-round.
Chris Bratt
541-846-6988