Klamath Basin Water Wars
Meeting of the Stakeholders
Goals




Understand fundamental issues in water rights controversies, specifically the
Klamath Basin.
Take and defend a position.
Practice the skills of active listening.
Practice civil discourse.
Stakeholders’ Question
Stakeholders have decided to meet to discuss if the priority of who gets water when should
be changed.
In preparation for this meeting, stakeholder groups will meet individually to identify their needs.
Then, in the large group meeting, each stakeholder group will present its view to the Executive
Committee. Each group’s presentation shall be persuasive, civil and remain mindful of other groups.
Steps for Meeting of the Stakeholders
1. Examine a map of the Klamath Basin. It extends from central Oregon and south into
Northern California following the Klamath River.
2. Discuss the background on the Klamath Basin Water issues as a class. To better grasp
the situation, students create a timeline of key decisions on who has waters rights when.
3. Place students into small groups and designate which stakeholder group interest they
will represent. Distribute stakeholder handouts; read.
4. Group work. The group shall identify persuasive, well-reasoned arguments to advance
its position. A spokesperson should be chosen to present at the Meeting.
The teacher circulates among the groups. Students should explain what their tasks are to
ensure understanding. Impress on students the need to think like a member of the
stakeholder group even if it conflicts with their personal view. Assure students that when
the meeting is over they will be able to voice their personal opinions.
After considering their arguments and deciding on a spokesperson, each group chooses
one member to be its representative on the Executive Committee (the Wise Ones). They will
comprise the Executive Committee at the Meeting. The Executive Committee will listen to
all stakeholders’ presentations and ask questions. For this reason, the spokesperson and the
Executive Committee representative must be different students. Selecting the Executive
Committee representatives serves two purposes:
(1) All the students have an opportunity to work on developing an argument. If the
representative is chosen before the groups start to work on their arguments, there
may be several students with “nothing to do” while others work.
(2) It raises the issue of bias among decision makers. No matter how neutral a
decision maker is, there will be events in that person’s past that predisposes him or
her to a certain point of view. Here, each student may be predisposed to find for
their own stakeholder group but they must try to put that aside and come to a wellreasoned decision.
6. Presentations at the Meeting. Have Executive Committee members sitting at a head
table. Teachers may set a time limit for each presentation and serve as timekeeper. For
example, no more than five minutes per group including any time spent answering
questions posed by the Executive Committee.
7. Two minutes of rebuttal after all groups have spoken. The rebuttal does not have to be
made by the group’s spokesperson. The rebuttal should address any attacks on their
position made by other groups.
8. The Executive Committee recesses to make its decision. When making their decisions,
the Executive Committee should carefully weigh the positions of all the stakeholder groups.
The teacher should visit the Committee during deliberations to impress upon them the
need to set aside their own beliefs and make a decision based on the strength of the
information presented to them. If the Executive Committee cannot reach a decision by
consensus within a reasonable time, break the deadlock with a vote. The Executive
Committee will choose a spokesperson to present and explain its decision.
9. Students rank the arguments presented. While the Committee is deliberating, the
remaining students can create a ranked list of the best arguments, both pro and con, on the
board. This is an opportunity for the class to drop their personas as members of a special
interest group and speak as individuals.
Alternatively, the deliberations can be done in a fishbowl style so that stakeholder groups
can hear – but not participate in – the discussion.
10. The Executive Committee announces its decision.
Further Discussion
After the Executive Committee has announced its decision, the class may discuss whether
this was a good method of coming to a decision.
- Do they think a fair result was achieved?
- Do they think it achieved results that will provide a long-term solution?
There is a growing movement in environmental law to change the nature of decisionmaking. Many people criticize processes where special interest groups rally their
2
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
620 SW Main Street, Suite 102 Portland, Oregon 97205
www.classroomlaw.org
supporters and then work to influence the decision makers. The critics believe that this
process yields only short term solutions to a crisis and is not a successful way to do long
term planning for the future of public resources. For example, here the Executive
Committee decided only what is best for the Klamath Basin. It did not set out to determine
the best use of the water for the public ten years from now or 100 years from now. It did
not decide the best use of all the Klamath River. Decision making through the courts
provides far less public input and is even more narrowly focused.
The world is eagerly awaiting fresh ideas on how to better incorporate long-term public
values into environmental decision-making. It is a challenge waiting for the creativity and
insight of a new generation of interested citizens.
3
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
620 SW Main Street, Suite 102 Portland, Oregon 97205
www.classroomlaw.org