There are a number of things about the transboundary Columbia River Treaty that must be considered as the agreement is carried into the future, said three speakers at the In Deep Water Conversation event hosted by the Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies at The Banff Centre earlier this month.
Celebrated as one of the most successful collaborative international agreements in the world, the CRT has worked well for half a century. And, contrary to common misconceptions, the treaty does not expire.
“The treaty has no fixed term. If neither party does anything, it will go on indefinitely,” said Nigel Bankes, chair of natural resources law and professor at the University of Calgary.
The year 2024 is the first possible year in which either party may terminate the agreement, but only after having given the other party a full 10 years’ notice.
Creation of the CRT came about on a wave of post-World War II large infrastructure projects undertaken by both countries. The purpose of the CRT was, and remains, two-fold; flood control of the Columbia’s massive cross-border flow, and the generation of relatively clean, renewable hydro power to the benefit of both countries.
With its headwaters at Canal Flats at the southern end of Columbia Lake in B.C., from where the river flows north before turning south at Mica Dam, much of the Columbia River’s 668,500-square-kilomtre system is in the U.S., encompassing Oregon, Washington and Idaho, as well as parts of Montana, Utah, Wyoming and Nevada.
The treaty mandated construction of three dams in Canada – Duncan (built in 1968 for storage only), Keenlyside (1969) and Mica, built in 1973, which created Kinbasket Reservoir. It also authorized a fourth dam in the U.S., Libby, which created Lake Koocanusa in 1972. The U.S. paid Canada $64.4 million to provide for 60 years of flood storage through specified guaranteed reservoir levels.
Much has changed, however, since the CRT was ratified in 1964 - socially, economically, politically and environmentally. The treaty neglected to consider detrimental effects caused by permanent flooding of 110,000 hectares in B.C., including 3,200 hectares of fertile agricultural land, 42,000 hectares of Kootenay forest land, and the relocation of 2,000 people. It did not consider the harmful effects to the environment, particularly fish and wildlife such as wetland- and riverbank-dwelling amphibians and birds.
Neither did the treaty recognize the spiritual value the First Nations peoples of the region attached to the spectacular salmon runs that were eliminated by construction of the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State in 1942 – runs those peoples had hoped would someday be restored.
The creation of the Columbia Basin Trust in 1995 came about in response to those adversely affected by the treaty dams, as a means of helping to create social, economic and environmental benefits to the region.
Now, in the decades since the CRT’s creation, due to population growth, urban development and agricultural expansion, the monetary value of the flood control Canada has provided has amounted to considerably more than initially calculated.
Add to that, in response to the U.S.’s Endangered Species Act, dams on the U.S. side of the river must spill water in an effort to not breach the Act – at the same time losing revenue they might have gained from hydro. They would like to see that amount subtracted from the Canadian entitlement.
“Canadians say we’re giving you all kinds of benefits, but the mid-level power utility says we aren’t getting any benefits. And those mid-C utilities have enormous political clout,” said Richard Paisley, director of the Global Transboundary International Waters Initiative and senior research associate with the University of British Columbia. “The major challenge in my mind is identifying how past, present and future losses can be calculated.”
Another key consideration that was not a concern in 1964 was the ongoing effect of climate change.
“Predictions are we will have the same amount of precipitation, but there will be increasing demands from vegetation in response to warmer temperatures, which will result in a water deficit,” said Barbara Cosens, University of Idaho law professor.
And, as more precipitation falls in the form of rain than snow, municipalities and regions will not be able to rely on natural storage as they have in the past, since snowpacks will be smaller and runoff will peak earlier. With that, 2015 was the warmest year on record, globally.
“Energy demand and markets have not turned out to be as predictable as was anticipated,” Cosens added. “In the process of responding to the 1970s oil embargo we learned about conservation. Most of our new energy is coming from renewables.”
Those issues and others have prompted both parties to tally up their concerns in preparation for renegotiating the treaty to reflect modern times.
From the perspective of the Province of B.C., residents are asking that salmon runs be restored and that First Nations be engaged, but without any drastic changes.
“The basic message of B.C.’s position is an incremental approach,” Bankes said. “We’ve already got these dams, let’s maximize the benefits.”
The U.S. State Department hosted basin-wide listening sessions to help guide its review. Recommendations called for continuing the flood control outlined by the treaty, a reduction in the Canadian entitlement for hydro generation and a greater voice for the 15 tribes living on the U.S. side of the basin.
“Those voices cannot be ignored as they were in 1964,” Cosens said. “It’s not that we didn’t know, but it’s that now the dominant society cares. And the most profound change has been how people are asking for ecosystem function to be elevated to a third function of the treaty.”
Careful thought is required from both parties, advised Richard Paisley, director of the Global Transboundary International Waters Initiative and senior research associate with UBC’s Institute of Asian Research.
“The major challenge in my mind is identifying how past, present and future losses can be calculated,” Paisley said. “I very much see the tribes and First Nations as part of the solution. They have substantial interest. Salmon restoration, a seat at the table, compensation, psychological interests. Local governments too, have the same interests.
“Since the 1960s, there have been major strides in agreements, with active adaptive management practices. A renegotiated treaty should have management that is as self-correcting as we can make it.”
