Achieving Columbia River Treaty 2.0: Challenges of A 21st Century Update to An International Dam and Power Generation Treaty

By Keith Edmund White

Source:  CRT Digital Library, http://crtlibrary.cbt.org/items/show/125

Editor-in-Chief

A local Washington State paper, talks Columbia River Treaty (CRT) renewal, detailing the ecological pressures that accompany updating a 20^th century power generation-flood control treaty to reflect 21^st century concerns.  But are renewal talks over CRT, a treaty that whose expiration clock starts running in 2014, more likely to stumble over financial terms?  

Then again, will this impressive water-management/power generation treaty, which stretches from British Columbia to Montana, be able to adapt to ecological concerns or the demands of Native peoples on both sides of the border?  

Keith White discusses the CRT's impressive 50-year evolution.

The Columbia River Treaty:  'Kaiser City' Floods, 50 Years Canada-U.S. Flood and Power Cooperation Starts

In May 1948, a ten-foot high deluge inundated the city of Vanport, then the second-largest city in Oregon locate between Portland and Vancouver.  The Vanport Flood not only washed a city (striking “Kaiser City” from the U.S. cultural lexicon), but ushered in a impressive treaty where the United States swapped power generation in return for Canada providing regional flood control.  (Page jump after the photo)

Source:  CRT 2014/2024 Review-Recent  U.S. Entity Study Results available in full below.

The treaty, ratified in 1964, has some interesting attributes.  First, it creates public-private “Treaty Entities.”  The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers make up the treaty’s “American entity,” while the province of British Columbia (B.C.) and BC Hydro comprise the “Canadian entity.”  (Nerd-note:  The inclusion of B.C. as a key stake-holder, as opposed to a Canadian federal agency, highlights certain diplomatic powers enjoyed by Canadian provinces, and alien to American federalism.)  

But, more importantly, the CRT established the following:

• In return for $64 million, Canada provided the United States an assured Pacific flood control plan for 40 years
• As part of this plan, Canada had to build 3 dams, Mica, Arrow, and Duncan
• It permitted America to build the Libby Dam in Montana
• Equal Canadian and American shares in the downstream hydropower benefits of the treaty management system

(Source:  Page 6, Treaty Review 101 “The Basics,” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers andBonneville Power Administration)

To get a sense of just how much power we’re talking about here, B.C. has received $100-300 million in hydro energy annually over the last decade.  Enough energy to provide B.C. 44% of its low-cost electricity. 

But change seems eminent:  The treaty expires in 2024, but a ten-year notice is required by either party before pulling out.

Hence, 2014 is the year we’ll see how two nations update a 20^th century flood-control/power generation treaty.      

Ecological and Native American/First Nations Concerns Complicate Treaty Renewal

The treaty, while quite successful at averting floods and providing electricity on both sides of the border, does reflect the short-comings of its time.  Long-term ecological concerns, now apparent with global climate change, and native peoples seem to have been largely ignored by the CRT’s drafters.  From the Columbian, a local Washington State paper:

Scientific models predict that rising temperatures will reduce the snowpack and glacier mass in nearby mountains, resulting in less water during seasonal runoffs for the 1,243-mile-long Columbia River, the longest in the Pacific Northwest.

The treaty created a massive system of dams for flood control and electricity for the Northwest, but changing weather now might mean fewer fish and damage to the river's ability to feed the turbines that have produced billions of dollars' worth of hydropower for the two nations.

Consequently, environmentalists want climate change to take center stage as U.S. and Canadian officials try to decide whether to extend or change the treaty.

…

Indian tribes are particularly unhappy, saying the dams made it impossible for salmon to navigate the river, once home to the largest salmon runs in the world. And they're upset that they weren't allowed to participate in the original treaty talks.

"I'm pretty sure the tribes would universally say it's been pretty bad," said Paul Lumley, the executive director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission in Portland and a member of the Yakama Nation in central Washington. "It changed the way the river flowed and impacted salmon passage, and it was just a pretty bad deal for the tribes. And the tribes were completely ignored -- that's a true statement."

The B.C. provincial government also highlights ecological concerns on CRT renewal in this February 2013 CRT Newsletter, but emphasizes the positive role a renewed CRT may play in coping with global climate change:

The extensive reservoir storage system of the Columbia Basin provides a mechanism that can assist in adapting to climate change challenges. Reservoirs will allow both Canada and the U.S. to shape flows by increasing storage during times of relative water abundance and releasing stored water during times of relative water scarcity. The coordination and flexibility contained within the Columbia River Treaty provide important mechanisms for the U.S. to help address some of the challenges climate change may bring.

As  pointed out in this 2011 paper on the CRT from the viewpoint of the Okanagan Nation, the terms “tribe,” “first nations,” or “Indian reservation” are absent from the CRT.  And zero tribes were consulted over the twenty years of cross-border talks to lead up to the ratified on CRT in 1964.

In any case, native peoples on both sides of the border are using CRT’s renewal discussions to make their voices heard. 

And Canada has committed itself to First Nations consulting. What these consultations yield still seems unclear.

Power and Money:  Is Treaty Renewal All About Resetting the Treaty’s Hydopower Distribution? 

But could discussions between the “American entity” and “Canadian entity” really be focused on money?

Apparently, treaty economics suggest that cancelling the treaty would net America between $415 and $689 million.  A June 2012 study by the CRT’s United StatesEntity states: 

Under the Treaty Continues alternatives, initial computer simulation results suggested the United States had an overall loss of revenue (about $4 million to $34 million), while for Canada they ranged from some loss, to a gain ($500,000 loss, to gain of $2 million).

Treaty Termination resulted in an overall increase in annual revenue for the United States (about  $180 million to $280 million), but a decrease for Canada (of about $220 million to $320 million).

Additionally, if the Treaty is terminated, the United States will no longer be obligated to pay the Treaty Canadian Entitlement to Canada. Based on the Iteration 1 evaluation, the value of this payment is forecast to have an annual value of $229 million to $335 million. This range is dependent on assumptions made about the price of energy.

Revenue associated with the Treaty is generated or forgone by BPA [Bonneville Power Administration] ratepayers. All revenue estimates were computer modeling results that depended on assumptions about the price of electricity.

(Source:  Pages 6-7, Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review, Recent Study Results, United States Entity, June 2012, available in full below. 

The Columbia River Treaty:  A Fascinating History and Uncertain Future

The United States and Canada likely had little idea of just how important the CRT would become in the 40 years since its ratification.

Immense power generation has changed the treaty’s underlying economic bargain; global climate change has made cross-border flood management even more important; and new concerns surrounding ecology of the rights of native peoples have now entered the picture.

The CRT, besides its fascinating blend of local, national, and international law, shows the fascinating evolution legal structures can take over.

Finally, CRT demonstrates, in dramatic fashion, the unique legal, economic, and diplomatic relationship between Canada and the United States, and the critical role this bilateral relationship will play in addressing the policy challenges of the 21^st century.

The Columbia River Treaty Project Locations

Source:  Treaty 101 Report, available in full above.