Dec. 13, 2023

By Emry Dinman

The U.S. and Canada need to prioritize swiftly modernizing the nearly 60-year treaty governing the management of the Columbia River between the two countries, wrote U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell and Idaho Sen. James Risch in a Wednesday letter to President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“A modernized treaty regime will benefit both of our countries by strengthening flood response and creating opportunities for better management of our shared water resources to overcome new challenges,” the senators wrote.

Cantwell, a Democrat, and Risch, a Republican, lead the Pacific Northwest delegation in negotiations. They argue a new treaty could spur grid modernization, improve access to U.S. markets for Canadian electricity and lead to more efficient systems governing the flow of water through the series of dams along the major waterway. Unless an agreement is reached by September, some provisions of the treaty, which has dramatically shaped the Columbia River since the 1960s, will lapse.

“The United States and Canada have long benefited from our close and extraordinarily positive relationship,” the senators wrote. “We should avoid the uncertainty and potential disputes that could come from any further delays in concluding negotiations over modernization of the Columbia River Treaty.”

The United States began building dams along the Columbia River 90 years ago, first with the Rock Island Dam in 1932 and later the Bonneville, Grand Coulee and others, providing cheap electricity that would attract military industries, but governed by seasonal water flow and without sufficient reservoir storage to mitigate flooding.

In 1948, a flood devastated communities along the river from southeastern British Columbia to the Pacific Ocean, destroying the Vanport community near Portland, which was the second-largest city in Oregon at the time, causing over $100 million in damages and killing at least 16. A joint commission of the United States and Canada that had formed four years earlier to explore bilateral improvements along the Columbia River gained a new sense of urgency in the wake of the Vanport Flood.

The Columbia River Treaty was signed in 1961 and went into effect in 1964, which led to the construction of new dams and major reservoirs on the Canadian side of the border, causing the displacement of those who lived in areas that are today underwater. With that additional storage capacity, water could be reliably directed downriver to American dams, generating power to meet demand or held back in Canadian reservoirs to prevent flooding.

The treaty gives the U.S. significant control over the release of that water in Canadian reservoirs. In exchange, the U.S. agreed to give Canada half of the estimated increased power generated by the downriver dams in what is called the Canadian Entitlement, much of which is sold back to the U.S. Today, the Canadian Entitlement is worth approximately $120 million to $335 million annually, with Canadian and U.S. government officials varying wildly in their estimates.

The treaty has come under fire from a number of directions in the interceding decades, including environmental groups worried about habitat displaced by reservoirs and the impact of dams on the migration of salmon and other fish. Tribal governments were left out of negotiations. Recent drought also has exposed fault lines in the deal, with communities along the Canadian reservoirs worried that their government has insufficient flexibility to hold back flows as local water levels recede, the CBC reported in October.

Most provisions of the Columbia River Treaty do not need to be renewed, though either country could initiate a termination of the treaty starting in 2024, though only after a 10-year notice. The Assured Annual Flood Control provision of the treaty, however, expires automatically on Sept. 16.

In addition to sharing electricity generated, the U.S. paid $65 million in compensation for the flood control benefits of the deal, a 60-year provision set to expire next year. In exchange, Canada agreed to reserve a certain amount of storage in its reservoirs every year that can be used to slow flows downriver and prevent floods.

While neither country has signaled a desire to terminate the treaty, the need to renew the flood control provisions have animated efforts to renegotiate other terms at the same time.

Canadian authorities have argued that their government needs more control over their reservoirs and additional compensation through the Canadian Entitlement. U.S. negotiators have countered that entitlement payments are larger than they should be.

“The current Canadian entitlement is not acceptable to us and to many other members of the U.S. Congress,” Cantwell and Risch wrote in their Wednesday letter. “Any compensation must be reasonable and defensible for funding to be approved by the U.S. Congress.”

U.S. authorities have also argued environmental responsibility should become an agreed-upon priority, in addition to power generation and flood control. In order to move the smolt of fish such as salmon downriver to the ocean, the U.S. frequently spills water over its dams without generating power, but still compensates the Canadian government as though power was generated, payments that U.S. negotiators have argued should be ended or reduced.

Cantwell alluded to these negotiations in a 2016 letter to Trudeau.

“Given the growing impact to our climate, natural environment and economy, I believe we must find a mutually beneficial path forward to modernize the treaty in a way that balances flood control, ecosystem-based function, and hydropower generation,” Cantwell wrote.

If the Assured Annual Flood Control provision is allowed to expire, the U.S. would have to request and compensate Canada for flood control on an ad hoc basis. Already, during periods of very high flows on the river, the U.S. can call upon Canada to provide additional reservoir storage over and above the annual guarantee, but only after proving the U.S. has effectively tried to use its own reservoirs, and then at a price.

How exactly that would work is unclear; the Columbia River Treaty does not describe how this ad hoc system would operate, nor the costs that would be borne by the U.S., according to the Congressional Research Service.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/dec/13/cantwell-risch-urge-biden-trudeau-to-prioritize-ne/

Nov. 9, 2023

While First Nations in British Columbia's southern Interior have a seat at the renegotiation tables for the Columbia River Treaty between Canada and the United States, the Sinixt — whose territory was directly affected by the original treaty negotiation — do not.

Watch the video here: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2281056323613

By Chuck Chiang

November 5, 2023

First Nations groups on the Canadian side of the Columbia River Basin are adamant that salmon runs that have long been blocked by dams in the United States must be restored, potentially in a renewed river treaty between the two countries.

But experts say possible solutions, such as “salmon cannons” that suck fish through a pipe and shoot them out upstream and over obstacles, are all costly and potentially limited in their effectiveness.

Representatives from the Ktunaxa and Syilx Okanagan nations say they continue to bring up salmon restoration in negotiations for a modern Columbia River Treaty and will not stop until a solution can be reached within or outside a new agreement.

The U.S.-Canada treaty regulates the cross-border Columbia River to prevent flooding and generate hydro power. A key component of the 62-year-old treaty is set to expire in September 2024, lending urgency to the ongoing talks.

“I think what we are doing in the fight to bring salmon back is vital to us moving forward,” said Lower Similkameen Indian Band Chief Keith Crow, who is a member on the Syilx Okanagan Nation’s Chiefs Executive Council and the Nation’s lead in the Columbia River Treaty talks.

“And we’re not going to back down, either,” he said.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation says much of the migratory salmon run in the Upper Columbia, both in Canada and the U.S., ended with the completion of the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington state in 1942.

While the Grand Coulee Dam isn’t among four dams built in accordance with the 1961 Columbia River Treaty, First Nations leaders say the talks offer a rare opportunity for them to directly engage American officials about restoring Pacific salmon to the Upper Columbia.

“The salmon hasn’t been a big piece of (the talks), and I’ve been trying to move it forward consistently,” Crow said.

The nation opened its own hatchery near Penticton, B.C., in 2014 to help bring salmon back to Okanagan waters.

The goal, Crow said, is the restoration of natural salmon runs throughout the Upper Columbia Basin.

“We’ve been supplying salmon back to the people for years from our hatchery from the work that we’ve done, but to be able to see them actually swimming freely and coming up the Columbia the way they’re meant to be, I think it’s something I’m hoping I’m going to see in my lifetime.”

Ktunaxa Nation Council Chair Kathryn Teneese said the loss of salmon to the Upper Columbia Basin fundamentally changed communities and their ways of life, since the fish was a staple to traditional diets and held significant cultural value.

“We now have generations of people that have grown up without even knowing that salmon was very much part of our staple diet,” Teneese said. “So, from that perspective, it’s changed who we are. Because one of the things that we say is that we have a word in our language for salmon, but we don’t have access to it.

“We just fill that void with the utilization of all of the other resources off the land that we’ve always used, but there’s just a piece missing.”

Crow said salmon may have comprised up to 50 per cent of traditional Syilx Okanagan diets prior to the region losing its fish runs.

In September, the U.S. pledged more than $200 million over 20 years from the Bonneville Power Administration for reintroducing salmon in the Upper Columbia River Basin.

Crow said he has spoken with British Columbia Premier David Eby about similar long-term financial commitments on the Canadian side.

“Right now, we are kind of doing the best we can with the budgets that we get every year,” Crow said. “So, a long-term commitment would be so much more beneficial. We can get so much more done, I think.”

In June, the province agreed to separate bilateral deals with the Syilx Okanagan, Ktunaxa and Secwepemc Nations so each group receives 5 per cent of the revenue B.C. receives every year from the U.S. through the Columbia River Treaty, funding known as the Canadian Entitlement.

But the challenge in bringing salmon back to the Upper Columbia Basin isn’t limited to funding, experts say.

In 2012, a group of researchers published a report on efforts to restore Atlantic Salmon and other migrating fish species to rivers on the East Coast of North America.

The report found that the effort at three major rivers did not yield “self-sustaining populations in any eastern U.S. river” despite “hundreds of millions” in investment on the construction of hatcheries and fish passages.

“It may be time to admit failure of fish passage and hatchery-based restoration programs and acknowledge that significant diadromous species restoration is not possible without dam removals,” said the report on fish that travel between salt and fresh water.

University of Victoria Biology Professor Francis Juanes was a co-author of the report, and he said that while the topic of fish passage technology among researchers is actively discussed and constantly advancing, studies have shown the only reliable way to fully restore a natural fish run may be a dam’s removal.

Juanes said that when a dam on the Elwha River was removed about a decade ago in Washington state, “you didn’t have to reintroduce (salmon).”

“They came back naturally. In a sense, that is the best way to reintroduce salmon especially to a river system.”

Results on the East Coast where fish ladders were used, particularly the Connecticut River, were not nearly as effective, Juanes said.

“It took so much effort by so many states, and you needed the hatcheries to grow these babies. So, that’s an enormous effort, and the return just wasn’t very good.”

John Waldman, biology professor at Queens College in New York, is one of the main authors of the report.

Waldman said there is rising belief among grassroots and Indigenous groups throughout North America that dam removals may be the optimal way to restore fish runs, in lieu of the poor results from alternative passages.

“I think there’s one universal theme that has emerged over the last two decades, which is that dam removal is without question the best solution to bringing these fish back again,” he said.

“Fish ladders and fish elevators provide what’s called the halfway measure.

“It looks like to the uninitiated that you have a solution and that it works, but the truth is when you look at the actual performance of many of these fish ladders and fish elevators, not that many fish pass through them.”

The biggest dam removal project in the United States began earlier this year on the Klamath River along the Oregon-California border, where four such structures will come down by next year under a budget of US$450 million.

Discussions on removing four dams on another branch of the Columbia River Basin – in the lower parts of the Snake River – have been ongoing for years, with the U.S. federal government rejecting in 2020 the idea due to possible power-grid destabilization if the hydro electricity from the dams are removed.

Last month, U.S. President Joe Biden directed federal agencies to use all available authorities and resources to restore salmon runs in the Columbia River Basin that are “healthy and abundant.”

Biden’s order, however, stopped short of calling for the removal of the dams on the Lower Snake River in Washington state.

The Upper Columbia United Tribes, consisting of five member Indigenous nations in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, said on its website on salmon restoration that while more studies are needed, there have been “encouraging advances” in fish passage technologies such as floating surface collectors and salmon cannons to get past tall dams without the structures’ removal.

But such technology, Waldman said, is unproven in being able to support a large, natural fish migration.

“I think this is a quarter-way measure, not even a halfway measure,” he said.

“You see them emerging once in a while, and somebody gets wind of it on TV, and some late night comedians make fun of fish being shot through these cannons. But no one’s ever ramped them up to be at a level that would sustain a natural level of migratory fish.”

But Juanes said such options may be necessary if dam removals are not possible, even if they may add stress to the salmon population and make them more vulnerable to diseases.

“For one, that’s a very costly thing to do,” Juanes said of fish-passage technology. “For two, it causes stress to the animals. I can imagine that this cannon is not a happy moment for the fish, but maybe it’s better than it dying below the dam.”

Crow, for his part, said he understands “there’s no way of getting around the fact” that dams such as the Grand Coulee remain in the migration path, posing a monumental challenge to restoring salmon migration routes.

But he said the reintroduction of salmon runs to the Upper Columbia Basin is important enough to warrant effort and funding.

“There are lots of options out there, but what is going to be the most efficient and least impactful to the salmon, and they can still get back up? That’s the key,” he said.

“I’ve been taught to think seven generations down. So, I’m looking seven generations ahead of decisions that I make today: How is it going to influence or how is it going to impact my great-great-grandkids?”

https://globalnews.ca/news/10072179/first-nations-bc-salmon-return-columbia-basin/

"I would say that when it was negotiated in 1961 and entered into force in 1964, it probably was one of the most important — if not the most important — water treaties in the world," said Nigel Bankes

Oct. 25, 2023

Victoria Youmans says she hasn’t seen Arrow Lakes Reservoir looking so low in more than 20 years.

The resident of Nakusp on the shores of the reservoir in British Columbia’s southern Interior says she’s seen thousands of dead fish on the shore, and the receding waterline means boat access has been cut to waterfront properties. Instead of lapping waters, some homes now face an expanse of sucking mud.

Drought is part of reason. But so too is the Columbia River Treaty with the United States that obligates B.C. to direct water from the reservoir across the border at American behest.

The grim scenes described by Youmans illustrate the stakes in talks between Canadian and U.S. negotiators to modernize the 62-year-old treaty, as the increased risk of extreme weather weighs on both sides. Part of the treaty that gives the United States direct control over a portion of the water in Arrow Lakes Reservoir and two other B.C. dams is set to expire in September 2024.

“I would say that when it was negotiated in 1961 and entered into force in 1964, it probably was one of the most important — if not the most important — water treaties in the world,” said Nigel Bankes, professor emeritus at the University of Calgary’s faculty of law, whose expertise includes the Columbia River Treaty.

“Its significance was really that it provided for the co-operative development of the Columbia River — the co-operative development of storage for flood control and power purposes, and for a sharing of the benefits associated with those developments.”

The treaty was forged after catastrophic flooding of the Columbia River in 1948 destroyed the city of Vanport, Ore., near Portland.

It led to the creation of three dams in B.C. and a fourth in Montana in the Columbia’s drainage basin, serving both flood control and hydropower generation.

But recent extreme weather — such as this year’s severe drought in B.C. — has exposed problems in the agreement that residents of the Columbia River Basin say need to be urgently addressed.

The 230-kilometre-long Arrow Lakes Reservoir — made up of Upper Arrow Lake and Lower Arrow Lake — was created when the Hugh Keenleyside Dam was built in 1968 under the treaty.

The reservoir’s water level had fallen to 423.7 metres above sea level on Tuesday — a low not reached in more than two decades.

Nakusp resident Youmans said what’s even more concerning is that it’s only October, and the lakes usually don’t reach their lowest annual levels until late winter or early spring.

“I personally have never seen it this low, and I’ve lived here for over 20 years,” said Youmans, who is among 3,900 members of a Facebook group that wants to “slow the flow of Arrow Lakes” to the United States.

She says the low water levels are hampering tourism and recreation on the lake, located about 600 km east of Vancouver.

There are other commercial concerns. Nakusp Mayor Tom Zeleznik said low water levels had rendered parts of the reservoir unnavigable for vessels carrying logs, resulting in the closure of some businesses, and forcing reliance on costlier land transport.

Katrine Conroy, the provincial minister on the Columbia River Treaty talks and the MLA representing Kootenay West, said the province is legally obligated by the treaty to direct water to the United States “for flood protection, power-generation purposes, as well as for fish.”

“It’s really frustrating to be faced with a situation that feels like there’s very little that you can do to fix it,” Conroy said in an information session held for West Kootenay residents on Oct. 18, saying her position as the minister responsible for the treaty does not give her a seat at the negotiating table.

The latest round of negotiations, which were the 19th since talks began in 2018, concluded in Portland on Oct. 13.

My “position doesn’t give me a magic wand,” Conroy said. “I can’t cancel a treaty or change its terms or requirements … Often as a government minister, I’m confronted by problems and issues that are hundreds of kilometres away, but for me, this one hits very, very close to home. It’s in my backyard.”

Conroy is also B.C.’s minister of finance.

Federal, provincial and First Nations delegates are represented at the talks with U.S. authorities.

If a new flood-control agreement isn’t reached by September next year, the treaty currently calls for a shift to an “ad hoc” regime, with U.S. authorities having to rely on their own dams’ capacity for flood control before being able to call upon Canadian dams to hold back water as necessary.

The concern, Bankes said, is that nobody knows exactly what an ad hoc regime will look like because it has never been done before.

“Currently, as I understand it, the dam operators start thinking about flood control operations in February,” Bankes said. “So, you need long lead-ups to be able to achieve target flows down in Washington and Oregon. ”That, I think, is the biggest issue, and obviously it should be a huge driver for the United States. What amazes me is that they haven’t got it figured out now, because 11 months is not a long time.“

The U.S. army Corps of Engineers, which built and operates the American treaty dam in Montana as well as a number of dams downriver in the Columbia River Basin such as the Bonneville Dam, warned Oregon and Washington residents in a September information session that waterflow may become “unpredictable” if Canada moves to an ad hoc regime.

Development has proliferated on historical Columbia River flood plains in the United States since the treaty came into effect, and the Corps of Engineers said an ad hoc regime could lead to flooding and disruptions to transport corridors including the I-5 bridge linking Oregon and Washington.

“At this point, we just simply don’t know the actual changes in reservoir operations or potential changes in flooding, because we don’t know how Canada will be operating their system,” Geoff Van Epps, Commander of the U.S. army Corps of Engineers’ Northwest Division, told the information session.

Speaking to West Kootenay residents with Conroy, Canadian treaty negotiator Stephen Gluck said while an ad hoc regime will give Canada more control over waterflow “in theory,” it also introduces uncertainty.

“I will say that even though we continue to negotiate, there is an emerging acceptance that a modernized (treaty) must include Canadian flexibility,” Gluck said.

Kathy Eichenberger, B.C.’s lead negotiator, told residents the province received roughly $420 million last year in the “Canadian entitlement” from power generation at U.S. dams based on waterflows from Canada.

Typically, the province receives about $150 million to $200 million a year, funding that’s directed at regions affected by the dams.

Eichenberger said the dams also helped avert flooding in the B.C. communities of Trail and Castlegar in 2012.

“The key is, Canada and B.C., we entered into this treaty willingly, as partners with the United States,” Eichenberger said. “So, we are committed, as the U.S. is committed, to upholding to treaty requirements.”

For residents such as Youmans, however, it is “beyond frustrating” to see Washington’s Franklin D Roosevelt Lake — downriver from the Canadian dams — operating at normal water levels, while Arrow Lakes Reservoir recedes.

“Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do with what’s happened now,” Youmans said. “All we can do is move forward and be heard on the upcoming and ongoing negotiations.”

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/drought-reveals-cracks-in-canada-u-s-columbia-river-treaty-as-b-c-lake-dries-up

By the Upper Columbia Basin Environmental Collaborative
July 8, 2020

On June 29 and 30, Canada and the United States met for the tenth round of Columbia River Treaty renegotiations. The negotiations were held by web-conference due to COVID-19. Unlike previous rounds, negotiators actually started debating specific proposals. According to press releases issued by both sides, Canada responded to an initial proposal from the U.S. and presented a counter-proposal. This is big news.

The week before, in fulfilment of a pledge made to continue to engage with Basin residents around their issues and concerns, the B.C. Treaty Team released its latest report on local interests and the status of negotiations: a remarkably forthcoming document for a process conducted almost entirely behind closed doors. The Province also committed to engage Indigenous nations, local governments, and citizens on final decisions about the treaty once options become clear.

But as negotiations with the U.S. proceed, options will be whittled down toward a narrow consensus.

That’s why it’s crucial for negotiators to hear from the public now.

Our group, the Upper Columbia Basin Environmental Collaborative, is participating in an Indigenous-led research process investigating how a modernized treaty could improve the health of Canadian ecosystems. This spring, we released a discussion paper and summary on this topic—and we welcome public comment. The Columbia River Treaty Local Governments Committee has provided similar recommendations.

The new Columbia River Treaty must include ecosystem function as a third primary purpose, equal to the existing purposes of international flood-risk management and hydropower. This means adjusting dam operations to help restore land now periodically inundated by reservoirs and improve conditions for fish and other aquatic species in downstream river reaches.

In general, reservoir operations should mimic natural systems as much as possible. We also need to have more flexibility in Canada to adapt to climate change. We can make these changes while still generating plenty of power and protecting communities from floods. To support this new mandate, Treaty governance must be reformed with biologists working alongside engineers, better international collaboration, and Indigenous nations central in decision-making. The public must have a strong voice.

More of the ongoing treaty revenue paid by the U.S. should be dedicated to relevant Basin needs.

Many people mistakenly believe the Columbia Basin Trust is funded by the treaty. In fact, it was created with a one-time $376-million payment from the Province, representing well under 10% of B.C. revenue to date.

A new agreement should provide new funds for (1) adaptive ecosystem research, restoration, and management, (2) salmon reintroduction, (3) watershed education for youth and the public, and (4) local food security.

The renegotiation of the treaty is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to secure a just, ecologically prosperous, and economically sustainable future for the Basin. UCBEC applauds the Canadian negotiating team, which includes the federal and provincial governments and the Ktunaxa, Secwepemc, and Syilx Okanagan nations, for breaking away from the treaty’s dark history.

Nothing since colonization has had a more destructive impact on the Upper Columbia Basin than this treaty. Four large dams (Hugh Keenleyside, Duncan, and Mica in Canada and Libby in the U.S.) were built through the treaty, which together inundated around 1200 square kilometres of ecologically- and agriculturally-rich land, flooding over a dozen communities.

To this day, Canadian treaty dams are partially operated to meet treaty requirements that serve downstream American interests. In 1964, the federal government signed the treaty without consulting with Indigenous nations or Basin residents.  BC Hydro and the Province enforced the removal of condemned communities with what many people felt was inadequate compensation and little to no empathy.

Thankfully, we’re living in a different time. We can speak directly to negotiators and ask them to make sure ecosystem function becomes the third treaty purpose so that river flows will be shaped to also benefit ecosystems and their diverse plant and animal communities.

Send a comment to negotiators today by email (columbiarivertreaty@gov.bc.ca), Facebook @ColumbiaRiverTreaty), or Twitter (@CRTreaty).

And when the Province holds its next round of formal public engagement, we all need to show up. We are fortunate to have government officials in charge who truly want to listen. Let’s seize the opportunity.

Submitted by Dr. Martin Carver, Lead & Coordinator, Upper Columbia Basin Environmental Collaborative

The Upper Columbia Basin Environmental Collaborative(UCBEC) is a collaboration of a cross-section of environmental voices from the Upper Columbia Basin representing provincial, regional and local environmental groups. Current members include the Sierra Club of British Columbia, BC Nature, Wildsight, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Friends of Kootenay Lake Stewardship Society, and the North Columbia Environment Society.

 Friday, July 20, 2018

The U.S. State Department will host a town hall meeting in Portland Sept. 6 to discuss the ongoing re-negotiation of the Columbia River Treaty.
 
The meeting will be led by Jill Smail, the State Department’s lead negotiator in talks with Canadian officials that are aimed at modernizing the treaty, which was enacted in 1964.
 
The town hall meeting at the Bonneville Power Administration’s Rates Hearing Room, from 5:30 to 7 p.m., will follow a round of negotiations that will be held in British Columbia Aug. 15-16, and an Oct. 17-18 round of negotiations that will be held in Portland.
 
The meeting is free and open to the public. Smail and other negotiators will provide a general overview of the negotiations and take questions. Questions can be sent in advance to ColumbiaRiverTreaty@state.gov.
 
The Columbia River Treaty was enacted mostly to provide flood risk management and affordable hydropower on both sides of the border.
 
“As the United States continues bilateral negotiations with Canada, our key objectives are guided by the U.S. Entity Regional Recommendation for the Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024, a consensus document published in 2013 after five years of consultations among the Tribes, states, stakeholders, public, and federal agencies,” a State Department press release states.
 
More information on the treaty and negotiations can be found at: https://www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/ca/topics/c78892.htm
 
In addition to Smail, the U.S. negotiating team includes representatives from BPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division, the Department of Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.