Northwest utility companies are raising concerns about the Columbia River Treaty review process, alleging their voices have not been included in the reevaluation of the American and Canadian water agreement. The Columbia River Treaty Power Group, a coalition of 70 utility companies across the region, have hired lawyers to put pressure on the U.S. Entity that is reviewing the treaty. That group will make a recommendation to the U.S. State Department in December.
But representatives of the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the two agency’s leading the treaty review, say the utility companies, including Flathead Electric Cooperative, have had opportunities to voice their concerns about the treaty.
Signed in 1961 and implemented three years later, the Columbia River Treaty between the United States and Canada led to the construction of four large dams in the river basin. For a half-century, these dams, and the treaty, have offered flood control and hydroelectricity in the basin, which encompasses a vast swath of the Pacific Northwest. Now, agencies on both sides of the border are studying the treaty before 2014, the earliest date either country could ask to modify or terminate the international agreement in 2024.
The treaty’s roots stem from the floods that devastated the region before the 1960s, including a 1948 flood that destroyed the town of Vanport, Ore., killing 50 people. The treaty resulted in dams being built in both the United States and Canada, including the Libby Dam, which holds back Lake Koocanusa. Since most of the water is stored in Canada, the United States paid $64.4 million to its northern neighbor for 60 years of flood control. Another part of the agreement called for a one-time payment equal to half of the downstream power generated in the United States for 30 years. That payment of $254 million worth of electricity helped Canada build its three treaty dams. That part of the agreement expired in 2003 and since then the United States has delivered a daily allotment of power to Canada, worth $222 million to $359 million annually, known as the Canadian Entitlement.
According to officials from the U.S. Army Corps and BPA, the Canadian Entitlement will be a large part of the treaty negotiations. After the state department gets a regional recommendation, it will begin talks with the Canadian government.
“Basically we got a really good deal for 30 years and then Canada got a good deal,” said Mike Hansen, BPA spokesperson.
Hansen said another benefit to reworking the treaty is having the chance to include environmental issues and protections. When it was first signed, it only included flood control and power generation. Ken Sugden of Flathead Electric, and other utilities, argues that there are environmental protection laws on both sides of the border and that the treaty should only focus on its original intent.
“Our view is lets focus on flood controls and power generation,” Sugden said.
According to Hansen, one option issued in the draft recommendation released this summer is to increase water flows to help restore fisheries.
The Columbia River Treaty Power Group’s largest concern is how the treaty review process has worked. Here in the United States, a sovereign review team, made up of federal, state and tribal representatives, has primarily headed up the study.
“The concern is (the utility providers) haven’t been included in the process,” Sugden said.
But Hansen disagrees.
“Last spring, we had 15 public meetings where we went out to the public and talked about the process and where we’re going,” he said. “I don’t want to discount their concerns, but we have tried to engage the region during these public meetings and we’ll continue to do so.”
The public will have another opportunity to see and comment on what the review team is doing early next month, when the final draft of the U.S. Entity’s recommendation is available.
“We are on our way to a final recommendation to the state department in December,” Hansen said. “It’s been going on for three years and we’re winding down, but there will be plenty of opportunity to review the recommendation and provide comments.”