We’re living in a once-in-a-generation moment here in the Columbia River Basin. After 60 years, Canada and the U.S. are redesigning the way we share this international watershed through a new Columbia River Treaty. At the same time, Indigenous Nations and Tribes are leading groundbreaking work to bring salmon back to the Columbia’s upper reaches after their passage was blocked more than 80 years ago (click here to learn more, and take action to help it continue).
There’s a lot to be excited about, but important questions remain. Last month, after six years of negotiations, Canada and the United States announced an agreement-in-principle (AIP) on a modernized treaty.
The AIP gives Canada unilateral control of nearly ⅓ of the water managed under the treaty while continuing to benefit economically from the other ⅔. The original treaty managed the Kinbasket, Arrow Lakes, and Duncan Reservoirs exclusively for downstream hydropower production, and flood control (mostly for the U.S. but also benefiting the Castlegar/Trail area). The treaty also authorized the U.S. to build Libby Dam with its Koocanusa Reservoir backing up into Canada. To date, Canada has had no formal input into Koocanusa Reservoir operations. The AIP falls short of adding coordinated management of Libby Dam, but it does create an international committee to work towards common interests along the Kootenay River system in both countries.
A common story told about the treaty, especially in the U.S., is that it reduced flooding across the Columbia River Basin, but that’s not the whole truth. In reality, the treaty traded natural springtime flooding of seasonal wetlands along the lower river around Portland for unnatural floods filling more than 600 kilometres of valleys in the Kootenays. This has enabled the U.S. to build infrastructure in historic floodplains.1
To make this possible, the Columbia River Treaty dams in B.C. flooded an area roughly three times the size of Kootenay Lake (approx. 110,000 hectares), destroying ecosystems and displacing thousands of human residents while inundating Indigenous cultural sites and productive agricultural lands. In a typical year, water levels behind these dams are toggled between very low to very high to serve downstream interests. These drastic fluctuations do not allow for vegetation along reservoir shorelines or high quality habitat for fish in streams flowing into the reservoirs. They have detrimental impacts to recreation and tourism as well as industrial barging and log towing.
Unanswered questions
With Canada negotiating more control over the flow of water down the Columbia, the AIP opens up possibilities for water levels that better respond to the needs of fish, wildlife, and local communities. But there are some questions left unanswered.
1. If Canada uses the flexibility for water levels allotted in the AIP, it will receive less electricity from the U.S. The power returned to Canada under the treaty is typically sold on the open market with revenues directed to B.C.’s general revenue fund. The Syilx Okanagan, Secwépemc, and Ktunaxa Nations also recently negotiated interim agreements with B.C. that will see each nation receive 5% of this amount for at least four years.
How do we ensure that governments honour years of advocacy by local communities for a more balanced system instead of just maxing out financial gains? Also, who will decide how the flexibility in the AIP will be used to improve ecosystems, Indigenous cultural values and community socio-economic conditions?
2. The AIP leaves significant uncertainty around how coordinated flood risk management between Canada and the U.S. will work. The U.S. has said that the 3.6 million-acre-feet of water storage included in the treaty for flood control will be enough to meet their needs in only 7/10 years, implying that they may still have to “call upon” Canada for extra help in 3/10 years. It’s unclear if this estimate accounts for climate change projections.
The two countries have not agreed on the terms for “called upon” assistance. How might this disrupt Canadian planning for other goals?
3. The AIP calls for the creation of a transboundary Indigenous and Tribal-led advisory body that would recommend options for enhancing ecosystems, but doesn’t appear to change the treaty’s fundamental governance system.
Does this mean that dam operators and colonial governments will continue to call the shots with no requirement to implement recommendations from the Indigenous advisory body? Will there be a way for local communities and other experts to provide ongoing input?
4. The Mica Dam was built larger than required by the Columbia River Treaty with an extra 5 million-acre-feet of water storage in its Kinbasket Reservoir.2 To date, this extra water has not been part of the Columbia River Treaty but has instead been controlled by the Non-Treaty Storage Agreement, a commercial deal between BC Hydro and U.S. power agencies. This deal expires next month. What will BC Hydro do with this water next? Will there be an opportunity for other voices to help decide?
The Province of B.C. is expected to host a virtual information session in September, followed by a round of community consultations after the provincial election. We need as many voices at the table as possible. Stay tuned!
- Prior to the treaty, this led to the 1948 Vanport Flood, which caused damage all along the Columbia river but was most notable for destroying Vanport, Oregon. Vanport was a crowded settlement built only a few years before behind dikes in the floodplain between Portland and the Columbia River. At the time, Portland was among the most racist cities in the U.S. Vanport was created as a way to house industrial workers and their families, many of whom were black people fleeing violence and segregation, while keeping them out of Portland. On the morning of the flood, authorities told residents that the dikes were safe and they would be given advance notice if an evacuation was necessary. That same afternoon, the dikes broke, killing 15 people and leaving nearly 20,000 homeless.
- For context, the total amount of water storage controlled by the treaty is 15.5 million-acre-feet, split between the Kinbasket, Arrow, and Duncan reservoir.
