Skip to content

Modern Columbia River Treaty more than power, flood control

One of the major concerns that wasn’t part of original discussions was climate change, the effects of which certainly will be now.

The Fauquier-hosted public meeting on the Columbia River Treaty Review was the last attempt to get people up to speed on some of the contemporary challenges facing Basin residents and to get their voice heard by Ministry and local government representatives.

In the audience of approximately 70 were local politicians from the municipal to the provincial levels of government. Nakusp mayor Karen Hamling who also sits as the Vice Chair on the Local Government committee for the Columbia River Treaty facilitated the meeting, ensuring that speakers kept time while answering as many questions as possible.

Speakers included George Penfold from UBC who spoke on the range of impacts and benefits of the CRT. One critique from the audience commented that his talk spoke more about the benefits than the negative impacts, which Penfold himself did not disagree with. He pointed out that at the time of building, there was no assessment of other losses.

The next speaker, Richard Paisley, also from UBC, noted off the top that the only two aspects of damming the Columbia that had been considered important and therefore studied were flood control and power generation. Since then, agriculture, recreation, First Nation and ecological concerns have been recognized as significant concerns that should be brought to the table.

Specializing in the governance of international agreements about fresh water at the UBC Faculty of Law, he also said that it was difficult to take lessons learned from one situation and use them in another because each case was so unique. The one thing he did say that was most common worldwide in terms of water was that “it seems as though benefits seldom flow to the people most affected.”

Paisley compared the looming date of Sept. 16, 2014, the day from which either the U.S. or Canada can opt out of the treaty, to Y2K because there’s a lot of concern about something that may or may not happen.

In 2024, however, the flood controls originally agreed to when the treaty was signed do expire, and that will have significant impact on both sides of the border.

One of the major concerns that wasn’t part of original discussions was climate change, the effects of which certainly will be now.

Paisley told listeners that there is a 35 per cent reduction of water occurring in the U.S. side of the Columbia Basin, as well as an increase in glacial melt and extreme weather events.

“People are justifiably paranoid about the effects of climate change,” said Paisley.

The U.S. demand is doing nothing but increasing, he said, and mostly for non-power generation uses. Irrigation, fish, and recreation all create big water demands, he said.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act, which has nothing to do with power generation, dictates water usage.

This is a headache for utilities who pay for water that could be used for power generation, even though it isn’t (also known as the Canadian Entitlement), said Paisley. Fishing interests aren’t paying for their usage of water in the Basin, he pointed out.

Sid Parker brought up the issue of sediment and the life expectancy of dams, and Kathy Eichenberger, Executive Director for the CRT review, responded saying that sediment levels are monitored.

“We wouldn’t want people to be overly concerned,” she said.

Paisley acknowledged the question of the dams’ lifespans was a good question worth looking into.

One of the key elements to the CRT and negotiation or renegotiation is governance, he added, and the focus of the people involved affects the kind of governance taking place. If democratic process, ecological interests, equity and benefit sharing are objectives, they will shape the treaty process.

Virgil Seymour from Washington state, the Arrow Lakes facilitator for the Lakes Indians/Sinixt told the assembly that 15 First Nations had formed a coalition in the U.S., quite a feat for groups with such divergent interests, he said. What kept them together was focusing on what they agree on, Seymour said, who also said he’d like to see more First Nations participation in Canada.

At the moment, politics on both sides of the border are polarized, which means it would be difficult to get changes to the treaty through quickly or easily, said Paisley. If either U.S. or Canada wanted to cancel and renegotiate, the state of politics is a real pragmatic concern, he said.