Rethinking the Columbia River Treaty

1
Rethinking the Columbia River Treaty

• John Shurts
• Transboundary Freshwater Ecosystem Restoration
• McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento
• February 18, 2005

2
(No Transcript)
3
Columbia River Hydrograph I
4
Columbia flow and the Treaty concept

• Large within-year variation Average unregulated
  February flows at The Dalles are little more than
  100 kcfs May-June unregulated flows at the same
  point average more than 400 kcfs.
• Huge year-to-year variation Unregulated flows
  at The Dalles vary from 36,000 cfs (1937) to
  1,240,000 cfs (1937), a 134 ratio. Compare to
  the St. Lawrence 12 and Mississippi 125 ratios.
• Canada has 15 of the basin area, but contributes
  38 of the average annual flow at The Dalles.
• In mid 20th century, this is a flood control and
  power problem.
• Treaty solution Concept is to smooth out an
  inconvenient hydrograph and bring power and flood
  control benefits to the United States through an
  agreement to build storage in Canada, and then to
  share the benefits.

5
Columbia River Hydrograph II
6
Columbia River in 2001
7
Colorado River in 2002
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
Treaty basics

• Treaty has 21 articles, two annexes and one
  statistical table. These define joint operation
  of the Columbia River system.
• Treaty has no expiration date, but it may be
  terminated by either country after 60 years
  (2024) provided 10 years notice is given.
• Treaty establishes a flood control operating plan
  and principles for operating to optimize
  generation no fish and wildlife or other
  provisions.

13
Treaty Entities

• Treaty requires the two nations to establish
  official Entities for purposes of implementation
• Bonneville and Corps of Engineers for the U.S.
• B.C. Hydro for Canada (British Columbia).
• The Entities jointly prepare in advance
• Assured Operating Plans (six years)
• Detailed Operating Plans (one year)

14
Treaty water storage

• Canada provides 15.5 million acre-feet of storage
  by building three dams
• 1. Duncan RM 8.3, no generation, completed
  in 1968.
• 2. Keenleyside/Arrow RM 780, dam completed
  in 1969 170 MW power plant completed in 2002.
• 3. Mica RM 1018, 1,740 MW, completed
• in 1973.

15
Libby Dam

• Treaty allowed U.S. to build Libby on the
  Kootenai River (RM 221.9, 525 MW, completed in
  1973, 1976 (units 1-4 1984, unit 5). Lake
  Koocanusa backs into B.C.
• Libby added 5 maf of storage, but this is not
  part of the Treaty, nor is it part of what is
  called non-Treaty storage.

16
Basinwide storage

• Total active Columbia storage 60.2 maf (34
  percent of average annual runoff.
• Columbia River Treaty storage (15.5 maf) is 25.7
  percent of total basinwide storage.
• 5 additional maf of active storage at Mica,
  called non-Treaty storage. Non-Treaty Storage
  Agreement set rules for use of this water
  essentially half for BC Hydro to use and half for
  Bonneville but NTSA expired end of June.

17
Money

• Canada received 64.4 million from the U.S. for
  providing the storage, plus one-half of the
  additional downstream power generation (called
  the Canadian Entitlement and the downstream
  power benefits).
• Canada sold its entitlement in 1964 for 254
  million to U.S. utilities organized as the
  Columbia Storage Power Exchange. This money
  helped fund construction of the three Treaty dams.

18
Canadian Entitlement/Columbia Storage Power
Exchange

• Created in 1964 to purchase and market the
  Canadian Entitlement for 30 years.
• Eight public, three private utilities in the
  Northwest.
• Sold power to 41 utilities, both public and
  private, many of them in California and the
  desert Southwest.
• No sales after 2003, when the entitlement
  expired. Return of the Entitlement negotiated.