PORTLAND - Your power bill could be cheaper if the U.S. didn’t send so much electricity north of the border every year. Canada lays claim to around $300 million worth of hydropower annually under the terms of a 50-year-old treaty.
In return, the Canadians manage the upper Columbia River to prevent downstream flooding and to optimize power production. The Columbia River Treaty can be renegotiated soon and there are voices on both sides of the border clamoring for a better deal.
Not very often in Northwest history has a flood wiped an entire city off the map. There’s a mosaic here in remembrance at what is now the Delta Park light rail stop in north Portland. This used to be Vanport City, Oregon until the swollen Columbia River burst through a dike. Fifteen people drowned and another 18,000 were made homeless. That catastrophic spring flood has never been repeated and there’s a good reason why.
Matt Rea: “That flood, that event, led directly to the completion of the negotiations of the Columbia River Treaty.”
How To Weigh In
You can weigh in at upcoming meetings in Portland on Friday and in Boise on Oct. 13. The outreach meetings are hosted by BPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project manager Matt Rea says under the treaty Canada built three crucial dams way upriver on the Columbia. The U.S. added a fourth on a tributary in Montana. The 1961 treaty requires Canada to store water for downstream flood control.
Matt Rea: “The Columbia River Treaty and the storage in Canada that was provided by the treaty have been very, very successful in reducing flood damages downstream. The United States got a very good deal for that.”
The treaty also directs Canada to assure steady downstream power generation by strategically holding and releasing water. The bargain entitles Canada to a big share of that increased electricity production from American dams. But these days, the amount of wealth transferred north is coming under scrutiny, according to Nancy Stephan of the Bonneville Power Administration.
Nancy Stephan: “We have a lot of obligations right now in terms of the river. It’s not just power and flood control anymore. Given the world we live in now, I think the entitlement is based on something historical and that’s not the way we operate at this point. So we want to take a good look at it because we think it is probably more than it should be.”
In fact, several public utility districts with dams on the mid-Columbia want the U.S. to give notice to terminate the treaty. Tim Culbertson manages Grant County PUD in central Washington. Culbertson estimates his utility alone contributed 50 million dollars worth of energy last year for transfer to Canada.
Tim Culbertson: “It would make a huge difference if we were able to keep that at home. That would provide a lot of money for the extensive capital infrastructure that we are rebuilding and it likely would alleviate a fair amount of rate pressure for our customers.”
Culbertson is waiting for more analysis from federal agencies to learn if it’s realistic to back out of the treaty. He wonders what the Canadians would do then.
Tim Culbertson: “You have to analyze and say, can or would the Canadians operate their reservoirs so differently to cause detrimental impacts to the downstream projects.”
Canada through the province of British Columbia has not revealed a bargaining stance. The treaty requires either country to give ten years notice to unilaterally back out. So what’s happening right now is the many people with an interest in the river are strategizing and positioning ahead of the first opportunity to give notice. That’s in 2014. As part of that, indian tribes on both sides of the border have united in a push to add ecological considerations to any treaty revisions. In Portland, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission director Paul Lumley says the original treaty has no provisions for salmon.
Paul Lumley: “One of our great frustrations is that when the treaty was signed in the 1960’s the tribes were not considered at all. Well, it’s different now.”
Leaders of all stripes in the Columbia basin aim to submit recommendations to the U.S. State Department by the year 2013. Ultimately, it’s the State Department’s job to negotiate international treaties. In this case, the outcome will determine how the Columbia River runs for decades to come.
(This was first reported for the Northwest News Network.)