Environmental issues to be key in Columbia River talks

Treaty could have local impacts

News that U.S. officials plan to seek an update to the Columbia River Treaty with Canada was welcomed by local leaders who have long pushed for its renewal.

Last month, the entire congressional delegation from Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana sent a letter urging the Obama administration to begin negotiations this year. That included U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Camas, who reiterated the importance of the landmark agreement in a released statement this week.

“The Columbia River is central to our way of life in Southwest Washington,” Herrera Beutler said. “Pursuing a new Columbia River Treaty with fair and equitable benefits between the United States and Canada is imperative to securing the future benefits the river brings to our communities — affordable, clean hydro energy, flood management, navigation, irrigation, and ecosystem-based management.”

Revising the treaty could have significant implications for Southwest Washington and Clark County. Changing the amount of hydroelectric power sent to Canada each year under the agreement, for example, could impact local ratepayers’ utility bills.

As regional players crafted their stance in 2013, Clark Public Utilities was among the agencies that argued the U.S. is sending too much electricity to Canada under the treaty. That arrangement is known as the Canadian Entitlement.

Northwest tribal leaders and others have stressed the need for addressing ecosystem function — a topic that likely will be part of upcoming negotiations between the two countries. Officials have said that any resulting benefit to salmon and the Columbia River’s health also could benefit local communities along the river.

— Eric Florip

WASHINGTON — After a long delay, the Obama administration has signaled that it’s ready to launch talks with Canada to renew the 51-year-old Columbia River Treaty, a controversial pact that created dams for electricity and flood control in the Pacific Northwest.

But there will be one big change from the negotiations that created the original 1964 treaty: This time, the United States plans a major push on environmental issues.

It’s a welcome development for leaders of conservation groups and Indian tribes who want the U.S. and Canada to join forces to tackle any damage caused by global warming on the 1,243-mile Columbia River.

“Climate change is not something that you can sort of draw a line at the border,” said Pat Ford of Boise, Idaho, who represents Save Our Wild Salmon, which has offices in Spokane and Seattle.

Many environmental groups cite scientific models that show rising temperatures reducing the snowpack and glacier mass in nearby mountains, resulting in less water for the Columbia during seasonal runoffs.

Ford said climate change will be “the single biggest issue” in managing the river, adding: “We’re already facing it.”

The State Department announced its intentions in a letter last month to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. It came after 26 members of Congress from Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana complained to President Barack Obama about the “slow pace” of the administrative review.

In their April letter, the members told Obama they wanted to “express consternation” and urged him to make the treaty a top priority this year.

They got the news they wanted to hear in a May 20 reply from Julia Frifield, assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the State Department. She said that “internal deliberations are gaining momentum” and that the administration was getting ready to move.

“We hope to approach Canada soon to begin discussions on modernization of the treaty,” Frifield wrote.

The Columbia River, the longest in the Northwest, starts as a stream in the mountains of Canada before entering Lake Roosevelt at the U.S.-Canadian border and eventually discharging into the Pacific Ocean near Astoria, Ore.

Congress approved the treaty in response to a 1948 flood that destroyed the city of Vanport, Ore. The Columbia now has 274 hydroelectric dams, making it one of the most hydroelectrically developed rivers in the world.

Indian tribes and other critics have long complained that the dams made it impossible for salmon to navigate the river.

“The river was the lifeblood for the tribes,” said D.R. Michel of Spokane, executive director of the Upper Columbia United Tribes. “Overall, it’s been very devastating for the culture of the tribes and the loss of our salmon. That was 80 percent of our diet.”

But he’s hopeful that the Columbia will be home to more salmon if the treaty emphasizes environmental concerns.

“It’s huge for the entire region that we start managing the river with those other parts in mind,” Michel said. “It’s huge for everybody.”

While the original treaty focused on hydropower generation and flood-risk management, U.S. negotiators now will propose adding “ecosystem function” as a third major component.

A coalition of more than 80 Northwest electric utilities and industry associations opposed the move, saying a top concern should be reducing costs for Northwest electric consumers. In a 2013 letter to federal officials, the Columbia River Treaty Power Group said that adding a third primary purpose to the treaty could lead to “conflicting obligations and priorities.”

For many advocacy groups with a stake in the treaty, the State Department letter marked the first time that they had heard anything from Washington, D.C., since a package of regional recommendations had been finalized in December of 2013.

John Osborn, a Spokane physician who coordinates the Ethics and Treaty Project, called the letter “a very strong signal” but noted that the Canadian government has yet to commit to any negotiations. He said the delay has been “a source of anxiety” but credited the push by members of Congress for getting the administration to move.

Osborn said environmental issues were overlooked in the original treaty. And he said the river has “operated as a machine,” with two goals in mind: maximizing hydropower and reducing the risk of floods.

“That’s the way it’s been since 1964 and it’s not surprising,” he said. “That needs to change.”