A proposed update to the Columbia River Treaty is imperfect, but it includes provisions that are important to the environmental and economic future of the Pacific Northwest.
Last month, negotiators from the United States, Canada and Northwest tribes reached an agreement in principle following six years of talks. The proposal would update the treaty that dates to 1961, defining flood mitigation practices throughout the Columbia River Basin.
The need for such protection is clear. At this time of year, the Columbia River carries enough water past Vancouver to fill two Olympic-sized swimming pools every second. On a daily basis, there is enough water to cover Clark and Multnomah counties to a depth of more than 16 inches.
As The Columbian has written editorially: “Thanks to effective management throughout the basin, that water remains within its banks. It provides a spectacle for onlookers and fertile grounds for fishing and commerce. There is little concern about developing residences and retail businesses within a stone’s throw of the water.”
The Columbia River Treaty has been a key piece of that management. It called for the construction of vast reservoirs in Canada, near the headwaters of the River of the West, to help with flood control. It also set parameters for the generation of hydroelectric power and an agreement on how electricity and revenue would be shared.
But conditions have changed since the treaty was launched. As President Joe Biden said last month: “After 60 years, the Treaty needs updating to reflect our changing climate and the changing needs of the communities that depend on this vital waterway.”
The tentative agreement calls for the United States to keep more of the power generated by hydroelectric dams throughout the basin. It also provides a framework for improved cooperation between the Bonneville Power Administration and Canadian utilities to help avoid blackouts and ensure reliable electricity. The proposal also reduces the amount the United States will pay Canada for flood mitigation that protects downstream communities.
Critics have argued that this provision — known as the Canadian Entitlement — is too costly to the United States. But it pales in comparison with the potential costs of widespread flooding. Last year, fueled by climate change, four flood events in the United States were assessed to have caused at least $1 billion in damage.
“These new terms will go a long way toward helping meet the growing demand for energy in the region and avoid building unnecessary fossil fuel-based generation,” BPA Administrator John Hairston said.
While an updated Columbia River Treaty is important to our region, critics have correctly lamented a lack of environmental provisions in the proposal. Specifically, they have urged for river health and salmon restoration to be among the primary goals.
“Our community is frustrated and disappointed today,” Joseph Bogaard of the nonprofit Save Our Wild Salmon said. “The treaty needs to be a tool to address challenges for these fish. There are benefits and certainty for the power sector and for flood risk management, while salmon basically get status quo treatment.”
That is lamentable. A decline in wild salmon runs has diminished a cultural icon of the Northwest and demands attention.
But for now, an updated Columbia River Treaty appears to follow the two goals of the original agreement — flood mitigation and energy production. And those are essential to the future of our region.
