Although Canada’s Local Government Committee is unique as an organization bringing information to the treaty decision-makers, the U.S. has also been running public information sessions to collect input from Basin citizens south of the border.
Like Canadians, Americans also want to see that ecosystem, recreation, First Nations, compensation to affected areas and climate change considerations become part of any future agreement. Signed back in 1964, the original treaty focussed on flood control and power generation, which were seen as the major issues at the time. Now, there are many more considerations that can be addressed in negotiations.
Which issues are important is up for debate. Although there are many voices in favour of ensuring ecosystems are looked after, for example, there are also a few who see money spent to help plants and wildlife as a waste. Navigation, ensuring shipping passage up and down the Columbia stateside, recreation, and irrigation are also considerations for American basin residents. Water from the Columbia River irrigates 7.3 million acres of land in the basin, a significant use of water below the border.
Many comments collected on the U.S. side show keen interest in reducing the Canadian Entitlement, the payment of downstream benefits equivalent to the amount of power that could have been generated. Both individuals and U.S. utilities would like to see the entitlement done away with or reduced, and it is clear that this will be one of the major issues on the table in any negotiations.
And flood control is still very important. The CRT was created in response to the catastrophic flooding in 1948 that destroyed Vanport, Oregon and killed people on both sides of the border. If the treaty were to be terminated, Called Upon flood control would come into play, but what that means is still unknown. Both Canadian and U.S. interests are trying to determine just exactly Called Upon requests for flood control mean, and how much it would mean in terms of money. By U.S. Entity calculations, each Called Upon request could cost the U.S. between $4 to $34 million in compensation for lost power revenues.
Called Upon flood control is conditional on what is called “Effective Use” of U.S. reservoirs, but what that means precisely is also unknown. Effective Use is the American obligation to use all available storage before calling upon Canada to supply flood control, but how much is considered “all available storage” has not been hammered out. It could mean that some U.S. reservoirs would be drawn down to lower levels more frequently than they are now, which would impact irrigation, fish and recreation.
Power generation is also still a hot topic, as are the costs and benefits of keeping or terminating the treaty. In one “treaty continues” estimate by the U.S. Entity in June 2012, losses in potential energy revenue for the U.S. were between $2 – $34 million. For Canada, a “treaty continues” scenario could mean revenue loss of $500,000 to a gain of $2 million, according to the same report. With treaty termination, the estimates by the U.S. Entity are a gain in revenue for the U.S. ($180 to $280 million) and a decrease for Canada ($220-$320 million).
