Difference between revisions of "US-Canada Columbia River Management"
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Geolocation=48.9998584, -117.83201859999997 | |Geolocation=48.9998584, -117.83201859999997 | ||
|Issues={{Issue | |Issues={{Issue | ||
| + | |Issue=Canadian Entitlement. How should Canada be compensated for power benefits from downstream power generation? | ||
| + | |Issue Description=Water storage in British Columbia allows for more predictability and control over the entire Columbia River Basin, thus hydropower facilities in the US Pacific Northwest can produce power more efficiently. The treaty requires the US to sell 50% of the estimated downstream power generated to Canada at a fixed cost. In revisiting this treaty, the US feels it is allotting too much power to Canada, while Canada feels like the share is justified and could be higher. | ||
| + | Stakeholders | ||
| + | • US State Department | ||
| + | • Canadian State Department | ||
| + | • US Army Corp of Engineers | ||
| + | • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon | ||
| + | • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority | ||
| + | • Other electricity companies | ||
| + | |NSPD=Governance; Assets | ||
| + | |Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency | ||
| + | }}{{Issue | ||
| + | |Issue=Flood Protection. How should flood storage be operated so that the basin is protected from flooding without a large disruption to business-as-usual operations? | ||
| + | |Issue Description=The Columbia River Treaty defines two types of flood protection that Canada provides to the US, “Assured” for day-to-day operations and “Called Upon” for emergencies. The treaty only guarantees assured flood protection until 2024, even if the treaty itself is not terminated. Called Upon flood storage will be the only measure if the treaty is not revised. The US and Canada disagree on when it is appropriate to call upon this measure. | ||
| + | Stakeholders | ||
| + | • US State Department | ||
| + | • Canadian State Department | ||
| + | • US Army Corp of Engineers | ||
| + | • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon | ||
| + | • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority | ||
| + | • Communities along the river | ||
| + | |NSPD=Water Quantity; Ecosystems; Governance | ||
| + | |Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency | ||
| + | }}{{Issue | ||
| + | |Issue=Ecosystem Services. How can the US and Canadian entities ensure minimum damage to fish and surrounding ecosystems in the basin? | ||
| + | |Issue Description=The 1964 treaty only covers power and flood related issues and ignores environmental and ecosystem issues. Dams have killed off many salmon and steelhead populations. The new treaty should include clauses on protecting the ecosystem and revitalizing fish populations. | ||
| + | Stakeholders | ||
| + | • US State Department | ||
| + | • Canadian State Department | ||
| + | • US Army Corp of Engineers | ||
| + | • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon | ||
| + | • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority | ||
| + | • First Nations and Indigenous Communities | ||
| + | |NSPD=Ecosystems; Values and Norms | ||
| + | |Stakeholder Type=Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens | ||
| + | }}{{Issue | ||
|Issue=Canadian Entitlement. How should Canada be compensated for power benefits from downstream power generation? | |Issue=Canadian Entitlement. How should Canada be compensated for power benefits from downstream power generation? | ||
|Issue Description=Water storage in British Columbia allows for more predictability and control over the entire Columbia River Basin, thus hydropower facilities in the US Pacific Northwest can produce power more efficiently. The treaty requires the US to sell 50% of the estimated downstream power generated to Canada at a fixed cost. In revisiting this treaty, the US feels it is allotting too much power to Canada, while Canada feels like the share is justified and could be higher. | |Issue Description=Water storage in British Columbia allows for more predictability and control over the entire Columbia River Basin, thus hydropower facilities in the US Pacific Northwest can produce power more efficiently. The treaty requires the US to sell 50% of the estimated downstream power generated to Canada at a fixed cost. In revisiting this treaty, the US feels it is allotting too much power to Canada, while Canada feels like the share is justified and could be higher. | ||
| Line 115: | Line 151: | ||
}} | }} | ||
|Key Questions={{Key Question | |Key Questions={{Key Question | ||
| + | |Subject=Hydropower Dams and Large Storage Infrastructure | ||
| + | |Key Question - Dams=Where does the benefit “flow” from a hydropower project and how does that affect implementation and sustainability of the project? | ||
| + | }}{{Key Question | ||
| + | |Subject=Transboundary Water Issues | ||
| + | |Key Question - Transboundary=What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties? | ||
| + | }}{{Key Question | ||
| + | |Subject=Transboundary Water Issues | ||
| + | |Key Question - Transboundary=What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution? | ||
| + | }}{{Key Question | ||
|Subject=Hydropower Dams and Large Storage Infrastructure | |Subject=Hydropower Dams and Large Storage Infrastructure | ||
|Key Question - Dams=Where does the benefit “flow” from a hydropower project and how does that affect implementation and sustainability of the project? | |Key Question - Dams=Where does the benefit “flow” from a hydropower project and how does that affect implementation and sustainability of the project? | ||
| Line 134: | Line 179: | ||
}} | }} | ||
|Water Feature={{Link Water Feature | |Water Feature={{Link Water Feature | ||
| + | |Water Feature=Columbia River Basin | ||
| + | }}{{Link Water Feature | ||
|Water Feature=Columbia River Basin | |Water Feature=Columbia River Basin | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 139: | Line 186: | ||
|Water Project= | |Water Project= | ||
|Agreement={{Link Agreement | |Agreement={{Link Agreement | ||
| + | |Agreement=Columbia River Treaty | ||
| + | }}{{Link Agreement | ||
|Agreement=Columbia River Treaty | |Agreement=Columbia River Treaty | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | |Summary=Passed in 1964, the Columbia River Treaty is an agreement between the United States and Canada over the management of the Columbia River. The treaty establishes provisions for flood control and the sharing of hydropower benefits. In September of 2024, either country can terminate the treaty provided they give an advance notice of at least ten years. Since 2013, both countries are preparing to revisit this treaty and renegotiate its terms. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The original treaty was hailed as an example of effective international collaboration, with joint management by the Army Corp of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration on the US side and BC Hydro and Power Authority on the Canadian side. However, other stakeholders such as indigenous tribes and local communities were not included in negotiations. The creators of the 1964 treaty also did not consider the impact of dams on ecosystem services and only focused on flooding and power. The current revisiting of the treaty allows for more stakeholder involvement and expanding the treaty to include protections for the environment. Additionally, there are disagreements between the US and Canada over compensation for flood protection and the sharing of hydropower that must be resolved before the revised treaty is put in place. | ||
|Topic Tags= | |Topic Tags= | ||
|External Links= | |External Links= | ||
Revision as of 12:37, 18 May 2017
| Geolocation: | 48° 59' 59.4902", -117° 49' 55.267" |
|---|---|
| Total Population | 77,000,000 millionmillion |
| Total Area | 670000670,000 km² 258,687 mi² km2 |
| Predominent Land Use Descriptors | industrial use, forest land, urban |
| Important Uses of Water | Agriculture or Irrigation, Fisheries - wild, Hydropower Generation |
| Water Features: | Columbia River Basin, Columbia River Basin |
| Agreements: | Columbia River Treaty, Columbia River Treaty |
Contents
Summary
Passed in 1964, the Columbia River Treaty is an agreement between the United States and Canada over the management of the Columbia River. The treaty establishes provisions for flood control and the sharing of hydropower benefits. In September of 2024, either country can terminate the treaty provided they give an advance notice of at least ten years. Since 2013, both countries are preparing to revisit this treaty and renegotiate its terms.
The original treaty was hailed as an example of effective international collaboration, with joint management by the Army Corp of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration on the US side and BC Hydro and Power Authority on the Canadian side. However, other stakeholders such as indigenous tribes and local communities were not included in negotiations. The creators of the 1964 treaty also did not consider the impact of dams on ecosystem services and only focused on flooding and power. The current revisiting of the treaty allows for more stakeholder involvement and expanding the treaty to include protections for the environment. Additionally, there are disagreements between the US and Canada over compensation for flood protection and the sharing of hydropower that must be resolved before the revised treaty is put in place.
Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework
Issues and Stakeholders
Canadian Entitlement. How should Canada be compensated for power benefits from downstream power generation?
NSPD: Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency
Water storage in British Columbia allows for more predictability and control over the entire Columbia River Basin, thus hydropower facilities in the US Pacific Northwest can produce power more efficiently. The treaty requires the US to sell 50% of the estimated downstream power generated to Canada at a fixed cost. In revisiting this treaty, the US feels it is allotting too much power to Canada, while Canada feels like the share is justified and could be higher. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• Other electricity companiesFlood Protection. How should flood storage be operated so that the basin is protected from flooding without a large disruption to business-as-usual operations?
NSPD: Water Quantity, Ecosystems, Governance
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency
The Columbia River Treaty defines two types of flood protection that Canada provides to the US, “Assured” for day-to-day operations and “Called Upon” for emergencies. The treaty only guarantees assured flood protection until 2024, even if the treaty itself is not terminated. Called Upon flood storage will be the only measure if the treaty is not revised. The US and Canada disagree on when it is appropriate to call upon this measure. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• Communities along the riverEcosystem Services. How can the US and Canadian entities ensure minimum damage to fish and surrounding ecosystems in the basin?
NSPD: Ecosystems, Values and Norms
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens
The 1964 treaty only covers power and flood related issues and ignores environmental and ecosystem issues. Dams have killed off many salmon and steelhead populations. The new treaty should include clauses on protecting the ecosystem and revitalizing fish populations. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• First Nations and Indigenous CommunitiesCanadian Entitlement. How should Canada be compensated for power benefits from downstream power generation?
NSPD: Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency
Water storage in British Columbia allows for more predictability and control over the entire Columbia River Basin, thus hydropower facilities in the US Pacific Northwest can produce power more efficiently. The treaty requires the US to sell 50% of the estimated downstream power generated to Canada at a fixed cost. In revisiting this treaty, the US feels it is allotting too much power to Canada, while Canada feels like the share is justified and could be higher. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• Other electricity companiesFlood Protection. How should flood storage be operated so that the basin is protected from flooding without a large disruption to business-as-usual operations?
NSPD: Water Quantity, Ecosystems, Governance
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency
The Columbia River Treaty defines two types of flood protection that Canada provides to the US, “Assured” for day-to-day operations and “Called Upon” for emergencies. The treaty only guarantees assured flood protection until 2024, even if the treaty itself is not terminated. Called Upon flood storage will be the only measure if the treaty is not revised. The US and Canada disagree on when it is appropriate to call upon this measure. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• Communities along the riverEcosystem Services. How can the US and Canadian entities ensure minimum damage to fish and surrounding ecosystems in the basin?
NSPD: Ecosystems, Values and Norms
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens
The 1964 treaty only covers power and flood related issues and ignores environmental and ecosystem issues. Dams have killed off many salmon and steelhead populations. The new treaty should include clauses on protecting the ecosystem and revitalizing fish populations. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• First Nations and Indigenous CommunitiesCanadian Entitlement. How should Canada be compensated for power benefits from downstream power generation?
NSPD: Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency
Water storage in British Columbia allows for more predictability and control over the entire Columbia River Basin, thus hydropower facilities in the US Pacific Northwest can produce power more efficiently. The treaty requires the US to sell 50% of the estimated downstream power generated to Canada at a fixed cost. In revisiting this treaty, the US feels it is allotting too much power to Canada, while Canada feels like the share is justified and could be higher. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• Other electricity companiesFlood Protection. How should flood storage be operated so that the basin is protected from flooding without a large disruption to business-as-usual operations?
NSPD: Water Quantity, Ecosystems, Governance
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency
The Columbia River Treaty defines two types of flood protection that Canada provides to the US, “Assured” for day-to-day operations and “Called Upon” for emergencies. The treaty only guarantees assured flood protection until 2024, even if the treaty itself is not terminated. Called Upon flood storage will be the only measure if the treaty is not revised. The US and Canada disagree on when it is appropriate to call upon this measure. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• Communities along the riverEcosystem Services. How can the US and Canadian entities ensure minimum damage to fish and surrounding ecosystems in the basin?
NSPD: Ecosystems, Values and Norms
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens
The 1964 treaty only covers power and flood related issues and ignores environmental and ecosystem issues. Dams have killed off many salmon and steelhead populations. The new treaty should include clauses on protecting the ecosystem and revitalizing fish populations. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• First Nations and Indigenous CommunitiesCanadian Entitlement. How should Canada be compensated for power benefits from downstream power generation?
NSPD: Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency
Water storage in British Columbia allows for more predictability and control over the entire Columbia River Basin, thus hydropower facilities in the US Pacific Northwest can produce power more efficiently. The treaty requires the US to sell 50% of the estimated downstream power generated to Canada at a fixed cost. In revisiting this treaty, the US feels it is allotting too much power to Canada, while Canada feels like the share is justified and could be higher. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• Other electricity companiesFlood Protection. How should flood storage be operated so that the basin is protected from flooding without a large disruption to business-as-usual operations?
NSPD: Water Quantity, Ecosystems, Governance
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Non-legislative governmental agency
The Columbia River Treaty defines two types of flood protection that Canada provides to the US, “Assured” for day-to-day operations and “Called Upon” for emergencies. The treaty only guarantees assured flood protection until 2024, even if the treaty itself is not terminated. Called Upon flood storage will be the only measure if the treaty is not revised. The US and Canada disagree on when it is appropriate to call upon this measure. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• Communities along the riverEcosystem Services. How can the US and Canadian entities ensure minimum damage to fish and surrounding ecosystems in the basin?
NSPD: Ecosystems, Values and Norms
Stakeholder Types: Federated state/territorial/provincial government, Local Government, Environmental interest, Community or organized citizens
The 1964 treaty only covers power and flood related issues and ignores environmental and ecosystem issues. Dams have killed off many salmon and steelhead populations. The new treaty should include clauses on protecting the ecosystem and revitalizing fish populations. Stakeholders • US State Department • Canadian State Department • US Army Corp of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration, US federal power authority stationed in Oregon • BC Hydro and Power Authority, British Columbia’s public power authority
• First Nations and Indigenous Communities
Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight
Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.
Learn moreNo ASI articles have been added yet for this case
Key Questions
Hydropower Dams and Large Storage Infrastructure: Where does the benefit “flow” from a hydropower project and how does that affect implementation and sustainability of the project?
no description entered
Transboundary Water Issues: What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties?
no description entered
Transboundary Water Issues: What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution?
no description entered
Hydropower Dams and Large Storage Infrastructure: Where does the benefit “flow” from a hydropower project and how does that affect implementation and sustainability of the project?
no description entered
Transboundary Water Issues: What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties?
no description entered
Transboundary Water Issues: What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution?
no description entered
Hydropower Dams and Large Storage Infrastructure: Where does the benefit “flow” from a hydropower project and how does that affect implementation and sustainability of the project?
no description entered
Transboundary Water Issues: What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties?
no description entered
Transboundary Water Issues: What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution?
no description entered
