Case Description

Loading map...

Water Features:	Columbia River Basin, Columbia River Basin
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
Agreements:	Columbia River Treaty, 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.

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 companies

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?

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 river

Ecosystem 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

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 companies

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?

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 river

Ecosystem 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

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 companies

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?

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 river

Ecosystem 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

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 companies

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?

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 river

Ecosystem 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

What is an ASI?

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 more

No ASI articles have been added yet for this case