In the spring of 2012, when the provincial government started engaging the people of BC on the
question of whether or not to terminate the Columbia River Treaty,
one question they were asked is “What would the Columbia Basin look
like if we were not constrained by the Treaty?” A year is not a
very long time to try to answer such a big question, but Treaty
Review team has recently released a draft copy of their results, and
conferences were scheduled this week in Golden and Castlegar.
There isn't truly a rush, since if
either Canada or the US decided to terminate the treaty, 10 years
notice has to be given, and the earliest that notice can be given is
in September 2014. The goal of the Treaty Review is to “provide
decision makers with an understanding of the range of physically
possible operations” under each of three high level scenarios
(referred to as Treaty Continue, Treaty Terminate, and Treaty Plus,
which refers to some version of additional agreements that might be
reached). They want to give that information to the Provincial
government in the fall this year, so that the decision makers have
time to consider whether to terminate the Treaty, and also what might
happen if the US decides to terminate. So this Technical Report
looks at a broad range of social and environmental values, as well as
power generation capabilities throughout the Canadian end of the
Columbia system, and attempts to provide a high level overview of how
the system could perform under different scenarios.
It is a lot to consider. The report is
very technical, and I found it hard to read and understand. I would
probably understand it better if I had gone to one of the
conferences, but as it turned out, the conference scheduled for
Golden was canceled, and Castlegar is a nine hour drive away. I did
sign up to view the conference via web, but the conference really
wasn't designed for that. I only got to view the slides used by the
presenters, sound quality was poor, and they were only able to stream
one of each of the four break out sessions. The sessions on the
Kinbasket Reservoir were not streamed.
But there are definitely some
interesting bits of information in the report. There is a schematic
of the Columbia and Kootenay Hydroelectric Systems that I hadn't seen
before, and I think it is very helpful in understanding the flow of
the systems (most maps don't show direction of water flow, and even
CBT maps that show direction are difficult to conceptualize). Of
course, Valemount is not marked in this schematic, but it's just
meant to help you understand the layout of the system. You could
draw Valemount on there yourself, as a little dot next to Golden, on
the edge of the big circle that represents Kinbasket Reservoir.
The Columbia system is even more
complicated on the US side of the border, and there were a couple
very interesting facts I gleaned from the US Treaty Review section of
the conference. On other river systems in the US, they have more
than enough capacity to store run-off, but they don't have nearly
enough storage on the Columbia to prevent flooding, which is a major
concern for them. Kinbasket is the largest reservoir in the entire
system, and therefore the Treaty is very important to the US. And
yet the Canadian Entitlement (the money BC gets from the US) is based
purely on Downstream Power Generation. (That is because Canada got a
lump sum payment for the flood control benefits for the life of the
Treaty at the beginning, and that money was used to build the Treaty
dams.)
One might say “Hey, Canada should end
the treaty, and negotiate a better entitlement, one based on flood
control as well as power generation,” but it's not that simple.
For one thing, whether the Treaty continues or not, Canada still
needs to provide “Called Upon” flood control to the US. What
that looks like is currently being negotiated, since Canada and the
US have different views on what is required. I would imagine the
reviews on both sided of the border are having some effects on that
negotiation.
But also there is this: Kinbasket might
be very important to the US for flood control, but it has also become
very important for BC for power generation. Mica and Revelstoke Dams
provide about half of BC Hydro's capacity, and whether the Treaty
continues or not, changes at Mica/Kinbasket are the most costly
(since they have to be balanced by changes elsewhere, either by water
levels in other areas of the Columbia or by power generation
elsewhere in the province). Regarding Kinbasket Reservoir, if the
Treaty continues, “changes at Mica are the most costly and provide
limited gains for interests around the reservoir.” If the Treaty
is terminated, “more radical changes to operations could be
developed that could provide greater benefits to interests around the
reservoir but at an even higher cost.” So it looks like Treaty or
not, the issues for Kinbasket (recreation, environmental, economic)
are going to be about trade-offs.
Draft
Columbia River Treaty 2014 Review Technical Studies Report and
Conference.
http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/CRT_Technial_Report-DRAFT.pdf