I posted this in mid-December 2022 but CRS author Charles V. Stern has updated it. (15 February 2023): 'Columbia River Treaty Review'
Download CRS_Report_Columbia_River_Treaty_Review_15Feb2023
Forgive my quote from Yogi Berra in the title - one of his classics, The CRS does not update its report for no good reason. Click on the graphics to enlarge them.
Summary
The Columbia River Treaty (CRT or Treaty) is an international agreement between the United States and Canada for the cooperative development and operation of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin to provide for flood control and electric power. The Treaty was the result of more than 20 years of negotiations between the two countries and was ratified in 1961. Implementation began in 1964.The Treaty provided for the construction and operation of three dams in Canada and one dam in the United States whose reservoir extends into Canada. Together, these dams more than doubled the amount of reservoir storage available in the basin and provided significant flood protection benefits. In exchange for these benefits, the United States agreed to provide Canada with lump-sum cash payments and a portion of downstream hydropower benefits that are attributable to Canadian operations under the CRT, known as the Canadian Entitlement. Some have estimated the Canadian Entitlement to be worth as much as $335 million annually.
The CRT has no specific end date. Currently, either the United States or Canada can terminate most provisions of the CRT with a minimum of 10 years’ written notice. If the CRT is not terminated or modified, most of its provisions would continue indefinitely without actions by the United States or Canada. The only exception is the CRT’s flood control provisions, which are scheduled to transition automatically to “called-upon” operations at that time, meaning the United States would request and compensate Canada for flood control operations as necessary.
To date, neither country has given notice of termination, but, following internal government Treaty reviews, both countries indicated interest in its modification. Perspectives on the CRT vary. Some believe the Treaty should include stronger provisions related to tribal resources and flows for fisheries that are not in the Treaty; others disagree and focus on the perceived need to adjust the Canadian Entitlement to reflect actual hydropower benefits. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bonneville Power Administration, in their joint role as the U.S. Entity overseeing the Treaty, undertook a review of the CRT from 2009 to 2013. Based on studies and stakeholder input, they provided a Regional Recommendation to the State Department in December 2013. They recommended continuing the Treaty with certain modifications, including rebalancing the CRT’s hydropower provisions, further delineating called-upon flood control operations after 2024, and incorporating into the Treaty flows to benefit Columbia River fisheries. For its part, the Canadian Entity (the Province of British Columbia) released in March 2013 a recommendation to continue the CRT with modifications “within the Treaty framework.” It disputed several assumptions in the U.S. Entity’s review process.
Following a two-year federal interagency review of the U.S. Regional Recommendation, the U.S. State Department finalized its negotiating parameters and authorized talks with Canada in October 2016. Between 2018 and 2022, U.S. and Canadian negotiating teams held 15 rounds of negotiations. As of the date of this report, these negotiations remain ongoing.Past Congresses have held oversight hearings and weighed in on CRT-related activities through their oversight roles, and the 117th Congress enacted new authority for the Corps to carry out post-2024 called-upon flood control operations. If the executive branch comes to an agreement with Canadian officials regarding modification of the CRT, any changes to the CRT’s text would require the Senate’s advice and consent. If notice of Treaty termination is given, it is unclear whether such a notice would be reversible within the 10-year window and how Congress might inform such a decision.
Cutting to the last section:
The Role of Congress in Treaty Review
The President, through the National Security Council, determines the negotiating position on the CRT, and the State Department is responsible for conducting negotiations related to the Treaty. However, Congress is also involved in this process. The Constitution entrusts the Senate with the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch.51 The Senate does not ratify treaties; instead it takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate may formally provide its advice and consent on the ratification process. The Senate is not required to provide an up or down vote on a resolution of ratification, nor are treaties required to be resubmitted after each Congress.The Senate would take up a new resolution of ratification for the CRT only if the United States and Canada agreed to Treaty modifications and the executive branch submitted the modification to the Senate for review. If the United States and Canada continued the Treaty without modification or if either entity provided a notice of termination, there would be no apparent advice and consent role for the Senate. In case of a termination by either country, the Treaty does not address whether such a notice could be reversed (i.e., by a different Administration) prior to the termination date.
In the past, the House and Senate both have weighed in on Treaty review with oversight hearings. Some Members of Congress also have weighed in on Treaty discussions through other avenues, including letters to the Obama and Trump Administrations expressing concern over the slow pace of negotiations.55 On June 29, 2021, a bicameral group of Pacific Northwest lawmakers wrote to President Biden urging prompt negotiation of a modernized CRT, noting among other things the need for a strategy and funding requests for called-upon flood control operations beginning in 2024 (i.e., as early as FY2023).
Congress also has considered resolutions and authorizing provisions related to the CRT. The 117th Congress enacted provisions related to called-upon flood control operations in the Columbia River Basin under Division H, Section 8309, of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (P.L. 117-263). That section authorized the Secretary of the Army to expend funds for called-upon Canadian flood control operations in the Columbia River Basin, but only when such funds are appropriated by Congress for these purposes. Congress in that section also required reporting on the expenditure of these funds and authorized the Corps to study options for U.S.-based flood control projects with the potential to reduce the need for Canadian calls.
Enjoy! And remember:
"It ain’t over till it’s over. - Yogi Berra
Comments