WaterWired

NAWAPA Comments Redux - Numbers 1 - 5

I have probably made more posts on NAWAPA than any other subject - the North American Water and Power Alliance. Here is my first NAWAPA post. 

Here's more information on NAWAPA.

Comments by various readers are below. Your comments are welcomed. Each comment is numbered. More may be coming.

1) I am pleased to see that there are at least some positive comments re NAWAPA. I didn't know those positive views existed. All I have heard about NAWAPA is how horrible it is and how BAD for the environment it would be. But hardly ever a balanced view. If NAWAPA had been built when it was first proposed we would benefit from it today as it would have been completed in the 90s. One might criticise China in many areas but they would have pushed through such a project and made themselves more prosperous in the process.

2) What the hell is everyone going on about> There are literally hundreds of thousands of people living in towns and cities in the Rocky Mountain trench. You can't just evict and destroy/flood hundreds of thousands of peoples' homes, farms and history. America can build reservoirs on its own land. A lot of the water already flows down there anyway. Just build your reservoirs and dams south of the border.

3) North Americas depleted water resource extends from a criminal occupation of lands belonging to Americans, forcefully taken by Caucasians for Empire. This ongoing criminality makes efficient management of adjustment to unfortunate outcomes for all humans virtually impossible. Central and southern stable and saturated aquifers are now below 5,000 feet under surface (not able to provide surface uptake, desert lands without irrigation). Northern Shield has 70 years of water remaining at present consumption levels. When that goes, Empire goes. We are left with a 10,000 year wait for the aquifers to refill at historical intake levels... however, history no longer applies: its all been turned to desert. NAWAPA was never gone: Keystone is a crude piggyback of water channels. WAY 2 GO EMPIRE! Goodbye. Don't come back.

4) As a Canadian you wonder what the right thing to do is. Canada has the largest supply of water and we won't run out of it any time soon. We can help people and make money to support our system. It seems like a win-win situation to me although many would disagree.

5) My understanding of the NAWAPA plan isn't to suck Canada dry of its fresh water sources; instead much water would be diverted from Alaska. Yes there are ecological implications of building aqueducts throughout the continent. However, I'm betting that the ecological cost of the hydroelectric energy gained and overall water supply boost for all 3 countries involved would be much less harmful than the oil sands projects currently operating in Canada.

Enjoy!

 

"Ralph Parsons looked at the map of North America and said, ‘The water’s in the wrong spot. So how can we move the water to the right spot?’" - Virginia Grebbien

Just Add Two Eggs, Flour, Sugar...to Puget Sound? (Redux)

Okay - I'm reposting an item from 13 January 2007.  No need for alarm, right?

The January 2007 issue of U.S. Water News Online reports that University of Washington researchers found significantly higher levels of cinnamon and vanilla (natural and artificial) in Puget Sound during the period November 14 - December 9, with the levels spiking right after Thanksgiving. Natural vanilla showed the highest increase. UW researchers (your tax dollars at work) speculated that over the Thanksgiving weekend, the people served by the West Point treatment plant in Magnolia consumed the daily equivalent of about 160,000 chocolate-chip or butter-type cookies and about 80,000 cookies containing cinnamon (not to mention caffeine, some of which was found as deep as 640 feet). The spices could pose a problem for fish, since they use their sense of smell to find food or, in the case of salmon, to find their way back to their home stream for spawning.

I suppose finding spices in our natural waterways is marginally better than the antidepressants, painkillers, birth-control pills, etc., that have turned up in the past few decades. I used to joke about the infamous "nine-eyed carp"; we may be closer to seeing them.

"Water is the true wealth in a dry land." - Wallace Stegner

Should It Go or Should It Stay? Lake Abert's Fate - Free Online Symposium - 23 January 2023, 1-4 PM

Here's the info:

You are invited via Zoom to a Colloquium on the exceptional hypersaline ecosystem at Oregon’s Lake Abert 1-4 pm, Monday, January 23^rd… sponsored by Oregon State University and Oregon Lakes Association. No cost, just pre-register:

Download 2023 Lake Abert Colloquium program

Lake Abert was dry during the summers of 2021 and 2022, thereby denying vital habitat to hundreds of thousands of shorebirds that feast on the bounty of the lake’s exceptional hypersaline habitat. This is an ecological calamity with potential dire consequences for the survival of some bird populations.

Discussions that involve conservation groups and Chewaucan Valley residents and farmers are proceeding, with the goal of finding a way to share water between human uses and the lake’s needs. Acknowledging the fact that all saline lakes in the western US are at risk of going dry, President Biden recently signed the Saline Lakes Act charging the USGS with conducting research and monitoring to understand and conserve our saline lakes such as Lake Abert. 

With these activities ongoing, this Colloquium aims to present current knowledge on the lake and its ecology. We will hear about its amazing capacity to produce shrimp and fly invertebrates that birds feast on, and about the birds that visit Lake Abert. We will also hear about how climate is changing and how we think those changes will affect the landscape in the Chewaucan Valley surrounding Lake Abert. We present the science of Lake Abert as information to be used for decisions that we hope will help preserve the lake ecosystem.

Use this registration link https://oregonstate.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJErdO6vpjgsEtRlQ6IVGEixVP0iNqfSWMxyto obtain the Zoom link (also provided on the flyer)

Colloquium program

1:00 Theo Dreher, OSU & OLA: Introduction

1:10 Ron Larson, OLA, formerly US-FWS: An Introduction to the Recent Ecology, Hydrology and Conservation Status of Lake Abert

1:30 Susan Haig, OSU, formerly USGS: Bird dependency on Lake Abert and nearby wetlands

1:50 Stan & Nathan Senner, formerly National Audubon & Univ. Massachusetts: Saline lakes and the birds that depend on them in the Pacific Flyway

2:10 David Herbst, UC-Santa Barbara: Invertebrate productivity in hypersaline lakes 2:10-2:30 Break and/or Discussion

2:40 Larry O’Neill, OSU & Oregon State Climatologist: Climate predictions for SE Oregon and future scenarios for the Chewaucan Watershed

3:00 Erica Fleishman, OSU & Oregon Climate Change Research Institute: Ecological responses to climate change in the northwestern Great Basin

3:20 Adam Hudson, USGS, Denver: Paleoclimate effects on tui chub populations and lake levels in the Chewaucan basin for the past 15,000 years

3:40 Discussion

Theo Dreher

Emeritus Professor of Microbiology
President, Oregon Lakes Association
226 Nash Hall
Oregon State University
541-231-9883

I am glad to see the above being presented. I have been interested in Lake Abert and its 'partners' whose fate appears to be desiccation - a natural outcome due to the drying of the climate in the Interior West.  

 

Here are links to some of my blog posts on the topic. Each contains more links.  

 

Lake Abert's Desiccation: Natural or Not? Why Not Find Out?  7/20/2014

 

Paper: 'Recent Desiccation of Western Great Basin Saline Lakes: Lessons from Lake Abert, Oregon, USA'    6/22/2016

 

Here is an article by my colleague Dr. Elaine J. Hanford, published in Water Resources IMPACT, March-April 2022, Pluvial Lakes of the Great Basin 

 

Download Water Resources IMPACT March:April 2022

 

Enjoy!

 

 

“The biggest problem in the environment is people's quest to find the biggest problem in the environment." -- Jared Diamond

CRS Report: 'Columbia River Treaty Review'

This important treaty on the Columbia River between the US and Canada was signed in 1964 and has an important deadline coming up in 2024. So glad that Charles V. Stern has written this CRS Report (updated 15 December 2022): 'Columbia River Treaty Review'. 

The text pasted below goes through page 5 then picks up again on page 12. The footnotes are omitted For such a short report I usually fo not paste so much material. Carried away, I suppose.

Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Download CRS_Report_Columbia_River_Treaty_Review_15Dec2022_R43287

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 14 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 is considering providing the Corps new authority for 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.

Introduction
The Columbia River Treaty (CRT, or Treaty), signed in 1961, 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 for the benefit of flood control and electric power. Precipitated by several flooding events in the basin (including a major flood in the Northwest in 1948), the CRT was the result of more than 20 years of negotiations seeking a joint resolution to address flooding and plan for development of the basin’s water resources. The Treaty provided for 15.5 million acre-feet (MaF) of additional water storage in Canada through the construction of four dams (three in Canada, one in the United States). This storage, along with agreed-upon operating plans, provides flood control, hydropower, and other downstream benefits. In exchange for these benefits, the United States agreed to provide Canada with lump-sum cash payments and a portion of hydropower benefits.

Implementation of the CRT began in 1964. The Treaty 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. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), in their designated role as the U.S. Entity, undertook a review of the Treaty beginning in 2011. Based on studies and additional stakeholder input, the U.S. Entity made its recommendation to the U.S. Department of State in December 2013. If the Treaty is not terminated or modified, most of its current provisions would continue indefinitely without action by the U.S. or Canadian Entities, with the notable exception of flood control operations, which are scheduled to end in 2024 and transition to “called-upon” operations

Perspectives on the CRT and its review vary. Some believe that the Treaty should continue but be altered to include, for example, guarantees related to tribal resources and fisheries flows that were not included in the original Treaty. Others believe that the Canadian Entitlement should be reduced to more equitably share actual hydropower benefits, or be eliminated entirely. For its part, Canada has stated that without the Canadian Entitlement (or with alterations that would decrease its share of these revenues), it would see no reason for the Treaty to continue. The final Regional Recommendation to the State Department, coordinated by the U.S. Entity, was to continue the Treaty post-2024, but with modifications. The State Department has since finalized its proposed negotiating parameters, although they are not available to the public. The Canadian recommendation, finalized in March 2013, also favored continuing the treaty, but with modifications “within the Treaty framework,” some of which were considerably different than those recommended by the United States.

The executive branch, through the State Department, is responsible for negotiations related to the CRT. However, the Senate, through its constitutional role to provide advice and consent, is entrusted with the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. Changes to the CRT may or may not trigger such a vote; in any case, the Senate may choose to review any changes to the CRT including termination notice. In addition, both houses of Congress may choose to weigh in on ongoing Treaty review and negotiation activities by the U.S. Entity, as well as having to enact any authorizations or appropriations that may be necessary for federal agencies pursuant to the Treaty’s framework (e.g., guidance called-upon flood control operations).

This report provides a brief overview of the Columbia River Treaty review. It includes background on the history of the basin and consideration of the treaty, as well as a brief summary of studies and analyses of the Columbia River Treaty review process to date.

History and Backgroundzz
The Columbia River is the predominant river in the Pacific Northwest and is one of the largest in the United States in terms of water volume flowing to the ocean. The Columbia River Basin receives water that drains from approximately 259,500 square miles in the region, including parts of British Columbia in Canada, and four U.S. states: Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The basin is unique among large river basins in the United States because of its high annual runoff, limited amount of storage (in the U.S. portion of the basin), and extreme variation in flow levels. The basin has the second-largest runoff in the United States in terms of average flows (275,000 cubic feet per second). Approximately 60% of this runoff occurs in May, June, and July. While about 15% of the river basin’s surface area is in Canada, the Canadian portion of the basin accounts for a considerably larger share of the basin’s average annual runoff volume.

The Columbia River is the largest hydropower-producing river system in the United States. Federal development of the river’s hydropower capacity dates to 1932, when the federal government initiated construction of dams of the Columbia River and its tributaries. In total, 31 federal dams within the Columbia River Basin are owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior). Additional dams are owned by nonfederal entities. The BPA, part of the Department of Energy, markets power from federal dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries (collectively known as the Federal Columbia River Power System, FCRPS). Other than the largest of these facilities, Grand Coulee (which has some storage capacity), most of these facilities on the main stem of the river in the United States have limited reservoir storage and are managed as “run of the river” for hydropower, flood control and navigation. Figure 1, below, provides an overview of the basin, including dam ownership. Figure 2 shows the relative storage capacity of the dams.

The basin is also important habitat for a number of fish species. Economically important species in the region include steelhead trout; chinook, coho, chum, and sockeye salmon; and other species. These fish are important to commercial and sport anglers as well as Native American tribes in the region. The basin also provides habitat for several threatened and endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543); requirements under this law are an important factor in the operation of the FCRPS.

Other major uses of the basin’s waters include navigation, irrigation, recreation, and water supply. Four federal dams on the river’s mainstem have navigation locks that allow for barge traffic to transport bulk commodities that are important to regional and national economies. Due to this infrastructure, the Columbia River is navigable up to 465 miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean. Six percent of the basin’s water is diverted for irrigated agriculture, and is particularly important in eastern Washington, northeastern Oregon, and southern Idaho. Basin waters are also diverted for other water supply purposes, and the rivers and reservoirs of the basin are important for recreational users. All of these users have an interest in management of basin water supplies.

The negotiation and ratification of the CRT were precipitated by several events in the basin. Most notably, a major flood event in the Northwest in 1948, the Vanport flood, caused significant damage throughout the basin and served as the impetus for negotiations between the United States and Canada, including studies by the International Joint Commission (IJC).Initially, following the flood, the United States had proposed in 1951 to build Libby Dam in Montana (which would flood 42 miles into Canada). Canada was opposed to this solution, and as a response proposed to divert as much as 15.5 Maf from the Columbia River for its own purposes. Based on a number of technical studies, the IJC recommended a compromise, which included development of upriver storage in Canada to help regulate flows on the Columbia River, including those for flood control and hydropower generation.

The CRT was signed in 1961 but was not fully ratified by both countries (and therefore did not go into effect) until 1964. Implementation of the Treaty occurs through the U.S. Entity and the Canadian Entity.The Treaty provided for the construction of 15.5 Maf of additional storage in Canada through the construction of three dams: Duncan (completed in 1968), Hugh Keenleyside, or Arrow (completed in 1969), and Mica (completed in 1973). Construction of Libby Dam in Montana, whose reservoir backs 42 miles into Canada, was completed in 1973. Together, the four dams more than doubled the amount of reservoir storage available in the basin before construction began, providing for significant new flood protection and power benefits throughout the basin (see Figure 2). The CRT also required that the United States and Canada prepare an “Assured Operating Plan” (to meet flood control and power objectives) for the operation of Canadian storage six years in advance of each operating year. Along with “Detailed Operating Plans,” which may also be developed to produce more advantageous results for both U.S. and Canadian operating entities, these plans govern project operations under the Treaty.

Under the CRT, the United States gained operational benefits in the form of flexible storage and reliable operations in Canada that provide for flood control and hydropower generation. In exchange, Canada (through the Canadian Entity) receives lump-sum payments from the United States for flood control benefits through 2024, as well as a portion of annual hydropower benefits from the operation of Canadian Treaty storage. In exchange for the assured use of 8.45 Maf annually of Canadian storage, the United States paid $64.4 million to Canada for flood control benefits as the three Canadian dams became operational. Under the CRT, Canada is also entitled to half of the estimated increase in downstream hydropower generated at U.S. dams.Canada initially sold this electricity (known as the Canadian Entitlement) to a consortium of U.S. utilities for $254 million over a 30-year term (1973-2003).Currently, the United States delivers the Canadian Entitlement directly to Canada through BPA’s Northern Intertie. The U.S. Entity has estimated the value of the Canadian Entitlement at a range of $229 million to $335 million annually, depending on a number of factors.

Several notable changes to Columbia River operations since ratification of the CRT factor into current negotiations. Most notably, declining populations of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia and Snake Rivers led to listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543) beginning in 1991. These listings have resulted in steps to improve salmon and steelhead habitat in the United States, including operational changes (e.g., augmented spring and summer flows) and mitigation actions (e.g., construction of fish passage facilities).For more information on these listings and related federal actions, see CRS Report R40169, Endangered Species Act Litigation Regarding Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead, by Stephen P. Mulligan and Harold F. Upton.

Cutting to the chase (page 12):

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. 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.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. In the 117th Congress, the December 6, 2022, Rules Committee print of H.R. 7776 included provisions in Section 8309 related to future called-upon flood control operations in the basin. The bill would formally authorize the Secretary of the Army to expend funds for called-upon flood control operations only when such funds are appropriated by Congress for these purposes. It also would require reporting on the expenditure of these funds and would authorize the Corps to study options for U.S.-based flood control with the potential to reduce the need for Canadian calls. Previously, in the 116th Congress, a resolution (H.Con.Res. 126) would have called for the Secretary of State to issue a notice of termination based on the inequity of the Treaty’s commercial power provisions.

Enjoy!

"God Bless America, but God help Canada to put up with them! “ - Canadian proverb

Megan L. Foster and Alan S. Kolok Opine: 'Idaho's Economic Climate Change Assessment

And here is the last of the nine articles on Pacific Northwest Water in the September-October 2022 Water Resources IMPACT. It's by Dr. Megan L. Foster and Dr. Alan S. Kolokof the University of Idaho:

Download Idaho_Climate_WR_IMPACT_Sept_Oct2022

The first section:

In July 2022 scientists were shocked to find that  temperatures in the United Kingdom soared above 40°C for the first time in recorded history. Despite what these and similar events may foretell, discussing climate change remains challenging in many parts of the United States.

Like many states within the intermountain region of the United States, Idaho is facing premature snowmelt and annual hydrographs that are substantially different from historical patterns. With changes in climate, the region’s snowmelt starts earlier in the spring than in previous years. Furthermore, the peak flow from the annual snowmelt is attenuated and stretched out over time.

These changes are consequential for water availability and water storage in Idaho. Earlier snowmelt and attenuated flow means less water is readily available for use in mid- to late summer— the exact time that agricultural needs for water peak in the region. The Idaho Water Resources Research Institute and the University of Idaho McClure Center for Public Policy Research framed these issues in terms of economic impact to reach a broad spectrum of stakeholders.

This graphic is not from the article but it illustrates what they mean when they talk about earlier snowmelt. This is from the McKenzie River in Oregon. The heavy dashed line is a simulation of the runoff  ~2050.

Enjoy!