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, and most of its provisions would continue indefinitely without action by the United States or Canada. Beginning in September 2024, either nation can terminate most provisions of the Treaty with at least 10 years’ written notice (i.e., starting as early as 2014). To date, neither country has given notice of termination, but both countries have indicated a preliminary interest in modification of the treaty. If the CRT is not terminated or modified, most of its provisions would continue, with the exception of its 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).
Perspectives on the CRT and its review 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 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 May 2018 and May 2019, U.S. and Canadian negotiating teams held six rounds of negotiations. Additional negotiations are expected in 2019.
If the executive branch comes to an agreement regarding modification of the CRT, the Senate may be asked to weigh in on future versions of the Treaty pursuant to its constitutional role to provide advice and consent. Both houses have also weighed in on CRT-related activities through their oversight roles.
Cutting to the chase...
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 gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch.53 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.
In the case of the CRT, as the Treaty has been previously negotiated and ratified, the Senate would take up a resolution of ratification if the United States and Canada agree to Treaty modifications and the executive branch submits the modification to the Senate for review (if the Treaty is continued without modification or terminated, there would be no advice and consent role unless there was a new Treaty that needs to be ratified).
Both the House and the Senate have also weighed in on Treaty review in their oversight capacities. Additionally, the Northwest delegation (including all 26 lawmakers representing Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington) sent letters to President Obama in 2014 and 2015 expressing concerns with the perceived slow pace of the Interagency Policy Committee review process. In April 2015, lawmakers expressed a collective desire to finalize an Administration position and begin negotiations with Canada in 2015. On June 21, 2017, a bipartisan group of seven House Members from Washington and Oregon wrote to President Trump requesting prompt commencement of CRT negotiations.
My sense, and this is mainly just a gut feeling, is that Canadian stakeholders have had more input than US ones. I have friends on both sides of the border.
Do We Need a Compact for the Snake-Columbia Basin?
Okay - this is a separate issue from the CRT.
It's surprising to me that the there is no compact among the US Columbia River basin states. As someone who cut his teeth on water issues in Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico (all Colorado River Compact states) and seeing Colorado, New Mexico and Texas battle over the Rio Grande,. I have seen the utiiity of compacts. When I arrived in Oregon in 2006 I was surprised to find that there was no compact among the Columbia River (or Columbia-Snake Basin - CSB) states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho (the big three), Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Nevada. Furthermore, the seemed to be little concern over this. Read on...
I wrote a bunch on this topic in 2013. I will repost it here.
In 2006, when I arrived in Oregon from New Mexico, I was quite surprsied to learn that the Columbia-Snake Basin (CSB) did not have a compact. Keep in mind that I learned my water in the arid Southwest: AZ, NM, and NV. Hard to imagine places much drier than those three states, where I would joke that any interstate perennial waterway that can allow two minnows to swim side-by-side probably has a compact governing water allocation. Well, maybe not, but rivers like the Colorado, Rio Grande, Pecos, Truckee, et al., none of which comes close to matching the flow of the CSB, all have compacts.
Therein lies the issue: the CSB produces so much water - the mean annual flow of the Columbia at its mouth is about 200 MAF (about 7800 cms) - that people don't seem to worry about allocation among the states. When talking to PNW WaterWonks (or Water Buffaloes) I get four reasons why a CSB compact is unnecessary:
1) there's plenty of water for all;
2) all the states pretty much get along when it comes to water;
3) a compact might sour relations among the seven states; and
4) too many stakeholders would have to be involved.
The last reason reminds me of the 'old days' when you had irrigators, hydropower/flood control people and water supply-types calling the shots. Today, you'd need those pesky enviros, tribes, watershed council types, tribes - all those folks. Gees, what mess - you'd have to rent the Rose Garden to have a stakeholders' meeting!
The first two reasons are interesting. Sure, we generally have enough water and the states do seem to get along when it comes to water. Try Texas and New Mexico!
The third reason might be valid. whenever you have a formal agreement, you have lawyers. No more settling disputes over lunch or breakfast. Litigation, anyone?
But the reason I think we need a compact is the future. Things might be fine now, water-wise, but what about the effects of climate change on water supply? We are already seeing those effects. Without an agreement now, when things are relatively tranquil, what would it be like to have to devise a compact when times are tough, water is short and more people are present? And forget about fighting amongst yourselves; you might want some protection from outsiders' depredations (think Great Lakes Compact). You want ugly?
And imagine a compact with Nevada - yes, it is in the CSB - with water-hungry Las Vegas. Interesting...
I have heard that in the last 20-30 years an attempt was made to craft a compact; it obviously failed.
Believe me, I am not underestimating how difficult it would be to develop a compact. A daunting task - getting seven states to agree on water allocation, environmental flows, etc. - say what? But creating a flexible, adaptive, binding document to ensure a relatvely peaceful, secure water future for the states of the Columbia-Snake basin is well worth it.
Handshake agreements may be nice, but when the 'old hands' are gone, nothing beats a legally binding document.
Not much has happened since then to change my thinking. If anything, I am more convinced now than then. I suspect agreeing on a CSB compact would be much harder that negotiating the CRT. It will get harder as time goes by.
Enjoy!
"Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends upon what you put into it." - Tom Lehrer (quoted in via)
Recent Comments