CRT Library
Emerging Institutions for Bilateral Management of the Columbia River Basin
This article identifies dispute resolution mechanisms and management institutions in the Columbia Basin, with an emphasis on those created to deal with environmental and First Nations issues that have emerged post-Treaty. Describes various agencies/institutions established to deal with modern transboundary issues on the Columbia River and gives some background. Includes the formation of the Columbia Basin Trust.
“Average runoff from the Columbia is 198 million acre feet (maf) (275,022 cubic feet per second) at the mouth, making the Columbia’s discharge second only to the Missouri-Mississippi River in the United States (United States 1995b, 1-1). The river originates in central British Columbia in the Rocky Mountains. Its waters flow 1,214 miles (1,954 km) to the Pacific Ocean near Astoria, Oregon, making it the fourth longest river on the continent. Its drainage basin covers 219,000 square miles (567,200 km2) in seven states, which include Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and small parts of Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah, as well as 39,500 square miles (79,000 km2) in the province of British Columbia (United States 1995a, 2; Coulson 1996, 2) (fig. 1). Natural stream flows on the Columbia have fluctuated enormously. Prior to construction of the basin’s storage dams, the river’s volatile waters regularly flooded, destroying portions of communities situated on dangerous flood plain locations along its banks, causing death and the destruction of property and real estate. Reservoirs were constructed to act as a safety buffer and help prevent these disasters. They created adequate storage space for times when the river is at high levels. Today, flood control takes priority over all other uses (British Columbia 1993b, 2).
The IJC has played an important ongoing role in a number of areas related to binational management of the Columbia basin since its first involvement in 1929. The major work of the IJC in the Columbia basin concerned the main stem of the river. Its first reference in 1940 was to investigate the potential effects of the Grand Coulee Dam, which could raise water levels at the border at certain times. The International Columbia River Board of Control was established by the commission to study and advise on such matters and it continues to report annually. In response to a reference by the two governments four years later to make recommendations to permit greater use and development of waters of the Columbia River system, the International Columbia River Engineering Board was appointed to carry out investigations in 1944. Its work paved the way for the passage of the Columbia River Treaty sixteen years later. The Treaty between Canada and the United States of America Relating to Cooperative Development of the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin (Canada 1965), better known as the Columbia River Treaty, was signed on 17 January 1961. The United States ratified the treaty shortly thereafter; however, Canada did not do so until 1964. The original purpose of the treaty was to increase flood control and hydroelectric power generation potential in both countries. Implementation of the treaty involved the construction of three dams on the Canadian side of the border in British Columbia: Duncan, Keenleyside, and Mica (see fig. 1). In return for these storage facilities, Canada is entitled to one-half of the additional power generated by American hydroelectric plants downstream. Additionally, under the treaty, the United States was allowed to construct Libby Dam on the Kootenai River in Montana. When full, this project backs up water forty-two miles into Canada.
Among the related documents is an agreement of particular importance — the Canada-British Columbia Agreement (Canada 1964). It created the framework for implementation of the Columbia River Treaty and disposal of the Canadian downstream benefits arising under the treaty. In this document, all proprietary rights, title, and interests arising under the treaty were granted to British Columbia. At the same time, British Columbia, and more specifically B.C. Hydro as the designated Canadian entity referred to in the treaty, became responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the treaty dams and reservoirs at its own expense. In the United States, responsibility is shared by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). BPA is delegated the task of marketing power from treaty projects, while flood control and other physical works on the Columbia River are handled by the Corps.” (Taken from abstract.)
Author: Day, J. C., Boudreau, Kristan M., Hackett, Nancy C.
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Date: 1996
