Columbia River Treaty could impact Libby Dam
|
|
June 30, 2013 |
Montana may be a bit player in the grand scheme
of the Columbia River Treaty, but the state, and
Libby Dam, will
be affected by any changes to the treaty that
could be negotiated over the next 10 years.
The treaty was implemented by the United States
and Canada in 1964, with provisions that it
could be amended by 2024 — and any proposed
changes had to be on the table by 2014.
On the U.S. side of the border, there are plans
to submit alternative proposals by the end of
this year to the State Department, which will
negotiate any new treaty terms with Canada.
When it comes to the operation of Libby Dam —
one of four dams that were the direct result of
the treaty — the state of Montana has a strong
interest in maintaining a status quo that the
state fought for years to obtain, said Brian
Marotz, a fisheries biologist with Montana Fish,
Wildlife and Parks.
“Montana spent a couple decades plus some
lawsuits to achieve that,” said Marotz, who
represents the state on the Sovereign Technical
Committee, a panel that provides technical
information for potential treaty proposals. “The
Montana Operation, as it’s become known, tends
to keep more water in Montana and it balances
power generation, flood control and fish and
wildlife that are worth quite a lot to Montana
as well.”
For years, Lake Koocanusa and Hungry Horse
Reservoir were tapped in ways that the state
regarded as harmful to fish and wildlife and
detrimental to recreation.
There were, for example, highly unnatural
“double peak” flows to provide more water in the
lower Columbia in late summer to benefit salmon.
The current Montana Operation still provides
additional water for salmon, but it’s released
in a gradually declining fashion.
Bruce Measure, who was one of then-Governor
Brian Schweitzer’s representatives on the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council for
eight years, said the Montana Operation is
finally getting basinwide acceptance.
“This is the first time we’ve been stable in 20
years,” he said, reiterating the need to
maintain that stability in the future.
But Marotz said the Montana Operation could be
at risk.
“The flood control provisions in the current
treaty will end in 2024 regardless of whether
the treaty is extended, terminated or modified,”
he said. “And the Canadians’ perspective is that
(the U.S.) should solve for our flood control
using our domestic dams first rather than
calling for additional storage in Canada.”
The dams created by the treaty include the
Duncan, Keenleyside and Mica dams in Canada.
Combined with Libby Dam, they provide an
additional 15.5 million acre feet of storage.
That storage has been used to avert flooding in
the basin, with a good example being 1996, when
the dams prevented flooding in Portland, Ore.
But flood control storage has come at a cost for
power rate payers in the Pacific Northwest. The
treaty provided power-generation sharing
provisions that created what’s known as the
“Canadian Entitlement.”
Because there initially wasn’t a demand in
Canada for shared power generation, Canada sold
the first 30 years of its entitlement to a U.S.
consortium for $254 million in 1964, and used
the proceeds to finance construction of the
three Canadian dams. But ever since the 30-year
contracts expired, the Bonneville Power
Administration has been delivering Canadian
Entitlement energy worth about $250 million to
$350 million every year.
Measure and Marotz say there is interest,
particularly among U.S. utilities, in
re-examining the Canadian Entitlement.
“We don’t see the [flood control] benefits that
we receive as anywhere near the value of the
entitlements that we pay,” said Measure, a newly
elected trustee for the Flathead Electric
Cooperative, the largest cooperative in the
Pacific Northwest.
High-water years that present serious flood
risks are relatively rare, he said, and it’s
been suggested that Canadian reservoir storage
should be purchased only during those years.
He said the cost of the Canadian Entitlement,
along with the cost of fish and wildlife
programs, is folded into the rates that BPA
charges the co-op.
Reduced entitlement obligations, he said, could
conceivably lower rates, curb future rate
increases, or “it could be a wash” if the
savings were diverted to fish and wildlife
spending that currently accounts for about one
third of every rate-payer’s bill.
“Only 2.5 percent of those expenditures are in
Montana,” said Measure, noting that the vast
majority of spending is directed at restoring
salmon runs in the lower Columbia Basin.
“Montana is a real marginal player when it comes
to those things.”
Providing for fish and wildlife on both sides of
the border is an element that was not part of
treaty negotiations prior to 1964, but it will
be in upcoming negotiations.
Measure said Montana does have the benefit of
being represented on a panel called the
Sovereign Review Team, along with Idaho,
Washington and Oregon, 15 tribal governments and
11 federal agencies.
He said there is hope that the interests of the
co-op and other public utility districts will be
accounted for when that panel makes
recommendations for treaty alternatives to
present to the State Department at the end of
this year. |
|
Questions or comments about this
article?
Click here to e-mail! |
|
|
|
|
