Proposal seeks change in river management
|
|
November 3, 2013 |
The British Columbia provincial government
recently released draft recommendations for a
modified Columbia River Treaty, with clear
differences with the United States over
compensation for flood control and a specific
call for adjusted operations at Libby Dam.
The recommendations say the current treaty,
enacted between the two countries in 1964, does
not adequately account for the downstream
flood-control benefits provided by Canada or the
resulting impacts north of the border.
“All downstream U.S. benefits, such as flood
risk management, hydropower, ecosystems, water
supply, recreation, navigation and any other
relevant benefits ... should be accounted for
and such value created should be shared
equitably between the two countries,” the
recommendation states, suggesting that Canada
will seek higher compensation.
That’s at odds with U.S. draft treaty
recommendations that assert the treaty’s
so-called “Canadian entitlement” provides Canada
with too much compensation for its flood control
contributions.
According to a cover letter for the U.S.
recommendations, “There is widespread concern
that the method included in the treaty for
calculating Canada’s share of its power benefits
is outdated and no longer equitable, resulting
in excessive costs to regional ratepayers.”
Under the current treaty, the Bonneville Power
Administration delivers Canadian Entitlement
energy estimated to be worth between $250
million and $350 million a year at the expense
of Pacific Northwest regional power customers.
Final recommendations will be forwarded at the
end of the year, setting the stage for formal
negotiations between the U.S. State Department
and the Canadian federal government to adopt a
new treaty by 2024.
The U.S. recommendations also stress that “there
is broad interest in reaching agreement with
Canada on how we will conduct coordinated flood
risk management,” another area where there
appear to be significant differences between the
two sides with implications for operations at
Libby Dam.
Brian Marotz, a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
fisheries biologist who has long been involved
with pursuing optimal Libby Dam operations, said
differences initially appeared to be “alarming”
but in some ways the two countries are not that
far apart on coordinated flood risk management.
He explained that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has long sought to keep flows, with
the help of Canadian reservoir storage, from
exceeding 450,000 cubic feet per second at The
Dalles Dam on the Columbia River.
Canada’s draft recommendations, however, say
that a “called-upon flood control request” from
Canada should occur only when flows reach
600,000 cfs at The Dalles, and even then the
United States “must make effective use of all
related storage in the United States.”
To Marotz, that would put the Corps in a
position of having to lower reservoirs such as
Lake Koocanusa far more than necessary to
provide storage space to prevent flooding.
As it stands, Libby Dam operates under a
variable flow, or VAR-Q, approach where Lake
Koocanusa storage is determined by inflows: more
drafting during the wettest years and less
during drier years.
A hard-line requirement for deep drawdowns at
Lake Koocanusa and Hungry Horse Reservoir — just
in case flooding might happen — could make it
far more difficult to refill the reservoirs if
there aren’t adequate inflows.
And that’s where interests of the two countries
start to converge, Marotz said.
The Canadian draft recommendations also
specifically call for “improved coordination on
Libby Dam,” largely because Canadians believe
the transboundary reservoir frequently doesn’t
refill, to the detriment of habitat and
recreation on the reservoir north of the border.
Variable flow is so far the best approach to
providing flood control for both countries, but
there are already efforts underway to further
modify Libby Dam operations for the benefit of
Canada, said Marotz, who is a member of the U.S.
Sovereign Technical Team working on treaty
recommendations.
A two-page document explaining VAR-Q and
proposed modifications has been drafted,
outlining a strategy to reduce the potential for
premature reservoir refill, the necessity for
releasing water over the dam’s spillway to the
detriment of downstream fish, and the potential
for downstream flooding that can impact Kootenay
Lake on the Canadian side of the border.
Those are areas where there are shared goals,
said Marotz, who believes improved operations at
Libby Dam can be achieved to the satisfaction of
both countries. |
|
Questions or comments about this
article?
Click here to e-mail! |
|
|
|
|
