Columbia River Treaty

The Columbia River Treaty (CRT) is an international benefits sharing agreement between Canada and the U.S. for the joint development, regulation and management of the Columbia River in order to coordinate flood control and optimize electrical energy production on both sides of the border.

The CRT has no specific end date, and most of its provisions will continue indefinitely without action by the United States or Canada. The CRT does, however, have a minimum length of 60 years. Thus 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).

Canada and the U.S. were facing two major challenges in the Columbia River Basin (Basin) after WWII. In addition to an increasing population, the “untamed” Columbia River was causing periodic and sometimes devastating flooding. Simultaneously, an upswing in the economy increased the need for energy sources.

In order to meet these challenges, the two countries ratified the CRT in 1964. Under the CRT, Canada agreed to build three storage dams in Canada: Hugh Keenleyside, Duncan and Mica. The CRT also allowed the U.S. to build Libby Dam in Montana, which created a reservoir that flooded back into Canada.

The decision to implement the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) transformed the geography and social fabric of the Columbia River Basin in Canada. Since its ratification in 1964 the CRT has influenced the management of the Columbia and Kootenay River systems in both Canada and the United States. Any decisions about the future of the CRT will shape transboundary water management across the entire Columbia Basin for decades to come.

The CRT provides many benefits to both countries. The Columbia River System in Canada provides approx. 50 per cent of the hydroelectricity in BC. In addition, the Canadian Entitlement to downstream power benefits is currently valued at approximately $120 million US each year and that revenue belongs to the Province of BC. The CRT also provides flood control benefits in the Canadian and US portions of the Columbia Basin protecting cities such as Portland, Oregon and Trail, BC from major floods.

Although there are benefits, there were also many negative impacts as a result of the CRT, most of which occurred in the Canadian portion of the Columbia Basin. Impacts include, but are not limited to, the flooding of approximately 650 km² of fertile and productive valley bottoms to fill the Arrow Lakes, Duncan, Kinbasket and Koocanusa reservoirs; re-location of about 2,300 people from their homes and communities along the Arrow Lakes, Duncan and Koocanusa reservoirs; the loss of First Nations’ cultural sites; and changes to ecosystems, impacting fish and wildlife values and reducing habitat availability.

Residents in the Columbia Basin, on both sides of the border, will be directly affected by any decision related to the future of the CRT. It is important that residents be involved in the process and prepare to engage in positive and productive dialogue on the future of the CRT.

To ensure the provisions of the CRT are met, entities from both countries were appointed to implement the CRT on behalf of their governments. The U.S. entities are the Bonneville Power Administration and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Under the Canada–BC Agreement, Canada’s federal government passed on most CRT rights, obligations and benefits to BC and the Province designated BC Hydro as the Canadian entity. The Permanent Engineering Board (PEB), consisting of representatives from Canadian and U.S. federal agencies and the Province of BC, oversees operations and reports to governments on whether CRT obligations are being met.

The CRT is an agreement in perpetuity, and has no official expiry date, but has a minimum length of 60 years, which is met in September 16, 2024. It is possible that one or both countries may wish to renegotiate or terminate some of the CRT effective on or after this date. Both countries may also consider improvements for the implementation of the CRT by mutual agreement at any point in time.

If neither country provides notice to terminate, the CRT will continue indefinitely, with the exception of the Assured Annual Flood Control provision.

Under the CRT, the U.S. paid $64.4 million US in advance for operation of the Assured Annual Flood Control through to 2024. This arrangement expires in 2024, whether the CRT is terminated or not.

Some provisions of the CRT including – Called Upon Flood Control, Kootenay Diversion rights and Libby Dam coordination obligations – would remain in place as long as the dams exist even if the CRT is terminated.

Columbia River Treaty Dams and Reservoirs

Under the CRT, Canada was required to build and operate three dams in the higher-elevation reaches of the Columbia Basin:

1967 – Duncan Dam (Duncan Reservoir)
1968 – Hugh Keenleyside Dam (Arrow Lakes Reservoir)
1973 – Mica Dam (Kinbasket Reservoir)

The CRT also allowed the U.S. to construct Libby Dam in Montana. Its reservoir – the Koocanusa – extends 67 km into Canada. Operations at Libby Dam are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. entities.

Downstream Power Benefits

Downstream power benefits are additional power that can be generated in the United States as a result of the water flow management provided by storage reservoirs in Canada under the CRT.

The Canadian Entitlement

Canada’s share of the downstream power benefits is called the Canadian Entitlement. It is calculated as half of the forecast additional hydroelectric energy generated by power plants on the Columbia River in the U.S. that result directly from the operation of CRT dams in Canada. Under the Canada-BC Agreement, these benefits are owned by the Province. Canada sold the first 30 years of its Canadian Entitlement to a consortium of utilities in the U.S. for $254 million US. That agreement expired in phases and the Province of BC now receives the Canadian Entitlement worth approximately $120 million US annually.

For more information on downstream power benefits click  here.

Reservoir storage facilities in the Columbia River system in Canada and the U.S. are operated in a coordinated manner to provide flood control benefits for the communities and residents in both countries. The CRT prescribes two primary types of flood control provisions, Assured Annual Flood Control and On Call Flood Control.

1. Assured Annual Flood Control. Under the CRT Canada agrees to provide assured annual water storage for flood control purposes at the three CRT reservoirs for 60 years. The US provided a one-time payment of $64.4 million U.S. to Canada for this operation. Unless renegotiated, the annual Assured Annual Flood Control provision expires in 2024.
2. On Call Flood Control. On Call Flood Control is designed to be used during periods of very high inflows. The U.S. can request Canada to provide On Call storage in addition to the Assured Annual Flood Control provisions. This means Canada would provide additional storage at Canadian reservoirs over and above what the CRT prescribes for Assured Annual Flood Control. In order for the U.S. to request On Call Flood Control, it must first make effective use of its own reservoir storage space, flows must exceed target levels at the Dalles Dam in the lower Columbia River near Portland and Canada must be compensated for operational costs.

The On Call Flood Control provision remains in effect as long as the CRT dams exist, even if the CRT is terminated. After 2024, when the Assured Flood Control Provisions expire the On Call Flood Control provision will be referred to as Called Upon Flood Control and would be the only flood control mechanism to coordinate flood control between the two nations. To date the On Call Flood Control provision have not had to be used, and thus the implementation implications of this operation is uncertain.

Both types of flood control are described in more detail here.

The Columbia River Treaty (CRT) was agreed to by the Province of BC and the Canadian and U.S. federal governments. Both federal governments, as well as the Province, have specific roles under the CRT.

United States

Under the U.S. constitution, only the President can make decisions on international treaties, based on the advice and consent of the Senate.

Canada

The 1963 Canada-BC Agreement transferred the rights and obligations under the CRT to the Province of BC. It also requires that Canada obtains the concurrence of the Province prior to issuing any notice of termination. It does not specify exact roles for the federal government around termination and renegotiation, but any substantive changes to the CRT will require federal government involvement.

Province of BC

The Canada-BC Agreement transferred the rights and obligations under the CRT to the Province. Any substantive changes to the CRT will require provincial government involvement. The Province has committed to undertake consultations with affected stakeholders and Basin residents around potential changes to the CRT.

The original process in which decisions were made to enact the CRT by the provincial and federal governments did not allow for adequate consultation with Basin residents in Canada. As a result, residents did not have the opportunity to provide input into a decision that had a major impact on their lives and life in the Basin.

Columbia Basin Trust (the Trust) was created to benefit the areas most adversely affected by the CRT. During the creation of the Trust there was clear public direction that one of the priorities for the Trust should be to prepare residents for the potential renewal or renegotiation of the CRT when that opportunity occurs.

The Trust’s primary role in regards to the CRT is to act as an information resource for Basin residents, First Nations and local governments. The Trust has worked with provincial and federal government agencies to provide advice on meaningful consultation processes with Basin residents and local governments on any process to amend, renew or terminate the CRT or any of its related sub-agreements.

The Trust is not a decision-maker with regards to the CRT and we are not advocating for any specific future outcomes, other than to ensure Basin residents are meaningfully consulted through the process.

• The Province of BC receives approximately US$120 million each year in downstream power benefits.
• The increased water storage and regulated flows resulting from the CRT dams led to the development of hydroelectric projects such as Kootenay Canal Generating Station (1976), Revelstoke Dam (1983) and Arrow Lakes Generating Station (2002).
• Canada received $254 million in Canadian Entitlement and a 60 year pre-payment of assured annual flood control worth $64.4 million.
• Dam construction provided employment opportunities for several thousand people over several years and continues to provide ongoing employment opportunities.
• There was increased economic activity in local communities during construction.
• Industry and communities across the province have benefited from low-cost hydroelectricity.
• Canadian communities benefit from flood control provided by the CRT.

• Approximately 650 km² of valley land and over 500 km² of lakes, rivers, ponds, streams and related fish, wildlife waterfowl, bird and other species habitat were flooded to fill the Arrow Lakes, Duncan, Kinbasket and Koocanusa reservoirs.
• Some communities were lost or changed forever and local economies and private properties were impacted.
• Approximately 2,300 people along the Arrow Lakes, Duncan and Koocanusa reservoirs were relocated.
• Agriculture and forestry activities have been limited due to the loss of fertile, low-elevation land.
• Numerous First Nations’ cultural and archeological sites were submerged.
• Ecosystems were altered, impacting fish and wildlife values, and reducing habitat availability. This includes salmon, which are a significant part of First Nations way of life and culture.
• Transportation routes were altered or eliminated.
• Dust storms on reservoirs can negatively impact human health.
• Fluctuating water levels limit recreation, tourism and development opportunities.

Libby Dam has different operational obligations compared to the three CRT dams in Canada. Although Canadian land was flooded to fill Koocanusa Reservoir, and Libby regulation improves the value of hydro generation at downstream plants on the Kootenay River in Canada, neither BC nor Canada receive direct benefit payments or compensation. Still, under the CRT the two countries jointly agree on reservoir management operations, and therefore, river flows, primarily for flood control and power generation purposes.

Columbia River Treaty dams have a long life of more than 100 years, and are continually maintained and upgraded. In fact, with reinvestment over the long-term, the operating life of a dam could be indefinite.

Climate change will have an impact on hydrological systems’ operations with regard to coordinated flood control between Canada and the U.S. A slightly earlier, sharper spring freshet period combined with increased likelihood of extreme weather, including potential increases in winter precipitation and rain on snow events, will change historic stream flow patterns.

The large reservoir systems in place, and their ability to capture water, may enable us to better manage the impact of low flows in drier summer months. Dams and the existing reservoir system act as an excellent adaptation strategy that acts to mediate impacts of potentially more extreme weather. Current coordinated flood control agreements will need to acknowledge these changes in the hydrologic system.

Province of BC: Continue CRT and Seek Improvements

On March 14, 2014 the Province of BC announced its decision to continue the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) and seek improvements within its existing framework. Fourteen principles will guide future discussion and among others, include equitable sharing of benefits from transboundary coordination and recognition that BC is impacted by CRT operations.

Read the BC Decision the Future of Columbia River Treaty

Follow the Provincial Columbia River Treaty Review

U.S.: Modernize Current Treaty

On December 13, 2013 the U.S. Entity made its final recommendations to the United States federal government. It recommended a modern treaty framework that balances power production, flood control and ecosystem functions. The United States will coordinate a review on behalf of the President of the United States.

Follow the US 2014–2024 Columbia River Treaty Review

As of May 2018, Canada and the US have been engaged in negotiation meetings. Both countries have tabled confidential proposals outlining frameworks for a modernized Columbia River Treaty and negotiations are ongoing.

BC Hydro designed and built Mica Dam to store more water than was required under the CRT. As a result, an additional five-million acre feet (MAF) of usable water storage is available at Mica Dam. This extra storage is referred to as Non-Treaty Storage. The 1984 Non-Treaty Storage Agreement (NTSA) is a commercial agreement between BC Hydro and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) regarding the management of reservoir and power plant operations on the Columbia River in Canada and the United States The NTSA provides better utilization of water storage at Mica Dam that is not already coordinated with the U.S. under the CRT by creating power and non-power benefits to both countries. This enhanced coordination is made possible through storage and release of Non-Treaty Storage water at Hugh Keenleyside Dam.

In early 2011, BC Hydro engaged with BPA to negotiate a new NTSA. The agreement was signed in April 2012. The NTSA is within BC Hydro’s water license for the Columbia River projects and was contemplated in BC Hydro’s Columbia River Water Use Plan. The agreement will allow BC Hydro to better balance the often competing non-power interests on the Columbia River.

It is technically feasible to restore salmon populations to a portion, or all, of their historic range in the upper Columbia. This is most clearly demonstrated with recent successful efforts to restore Okanagan chinook and sockeye salmon populations which have to migrate, upstream and downstream, through nine mainstem Columbia River dams.

The completion of Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State in 1941 blocked anadromous salmon (i.e., salmon that spawn inland but live in the ocean) and other species from getting to the upper Columbia River. Fish passage exists on dams downstream from Grand Coulee, with the exception of Chief Joseph Dam, which is now the first barrier for fish heading upstream from the Pacific Ocean. In Canada, newer hydroelectric projects—Arrow Lakes Generating Station and Waneta Expansion Project—have been designed to accommodate upstream fish passage in the future.

Specific changes to the Columbia River Treaty may not be required to allow for salmon restoration in the upper Columbia. However, Canada and the U.S. will have to cooperate if they have a shared interest in restoring salmon to the upper Columbia.

In 2019, Chiefs, Ministers and Councillors representing the Syilx (Okanagan), Ktunaxa, Secwepemc, British Columbia and Canadian governments committed to working together for three years to explore ways to reintroduce salmon into the Upper Columbia River Basin. Since then, they have established and organizational structure and a strategic direction setting the course for implementation over the next three years.