Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers

THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY: A LANDMARK IN INTERNATIONAL RIVER DEVELOPMENT* W. R. Derrick Sewell University of Washington The Columbia River Treaty which was recentlv ratified bv the L'nited States and Canada provides the basis for one of the boldest ventures in international river development ever undertaken. Estimated to cost over Sl bilUon when completed, die scheme which will be built under the Treaty will bring great benefits to both countries. Not onlv will it provide a great increase in electric power and help to reduce floods, but it wiU provide a major boost to die economic development of the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. The international agreement embodied in the Treaty, however, was not easily arrived at. It was in fact die end-product of over 20 years of studies, investigations, international negotiations, and heated political debate in both countries. Controversy still rages as to which country got die best of the bargain. In a venture of diis magnitude such controversy is inevitable, and indeed is desirable, for it helps to sharpen the focus of objectives of development , and helps to identify possible alternative courses of action. Nevertheless , it may well be questioned why it took so long to reach an agreement on a scheme diat has been claimed to be of such great advantage to bodi countries. What does die Columbia River experience offer diat mav be useful in approaching odier problems of international river development in North America and elsewhere? These questions provide a basic focus for diis paper. The Columbia River Treaty Briefly, die Columbia River Treaty calls for die provision of 15.5 million acre feet of storage at diree projects to be constructed on die Upper Columbia River in Canada.1 These will be located at Arrow Lakes, Mica, and Duncan Lake (Fig. 1). The storage provided will be used for two principal purposes: to firm up flows in the U. S. part of the Columbia River basin during the winter period when natural flows are low, and so to increase firm power output; and to reduce flood damages downstream. Canada and die U.S. will share die benefits resulting from this storage. At die time when die Treaty was negotiated power benefits were estimated 'The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful comments and criticisms of Marion E. Marts, Robert Teshera, ana Richard Lycan, Department of Geography, University of Washington, in the preparation of this paper. 1 For a detailed description of the provisions of the Columbia River Treaty, see Canada, Department of External Affairs, The Columbia River Treaty, Protocol and Rehted Documents, Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1964. 15 UJklw Via· Fig. 1,—Major projects proposed and constructed on the Columbia River and major tributaries. at 2.6 million kw of capacity and 13 billion kwh of energy.2 Flood control benefits were estimated at $126 million. The Treaty calls for an equal sharing of power and flood control benefits between die two countries. In addition to sharing benefits from projects built by Canada, die U. S. has die option to build die Libby project in die Kootenay River in Montana which would create a reservoir extending several miles into Canada. It would permit increased power generation in the United States but diese benefits would not be shared widi Canada. It would also permit greater - Subsequent studies, however, have shown that power benefits would be substantially greater than this, ibid., p. 132. 16 power output in Canada, an increase not to be shared widi the United States. The Libby project would also provide flood control benefits both in die United States and Canada. These would be enjoyed where· thev occurred rather than through any formal sharing arrangement. Origins of the Treaty The Treaty is die outcome of a search for storage to control the Columbia River for power generation and flood control purposes. About 13 million acre feet have been developed for these purposes so far. Estimates of the Corps of Engineers, however, suggest that almost twice this amount is required . The problem is, however, to find suitable storage sites. The best sites in the United States part of die basin have either been developed already or are not available for development because of...