Time for a Review: Water Resource Management Today

Initially, those joint studies focused on the implications of post-2024 Columbia River planning and operations, given the significant changes that will take effect in 2024. Those studies produced a Phase One Report, released in July 2010.

Subsequent studies, undertaken by the U.S. Entity, have had a broader focus, considering the complexity of contemporary water resource management in the Columbia River Basin – a watershed the size of France, feeding America’s fourth-largest river.

The original treaty addresses two big mid-20th century concerns: protecting Columbia River communities – especially the largest one, Portland – from flooding, and generating hydropower to fuel both nations’ postwar economies. Judged on these terms, Ponganis said, the treaty unquestionably has been a success.

The original treaty addresses two big mid-20th century concerns: protecting Columbia River communities – especially the largest one, Portland – from flooding, and generating hydropower to fuel both nations’ postwar economies. Judged on these terms, Ponganis said, the treaty unquestionably has been a success. When winter rains threatened the Portland area with flooding in 1996, and again in 1997, upper-basin dam operators, including Canadian projects, significantly restricted flows to reduce flows in the lower basin.

As recently as summer 2012, Ponganis said, treaty mechanisms helped reduce flood risk along the Kootenay River, a Columbia tributary that flows southward over the border to Libby and then loops back northward to Kootenay Lake and the town of Nelson, British Columbia. “We were getting the highest runoff we’ve ever seen,” said Ponganis. “And in that situation, the value of the relationships between the two entities getting on the phone, and working through it in real time was obvious. Both countries benefited from that coordination.”

The Columbia River System of dams and reservoirs is considered multi-use and provides value for:

• habitat for important wildlife and fish species, including endangered migratory species such as salmon and steelhead;

• resources for commercial, tribal, and recreational fishing;

• navigation of cargo and other vessels along the Columbia, a major trade artery;

• municipal and regional water supply;

• irrigation for 7.3 million acres of farmland in the Northwest; and

• sites for recreational users to enjoy the waters and their surroundings.

As written, the Columbia River Treaty does not explicitly address these concerns, which introduce an intriguing network of trade-offs to water resource managers: Water used for one purpose – irrigation, for example – is often water that can’t be used for another, such as maintaining or improving fish habitat. The United States and Canada are currently weighing the interactions among these various demands and evaluating alternatives to benefit stakeholders in both countries.

To complicate matters further, these future demands will have to be addressed in an environment that, according to models developed by USACE and its research partners, will be significantly influenced by the uncertainty of climate change, which will bring less snowpack to the Columbia River Basin, but more rain overall, and peak flows at different times of the year.

Since 2011, the U.S. Entity has engaged in more than 143 meetings, presentations, and discussions with interested parties in the four-state region. The process is on schedule to produce the U.S. Entity’s ultimate outcome – a final recommendation for what the Columbia River Treaty should look like after 2024 – to the U.S. Department of State by December 2013. The State Department then begins the process for reviewing and assessing the nation’s interest for the future of the treaty.

Another important issue in the treaty review process is the calculation formula for the Canadian Entitlement. The calculations are highly technical, but the issue is simple, as Ponganis pointed out: “Bonneville Power Administration would say the way we assess the value of that energy being delivered back to Canada inflates its true value in today’s market. So we want to see if some adjustment to that in a modernized treaty is possible. There’s been a lot of discussion about how we should value that [entitlement] in the future, given today’s environment and today’s needs for non-power operations.”

 

The Next Steps

The U.S. Entity’s work since 2010 has been an intensive series of discussions, listening sessions, and technical studies in collaboration with the Sovereign Review Team (SRT) – representatives from four Northwest states, 15 tribal governments, and 11 Northwest federal agencies – aimed at crafting a regional recommendation for the future of the treaty. The outreach conducted so far has solicited input from all parties interested in the future of the treaty on several different operating scenarios for dam projects.

The results of the U.S. Entity’s outreach efforts are posted to its website as soon as they can be made available. Since 2011, the U.S. Entity has engaged in more than 143 meetings, presentations, and discussions with interested parties in the four-state region. The process is on schedule to produce the U.S. Entity’s ultimate outcome – a final recommendation for what the Columbia River Treaty should look like after 2024 – to the U.S. Department of State by December 2013. The State Department then begins the process for reviewing and assessing the nation’s interest for the future of the treaty.

In September 2013, the U.S. Entity released a draft of the recommendation for public comment. “This draft recommendation is reflecting regional views on significant issues that we have heard over the last three years,” said Ponganis. “We have made major progress and I am confident the regional will come together in support of a final consensus recommendation.”

For an engineer, Ponganis said, the work couldn’t be more important. “Where else would you ever be able to work on an international treaty?” he said. “The Corps of Engineers occupies a unique niche in this process – and that’s due not only to our water management expertise but also to our proven track record of collaborating with others.”

This article first appeared in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Building Strong®, Serving the Nation and the Armed Forces 2013-2014 Edition.