[Senate Hearing 113-224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-224
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE DRAFT REGIONAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE COLUMBIA RIVER
TREATY
__________
NOVEMBER 7, 2013
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-345 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Caan, George, Executive Director, Washington Public Utilities
Districts Association, Olympia, WA............................. 27
Haller, Gregory, Conservation Director, Pacific Rivers Council... 44
Karier, Thomas, Washington State Council Member, Northwest Power
and Conservation Council....................................... 16
Kem, Brigadier General John, Commander, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Northwestern Division, Member, U.S. Entity for the
Columbia River Treaty.......................................... 5
Meira, Kristin, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association (PNWA), Portland, OR............................... 40
Moffett, Joel, Chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission..................................................... 10
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 3
Oliver, Stephen, Vice President, Generation Asset Management,
Bonneville Power Administration, Coordinator, U.S. Entity for
the Columbia River Treaty...................................... 8
Semanko, Norm, Executive Director & General Counsel, Idaho Water
Users Association, Boise, ID................................... 35
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 55
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
The Chairman. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee
will come to order.
Today the committee is going to look at the future of the
Columbia River Treaty and what it means for the Pacific
Northwest and the United States' relationship with Canada.
The Columbia River is the lifeblood of my region, the
Pacific Northwest. It's one of our region's most imposing
natural features at more than 1,200 miles long. Along the way
it provides a massive amount of the Northwest's power supply,
habitat and flows for fish, water for irrigation and is a
crucial passage for shipping.
The Treaty has served both nations well for decades. But
after nearly 50 years it is time to strike a better bargain.
The Treaty allows the United States and Canada to unilaterally
terminate most of the Treaty provisions after September 16,
2024 provided 10 year notice is given. Consequently, the first
opportunity for either country to provide notice of termination
is September 2014.
In response Bonneville and the Corps are reviewing the
Treaty and plan to deliver a final recommendation to the State
Department in December 2013. Options include essentially the
status quo, notice of termination, negotiated changes within
the current Treaty framework, or a new or amended Treaty.
Much has changed since the early 1960s when the Treaty was
negotiated. Three of the 4 Snake River dams had not even been
built yet. None of the bedrock environmental laws that protect
the quality of life in the Pacific Northwest had yet been
enacted. Virtually no one thought of the possibility that our
salmon could be endangered. There wasn't even an Endangered
Species Act at that time.
The Treaty was drafted based on the outdated assumption
that U.S. hydro generation would be operated to maximize power
production. That has not been the case for decades. Instead,
river operations are often dictated by the need to comply with
the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other U.S.
statutes. This change also significantly reduces the actual
value of power benefits from Canada, that under the Treaty, the
U.S. is required to pay Canada for. These excess payments to
Canada come out of the pockets of hard-hit Northwest ratepayers
at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars each and every
year.
Another difference is that when the Treaty was negotiated,
the American Indian community was simply not at the table.
Today, based upon their Treaty rights and other laws, the
Columbia Basin tribes are rightfully involved in the
deliberations regarding system operations to protect salmon and
other natural resources.
Finally, 50 years ago climate change was not on anybody's
screen. Now climate change appears to be having fundamental
impacts on our hydro system. For example, the snow pack in the
Basin that effectively served as water storage for summer
months is now diminishing as our average temperature rises.
This obviously creates challenges for our region that must be
managed.
The fundamental challenge to our region, that our region
faces regarding the future of the Treaty, is how do we respond
to 50 years of change in a manner that maximizes system
benefits including hydropower, flood control, protection of
fish and wildlife, water use, navigation and recreation. That
is going to be the primary focus of this hearing and our
discussions. There will be bipartisan discussions here in the
committee.
The Draft Treaty recommendation developed by Bonneville,
the Corps, and the tribes, with input from other stakeholders
is a good start. However, as the region moves forward, I think
there are some essential goals and questions that we need to
focus on.
First, any changes to the Treaty should benefit regional
ratepayers, not increase their rates. Striking a new power
benefit sharing deal with Canada based on the actual benefits
to both nations is the way to proceed. Experts in the region
calculate that Northwest ratepayers could save hundreds of
millions of dollars if the payments to Canada were recalculated
based on the power our region actually receives.
Of course, we're going to have a job of convincing the
Canadians that it is also in their interest to revisit this
issue.
On the topic of ratepayers, the future cost of preserving
the current level of flood control benefits, in my view, should
not be paid by ratepayers. Instead funding for flood control
ought to be in the form of appropriations and that was the case
when the Treaty was adopted.
Third, I support addressing what has come to be known as
``Ecosystem Function.'' I think it ought to be addressed as
part of the Treaty process. I read the concept to mean actions
to benefit the natural resources of the Columbia Basin,
particularly our salmon. I believe it's appropriate to address
fish and other resources in any agreement to redo the Treaty.
However, the scope and cost of measures to address fish and
other resources must be clearly defined and limited. There are
no blank checks. The decisions we make to support fish and
wildlife must also take into account current salmon recovery
efforts under the Endangered Species Act and other laws that
cost Bonneville ratepayers roughly $700 million a year.
Whatever is done needs to be in concert with existing efforts,
not be in duplication or in conflict.
Fourth, I believe the threat of climate change is one of
the premier challenges of our time. It could have dire effects
on Columbia Basin flows. So it's important to have an
appropriate amount of flexibility to respond.
At the same time it's important to work to preserve the
hydro system itself, in part because of the climate benefits of
emission-free hydro power, and this is something Senator
Murkowski and I spend a lot of time on; we're really a joint
force.
We got that hydro power bill passed early on. Hydro power
is responsible for 60 percent of the clean power in this
country and making sure that we preserve the climate benefits
of emission-free hydro power has been something that is
important to this committee. It's been important for a long
time. It's especially important on the watch of Senator
Murkowski and myself.
Finally, the Treaty matters have to be resolved in the
Pacific Northwest. They cannot be subject to top/down
micromanagement from Washington, DC.
I'm looking forward to our witnesses. We've got an
excellent group today. They're going to shed plenty of light on
the various complex issues that I've touched on.
A lot of our witnesses have traveled a long distance to be
with us. We appreciate that. I especially appreciate Senator
Murkowski, who has got a full morning, being here. We always,
whenever we talk about Pacific Northwest matters, like to note
that Senator Murkowski went to Willamette University. So we are
proud of her roots to the great State of Oregon.
Senator Murkowski whatever comments you'd like to make are
appropriate. I look forward to working with you, as we've done
on all the other matters for the committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to
my academic roots there in Oregon, I think I should, maybe it's
a conflict of interest that my grandparents and great
grandparents were actually steamboat captains on the Columbia
River at one point in time a long, long, long time ago. So we
go back a ways with the Columbia.
The Chairman. We will take any little strategic
advancement.
[Laughter.]
Senator Murkowski. I figured you probably might. I figured
you might.
But thank you, Mr. Chairman for convening this oversight
hearing on the future of the Columbia River Treaty. I, too,
welcome our distinguished witnesses. I look forward to learning
of your perspectives on how we proceed with treaty
negotiations.
You know, Mr. Chairman, I should note we're sitting here in
the Energy Committee. We don't often have the opportunity to
kind of delve into these international relations. But the
committee seems to be a little bit on a roll of late. Just last
month we successfully passed legislation out of the Senate, I
might add in the midst of a government shut down, we passed the
U.S. Mexico Transboundary Agreement that will help us move
toward greater North American energy security. Then, of course
today, we're examining this transboundary water agreement with
our neighbors to the North or if you're from Alaska, neighbors
to the East, a treaty that's been in place for almost 50 years
now.
The Congressional Research Service has observed that the
United States and Canada are ``joined at the well'' when it
comes to energy. In this case our countries are very much
joined at the Basin, the Columbia River Basin where we share
the management of a significant water resource.
After historic flooding in the Northwest back in the 1940s
we came together to negotiate how best to coordinate flood risk
management and optimize hydro power production. The resulting
Columbia River Treaty, ratified back in 1964, called for dam
construction and increased reservoir storage in the Basin for
our shared benefit. At that time though, negotiators did not
consider the regions tribal resources or account for fishery
interests. As our Nation now contemplates the continuation of
this treaty, perhaps with a new ecosystem function, we must
work together to find a balance between those and competing
priorities such as the Chairman has mentioned, flood control,
navigation, water supply and recreation, all while we maintain
flexibility for the Pacific Northwest region.
I do recognize that today's hearing is timely. Beginning in
September 2014 either nation can provide a 10-year notice that
it intends to unilaterally terminate the Treaty. To that end
both the Bonneville Power Administration and the Army Corps of
Engineers in their role as the U.S. entity, have been reviewing
the Treaty and have produced a draft recommendation with input
from many of the stakeholders that are now before us.
The U.S. entity will make its final recommendation to the
State Department this December on whether to continue,
terminate or amend the Treaty's provisions.
So it's my hope, Mr. Chairman, that with this oversight
hearing and the stakeholder testimony that we'll receive later,
it will fully inform the U.S. entity's work on the Columbia
River Treaty. Ideally we'll find a path forward with our
Canadian friends to update and modernize this Treaty so that it
can continue to work for the benefit of both of our countries.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing
from our panel this morning.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I appreciate
your excellent statement and also noting the Transboundary
Agreement. I mean we clearly have interests here in the
international arena where energy and international security and
foreign relations intersect. The fact that it went through the
U.S. Senate 100 to nothing, I hope that will help our
colleagues in the other body find a way to move expeditiously
on the bill. So I look forward to working with you on these
issues and appreciate your statement.
We have with us as witnesses Brigadier General John S. Kem
of Portland. We're glad that the Brigadier is here.
Mr. Stephen Oliver, Vice President, Generation Asset
Management with Bonneville Power, we welcome you.
Mr. Joel Moffett, Chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission, Mr. Moffett, welcome.
Mr. Tom, I hope I'm pronouncing this right, Karier? Karier,
great. Council Member, State of Washington with the Power and
Conservation Council, Spokane.
Gentlemen, we'll make your prepared statements a part of
the record in their entirety. I know that there is always,
almost a biological compulsion to just read every single word.
But this is going to be a hectic morning. We've got votes. If
you can just take 5 minutes or so and summarize your principle
concerns, that would be very helpful.
Brigadier General John S. Kem, welcome.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN KEM, COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, MEMBER, U.S. ENTITY
FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
General Kem. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski.
As you know I'm the Commander of the Northwestern Division
of the Corps of Engineers and a member of the United States
entity. The Chair of the U.S. entity is Elliot Mainzer, the BP
Acting Administrator and he could not be here today. As you
mentioned, Steve Oliver is here with us today instead.
Steve is one of the two co-coordinators along with Mr. Dave
Ponganis, who is behind me, who for the last 2 years, 3 years
really, has been working the policy and the coordination for
this effort. I have to say they've done a great job on a very
complex process of collaborating.
Together we are pleased to be before the committee to
discuss the draft regional recommendation we provided in
September regarding the future of the Treaty after post 2024
and the still ongoing regional review process to inform the
final recommendation.
From the outset of the Treaty, the coordinated operations
between both countries for the storage and release of water
across the international border has been a backbone for the
Pacific Northwest in managing flood risk and to support the
region's hydro power system. For the past 50 years those
coordinated operations for the storage and release of water
have been essential in assuring public safety and continuing to
facilitate regional development and the regional economy.
As the Chairman mentioned the original treaty language,
beginning in September 2014 we enter that window of opportunity
for the first time for the United States or even either country
to make a decision in that regard. The Department of State
asked the United State's entity to develop a consensus regional
recommendation to begin the national policy consideration
process. It has been a multiyear process with countless
engagements, outreach efforts and public comment opportunities.
The message that we have heard the most during the
multiyear regional review process is there seems to be a and is
very clear, strong, regional interest to modernize the Treaty
to bring about a better, more balanced benefit to the region.
Like almost any issue there is certainly an eclectic mix of
interests and differing viewpoints on how to achieve them.
I would like to emphasize that the U.S. entity is not
recommending adoption of some interest views ahead of another
interest group's views or in some way trying to decide exactly
how the region should end up. We are seeking a strong, regional
consensus. Toward that end, as the Chairman mentioned, in
September we released a draft version for public comment
attempting to recognize key interests, particularly those
interests of a wide array of constituencies.
Since that draft release we have continued to work to
refine a final version based on extensive public comments,
which numbered literally in the thousands.
For example, over the last 2 weeks we've also done
additional work with G to G Engagements meeting with the
various Governors. Mr. Mainzer and I have met with the
Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington, just in the
past 2 weeks.
In addition, we met in government to government
consultations with 16 tribes in the last few weeks. Coupled
with the feedback from all of our various meetings with key
stakeholder groups, involving the power group, interests,
irrigation, navigation and ecosystem, it is clear to me that
we're getting much closer. The region is certainly coalescing
around recommending a modernized framework for the Treaty.
Probably the one area that is still most sensitive rests
with the question about the regional recommendation about
ecosystem function as a primary purpose. From my perspective,
and I want to make it clear this was not done to promote one
set of interests over another, or we seek to a disadvantage or
negatively impact one interest group, rather we added it to the
draft to incorporate the context of how we actually conduct
coordinated operations with Canada today. In the end, the
Treaty is really about the flow of water across the border and
how the two countries want to coordinate that.
The fact is we coordinate with Canada for the storage and
release of water for 3 reasons at this moment, period.
We do it for flood control.
We do it for hydro power.
We do it for ecosystem functionality.
So it makes sense to recommend formalizing those operations
within the framework of the Treaty to capture the evolution
that's happened since the Treaty was first written in 1964.
In conclusion I think there's a growing regional consensus
to recommend modernizing the Treaty and achieve a win/win/win
outcome for the Pacific Northwest region of the United States.
I thank you for the opportunity to highlight a few topics.
I'll be glad to answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of General Kem and Mr. Oliver
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General John Kem, Commander, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division, Member, U.S. Entity for the
Columbia River Treaty, and Stephen Oliver, Vice President, Generation
Asset Management, Bonneville Power Administration, Coordinator, United
States Entity for the Columbia River Treaty
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Brigadier General John Kem, and I
serve as Commander of the Northwestern Division of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers and the Member of the United States Entity. By
Executive Order the Chair of the U.S. Entity is the BPA Acting
Administrator, currently Elliot Mainzer, who is not able to be with us
today. In his stead Steve Oliver is with me today. Steve is the BPA
Vice President of Generation Asset Management and one of the policy
leads for operational implementation of the Treaty.
Together, we are pleased to be before the Committee to discuss the
Draft Regional Recommendation regarding the future of the Columbia
River Treaty after 2024 and the regional review process underway to
inform a final recommendation. We appreciate the interest this
Committee is showing toward this matter. We should note that our
testimony reflects the status of the process we are coordinating in the
region on this matter and does not represent any final Administration
recommendations.
The Columbia River Treaty is a successful example of a
transboundary water treaty and serves as a model for other
international water coordination agreements. Over the years since the
Columbia River Treaty entered into force in 1964, it has provided
benefits for the Pacific Northwest and both countries. It has enabled
us to coordinate streamflows, and thereby helped us manage flood risks
and generate hydropower. The U.S. Entity also uses the flexibilities
within the Treaty to work with our Canadian counterparts to implement
operations designed specifically to benefit the Columbia Basin
ecosystem in both countries.
To ensure we can successfully convey the interests of the region,
the U.S. Entity, through the regional review process known as the
Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review, has engaged throughout the
region and is striving to garner support for a regional recommendation.
The message we have most heard during the multi-year regional
review process is that it is in the best interest of the region to
modernize operations under the Treaty to bring about better and more
balanced benefits. As we are developing a regional recommendation, the
U.S. Entity has listened closely to the many diverse voices in the
region about how to reflect their respective interests in the
recommendation.
While many in the region appreciate the benefits that have flowed
from the Treaty, there is widespread concern in the U.S. that the
method included in the Treaty for calculating Canada's share of the
Treaty's power benefits is not equitable. There is interest in
providing flood risk reduction for public safety through agreement with
Canada on how we can implement continued, mutually agreeable,
coordinated flood risk management operations.
There is also a strong desire by many to more formally incorporate
ecosystem-based functions into the implementation of the Treaty and to
recognize evolving interests in other water management issues in the
Columbia River Basin. There is also growing interest in mechanisms that
are more adaptive, flexible, and resilient to successfully meet the
challenges presented by increased demand for water and the uncertainty
of climate change impacts on Columbia River flow volume, timing, and
variability in the next several decades.
We believe that through our extensive collaboration efforts we have
assisted the region to find a middle ground that attempts to recognize
and balance all of these viewpoints and interests in the region. We
believe that it is possible to simultaneously:
Reduce the U.S. obligation, paid by Northwest ratepayers, to
return power to Canada that reflects the actual value of
coordinated power operations with Canada.
Define a workable approach to flood risk management that
will continue to provide a similar level of flood risk
management to protect public safety and the region's economy;
Contribute to a more comprehensive ecosystem-based function
approach throughout the Columbia River Basin watershed by
formalizing and providing greater certainty for ecosystem
actions already being undertaken so that they complement the
existing ecosystem investments in the region; and
Pursue operational flexibility necessary to respond to
climate change, and other future potential changes in system
operations while continuing to meet authorized project purposes
such as irrigation and navigation.
In essence, the Draft Regional Recommendation seeks to further
improve on operations that are already in place, while also making them
more adaptable to address current and future needs of the region.
Through this approach, we hope to achieve a collective net ``win'' for
the Pacific Northwest on all fronts.
While we believe that regional interests are coalescing around this
approach, we understand that there have been some questions,
particularly regarding formalizing inclusion of ecosystem based
functions, and whether such inclusion will create an additional cost
for the U.S. and thus Pacific Northwest ratepayers. The Treaty provides
a process for the U.S. and Canadian Entities to coordinate the storage
and release of transboundary waters from the Treaty reservoirs for the
mutual benefit of both countries. Initially, power and flood risk
management were the basis for this coordination. However, over the past
20 years we also have worked with Canada to mutually agree on storing
and releasing water for both Canadian and U.S. ecosystem purposes.
The U.S. Entity's view is that it is appropriate to formalize and
gain more certainty for these operations. At the same time, we
recognize that over the past 20 years both the Canadian and U.S.
management and use of this mutual water resource has become more
focused over time on in-stream and out-of-stream uses, while fulfilling
our commitments for power production and flood risk management. The
U.S. Entity acknowledges the need for continued support for these
existing purposes and intends to ensure that the incorporation of
ecosystem-based functions would not prevent the region from achieving
its objective of rebalancing and reducing U.S. power costs and would
retain an acceptable level of flood risk.
Although we believe our draft recommendation will represent a
positive balance of regional interests, we recognize that it will still
concern certain stakeholders. To address those concerns, we recommend
including mechanisms to promote further dialogue and minimize the risk
of unintended consequences. These mechanisms include proposing a number
of domestic processes through which U.S. interests can address complex
issues that are currently beyond the purview of the Treaty.
Throughout the Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review process, the
U.S. Entity has consulted extensively with regional sovereigns,
stakeholders, and the public. A key component of the review process has
been collaboration with the Sovereign Review Team (SRT), which
comprises designated representatives from the states of Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, Federal agencies, and Pacific Northwest
Tribal Governments. The Entity also conducted ongoing government-to-
government consultation meetings with the Pacific Northwest tribes
represented on the SRT, as well as with the Confederated Tribes of the
Grande Ronde. In addition, the U.S. Entity has heard from and
understands the perspectives of the regional stakeholders through
individual meetings, workshop sessions, panel discussions and
presentations, and public comment periods. Our goal throughout this
process has been to be inclusive and transparent with sovereigns, major
river interests, and the general public.
These regional discussions led to the U.S Entity's release of an
initial working draft of a recommendation for regional interests to
review in June 2013. The U.S. Entity conducted 14 public listening
sessions around the Pacific Northwest to inform and collect public
comment on the working draft recommendation. The U.S. Entity also
worked closely with regional stakeholders and the SRT to hear
viewpoints and obtain specific input concerning the working draft
recommendation. On September 20, 2013, the U.S. Entity released the
Draft Regional Recommendation for additional review and comment. As
described earlier, the Draft Regional Recommendation reflects
sovereign, stakeholder, and public input and seeks a collective ``win''
for the region.
As part of the review of the Draft Regional Recommendation, we held
another five public meetings during October throughout the region. We
also continue to meet and work with numerous parties interested in the
Treaty's operation. The Administration has asked us to deliver the U.S.
Entity's recommendation by the end of this year. Accordingly, our goal
is to deliver to the U.S. Department of State a final Regional
Recommendation that enjoys broad regional support in December 2013. The
U.S. Entity recognizes the importance of continuing to engage all
interested regional parties as we work toward that goal.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared remarks. We would be
happy to respond to any questions from the Committee.
The Chairman. General Kem, thank you. It's very helpful.
We'll have some questions in a moment.
Mr. Oliver, welcome.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN OLIVER, VICE PRESIDENT, GENERATION ASSET
MANAGEMENT, BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, COORDINATOR, U.S.
ENTITY FOR THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
Mr. Oliver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski.
Thank you. I'm Stephen Oliver, Vice President of Generation
Asset Management for the Bonneville Power Administration and
Co-Coordinator for the Columbia River Treaty.
Over the years the Columbia River Treaty has provided
significant benefits for the people of the Pacific Northwest
and both Canada and the United States. It has helped provide
assured stream flows that support the regions hydro power
system. It serves as a crucial background of the Pacific
Northwest economy. It has assisted in effectively managing
flood risk to insure public safety and facilitate regional
development.
Over the past 20 years we have also used operational
flexibilities within the Treaty to work with our Canadian
counterparts to implement operations designed specifically to
benefit the Columbia Basin ecosystem in both countries. These
actions include an annual agreement to move one million acre
feet of water from winter releases to spring and early summer
period. In addition through non-treaty storage agreements we
have designed mutually beneficial operations that better
support the ecosystem and power production in dry years.
We are now presented with a potential opportunity to do
even better.
In 2024, even though the Treaty continues, certain aspects
change and this gives us the chance to have a conversation with
Canada on how we might want to modify the Treaty operations
after 2024 to improve the benefits to the region in a way that
reflects today's conditions and values and better prepares us
for the future. So that is why we have been working on the
Treaty review process to analyze the options for the Treaty
post 2024 and collect regional perspectives to assist us in
developing a recommendation that with broad regional support
will advise the U.S. State Department on potential concepts to
consider negotiating with Canada to modernize the Treaty.
We believe that it's possible for power, flood risk
management and ecosystem interest to all benefit from a
modernized and rebalanced Columbia River Treaty.
Let me expand on these points.
First, the method included in the Treaty for calculating
Canada's share of power benefits generated in the U.S. as a
result of our coordinated operations under the Treaty is now
outdated and no longer equitable resulting in excessive cost to
U.S. ratepayers. It was premised on a future where thermal
power plants would have been significantly developed in the
U.S. to meet low growth. That has not materialized.
The historic record shows that the original Treaty
negotiators expected the U.S. Government. Excuse me, U.S.
payment of Canadian entitlement in the form of power benefits
delivered to Canada from the U.S. Columbia River hydro
generators to have been very small by today.
The reality is that the Pacific Northwest utility
ratepayers are still burdened by very high continuing payments
of power to Canada. This needs to be changed.
Second, while we believe that regional interest are
coalescing around the idea of including ecosystem based
functions in the operations post 2024 the Treaty as a primary
purpose. We understand that there has been some questions
regarding this potential change and whether such inclusions
would create additional cost to Pacific Northwest ratepayers.
It is our perspective that the Treaty fundamentally is an
agreement to coordinate the storage and release of water from
the Treaty reservoirs for the mutual benefit of our countries.
Initially power and flood risk were the only two reasons we
did this coordination. However, over the past 20 years we have
worked with Canada under the Treaty to mutually agree on
storing and releasing water for both Canadian/U.S. ecosystem
purposes. The U.S. entity's view is that is appropriate to
formalize and gain more certainty for these operations.
However, I want to be clear that while we support the
inclusion of ecosystem based operations in the Treaty, the
implementation of these functions should not prevent the region
from achieving this objective of rebalancing and reducing U.S.
power costs and maintaining an acceptable level of flood risk
in the Basin.
Third, fundamentally we're dealing with a water management
allocation issue. There is no new source of water just the
debate about the timing for the storage and release of water
that will flow out of the Canadian portion of the system.
Although there are parties that will argue for a more dramatic
shift and water flows back to a natural or normative hyetograph
in support of the ecosystem. We are not supportive of such
significant change because we have seen through our analyses
that it would result in significant hydro power losses and the
higher flood risk for the region.
That being said, we have also seen there are potential
ecosystem benefits of gaining assurance of the spring flow
augmentation and drier strategies that we have developed to
date.
We also could see a benefit in light of potential future
climate changes for these types of strategies.
In conclusion, it is possible for flood risk management,
power and ecosystem benefits to all gain from a modernized and
rebalanced Columbia River Treaty. This win/win/win can result,
if we work together, to rebalance and reduce the U.S. power
return obligation to Canada, define a rational flood risk
management program that maintains an acceptable level of flood
risk for the U.S. and incorporate the ecosystem based function
operations that have been occurring by mutual agreement under
the Treaty.
All these positives can happen while still assuring Canada
of a fair and reasonable payment for the value of the
coordinated operations of the system that is provided across
the Basin.
Thank you for this opportunity to show our perspectives on
this important topic.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Moffett.
STATEMENT OF JOEL MOFFETT, CHAIRMAN, COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-
TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION
Mr. Moffett. Good morning, Chairman Wyden, Senator
Murkowski. My name is Joel Moffett. I'm the Vice Chairman of
the Nez Perce Tribe and Chairman of the Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission.
It's my honor and privilege to provide this testimony on
behalf of the 15 tribes of the Columbia River Basin which in
itself is a worthy story of consensus and collaboration.
I want to recognize Senator Murkowski of the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee. This issue has profound ramifications to
tribes as you will see. We look forward to working with your
committee as well.
Our tribes began organizing in 2008 in this historic
opportunity to modernize the Columbia River Basin, excuse me,
how the Columbia River Basin is managed. As a coalition of the
15 tribes we have our own distinct trust and treaty obligations
that are negotiated with the United States. We each hold close
the sacredness of the river and her resources to our people. We
each hold high the place of the salmon and all first foods to
our way of life.
Nobody has lived with the consequences of the dams in 50
years of the Columbia River Treaty more than our tribes. Nobody
will live with the consequences of the next 50 years more than
us.
From these truths the Columbia Basin tribes created the
Common Views document in 2010. Through Basin wide partnership
and collaboration the tribes seek to manage the Columbia River
for today's modern values not the outdated values of the 1960s
when the original Columbia River Treaty was signed.
To prepare us for these upcoming Treaty discussions the
Columbia Basin Tribal representatives connected several tours
and site visits from the mouth of the Columbia River all the
way up to the Canadian headwaters. We visited with Canadian
residents at the invitation of First Nations in Canada and the
Columbia Basin Trust. While the Treaty is often held up as a
model of international water management, it is clear that the
Treaty's implementation has produced winners and losers on both
sides of the border.
We've prevented occasional flooding in the lower Columbia
River but this also damaged river health and created permanent
floods behind numerous dams in many of the upper reaches. There
is no doubt that the Treaty has yielded tragic consequences to
many citizens of the Columbia River Basin.
But despite this history the last 3 years have yielded a
common consensus understanding. The Columbia River Treaty can
and should be modernized. The 15 tribes are nearing support for
the draft regional recommendation that was discussed earlier.
More work and discussion remains though before full tribal
support can be expressed.
We remain confident, however, that there will be a broad
consensus among sovereigns and stakeholders when the regional
recommendation is delivered to the U.S. Department of State
next month.
Among the hallmarks of the draft regional recommendation is
the addition of ecosystem function as a primary Treaty purpose,
something the 15 tribes have championed. The inclusion of
ecosystem function as a primary driver, co-equal to hydro power
and flood control, is a key feature that will make the Columbia
River Treaty truly a model of international water management.
An improved ecosystem should be a shared benefit and obligation
with Canada.
Integration--integrated ecosystem function in a modernized
treaty should include the following.
One, restoration of fish passage and reintroduction of
anadromous fish to historical areas.
Two, modernized flood risk management that enhances spring
and summer flows for a more normative river.
Three, updated infrastructure and reconnected flood plans.
Four, stabilization for Upper Basin reservoirs.
A modernized Columbia River Treaty should also allow us to
adapt to climate change, as the Chairman mentioned earlier. We
need better forecasting techniques for changing precipitation
and runoff scenarios.
I believe that I can speak for all the sovereigns when I
say that we have been seriously challenged to develop a broad
regional consensus. We have definitely worked hard toward that
consensus. We're not quite there yet, but are proud of the
progress we have made to date and are confident we can get the
job done.
Without broad refill consensus, however, we run the risk of
uncertainty. In the months ahead the tribes will be working
right up until the regional recommendations delivery. During
this time we anticipate close communication with your offices
and all members of the Northwest Congressional Delegation.
We appreciate your committee's oversight hearing at this
time and how it will inform the Northwest Congressional
Delegation and all of Congress before the regional
recommendation is submitted to the U.S. Department of State.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moffett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Moffett, Chairman, Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission
Good morning Mr. Chairman. I am Joel Moffett, a citizen of the Nez
Perce Tribe and an elected member of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive
Committee. I am testifying before you today in my capacity as the
Chairman of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and on
behalf of the 15 tribes in the Coalition of Columbia Basin Tribes.
These 15 Columbia Basin Tribes have natural resource management
authorities and responsibilities affected by the implementation of the
Columbia River Treaty. There are 5 other tribes with interests in the
basin that may be affected by the Columbia River Treaty; the U.S.
Entity is consulting with them individually.
high level policy consensus based recommendation, no tribal alternative
At the outset, I want to highlight the fact that the Columbia Basin
Tribes are working with the U.S. Entity and the other regional
sovereigns to finalize a high level, consensus based regional policy
recommendation on the future of the Columbia River Treaty. This high
level policy recommendation will be submitted to the U.S. Department of
State by December 13, 2013. There is no technical analysis or
recommendation to accompany this high level policy recommendation.
Notwithstanding what may have been conveyed to you by others, the
Columbia Basin Tribes do not have their own alternative technical
recommendation or draft technical proposal for river and reservoir
operations under the Treaty.
NEED TO CONTINUE COLLABORATION OF REGIONAL SOVEREIGNS
Over the course of the last three years, the Columbia Basin Tribes
have collaborated with the U.S. Entity and the other regional
sovereigns to complete three iterations of modeling and analysis of a
wide variety of river and reservoir operations. This expansive modeling
and analysis was completed so that the region would have a common
understanding of the various results and potential impacts from
modified operations. While the goal had been to fully integrate this
wealth of knowledge into a technical document that would support the
regional recommendation, that final step was not taken at the request
of the State Department. Yet, the region's work is not complete--the
regional sovereigns will need to continue their technical and policy
collaboration in order to support the next phase--the State
Department's consideration of the high level policy recommendation
developed by the region.
KEY ELEMENTS OF A REGIONAL RECOMMENDATION
I do want to summarize what the Columbia Basin Tribes see as
critical elements of the draft regional recommendation:
modernize the Columbia River Treaty by integrating
ecosystem-based function as a third primary purpose of the
Treaty, equal to the Treaty's obligations for the two countries
to coordinate hydropower generation and flood risk management;
Testimony of Joel Moffett November 7, 2013, page 3 of 7
enhance spring and summer flows while stabilizing reservoir
operations;
pursue the restoration of fish passage to historical
locations, I am including the tribes' issue paper on this
subject as part of this testimony;
pursue an assessment with Canada of potential alternatives
for post-2024 operations to meet flood risk management
objectives, including the possibility of using planned or
assured Canadian Storage, consistent with ecosystem function,
completing an infrastructure assessment and updating reservoir
management through a domestic process as necessary to
accomplish this objective; and,
rebalance the Canadian Entitlement.
It will also be important that sufficient flexibility be built into
the modernized Treaty so that operations can adapt to the impacts of
climate change and other factors. We believe that all of the regional
sovereigns are coalescing around these broad policy goals and we look
forward to working with the U.S. Department of State to advance these
goals through discussions with Canada, the province of British Columbia
and the First Nations.
BACKGROUND ON THE TREATY
As you know, the Columbia River Treaty was signed and ratified by
the United States in 1961 and, after the adoption of a protocol, was
ratified by Canada and implemented by the two countries in 1964. Under
the Treaty, Canada agreed to build three storage dams and coordinate
the operation of these new storage facilities with the U.S.
hydroelectric power supply system in order to optimize hydroelectric
power production and to provide coordinated flood control benefits.
The U.S. Entity will tell you that the Treaty is a model of
international cooperation for the management of a transboundary river
system--and for the limited purposes of optimizing hydropower
generation and providing coordinated flood risk management, it is--but
the Treaty is not currently designed to provide for ecosystem-based
functions. I do want to point out that the Treaty increased the impacts
of hydropower to communities by moving the flood upriver, these impacts
began before the Treaty with the earlier constriction of dams on the
mainstem in the United States that affected the cultural and natural
resources of the Columbia Basin Tribes, First Nations and other
communities all the way up to the Basin headwaters in Montana, Idaho
and British Columbia.
NO PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT OF TRIBES AND FIRST NATIONS
In developing this coordinated system operation under the Treaty
with Canada, the U.S. did not consult with the Columbia Basin Tribes
nor consider the effect of the Treaty on our cultural and natural
resources, yet the Treaty has had far reaching impacts on our cultural
and natural resources that continue to this day. Not only were the
Columbia Basin tribes not consulted during the Treaty's negotiation,
the tribes have also been excluded from its governance and
implementation. The Treaty does not include considerations of critical
tribal cultural resources. The coordinated power and flood control
system created under the Treaty degraded rivers, First Foods, natural
resources, and tribal customs and identities. The coordinated flood
risk management plan, while providing substantial protections for
Portland and Vancouver, permanently moved the floods upriver through
the creation and maintenance of large storage reservoirs. The Treaty
currently limits what can be accomplished with Treaty and non-Treaty
water agreements to address these issues and meet tribal resource
priorities.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY 2014/2024 REVIEW AND THE SOVEREIGN PARTICIPATION
PROCESS
When the U.S. Entity initiated the Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024
Review, the tribes recognized the opportunity to work with the U.S.
Entity to correct past mistakes and improve upon the Treaty. The
Columbia Basin Tribes began meeting in January 2008 to identify their
common issues and concerns with the Treaty and its implementation,
while also meeting with the U.S. Entity to develop a better
understanding of the Treaty's implementation. By February 2010, the
tribes' several meetings and workshops on the Treaty led to the
development of the ``Columbia Basin Tribes' Common Views on the Future
of the Columbia River Treaty''--known as the tribes' Common Views
document*. I have included a copy of this document with my testimony. I
have also provided you with a map** of the Basin that shows you the
location of the fifteen tribes, as well as that of the First Nations in
Canada that have asserted interests affected by the Treaty's
implementation in Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Document has been retained in committee files.
** Map has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVELOPING THE SOVEREIGN PARTICIPATION PROCESS FOR THE TREATY REVIEW
The Columbia Basin Tribes met with the U.S. Entity in July 2010 to
discuss their issues and concerns with the Treaty and how best they
could collaborate with the U.S. Entity to address these issues through
the Treaty Review. At that meeting, the U.S. Entity agreed to work with
the Columbia Basin Tribes, other federal agencies and the states to
establish the Sovereign Participation Process for the Treaty Review.
The Sovereign Participation Process is three-tiered: the first tier is
government-to-government, where decisions are made regarding policy
issues; the second tier is the Sovereign Review Team, where the
regional sovereigns coordinate, discuss policy issues and provide
guidance to the Sovereign Technical Team; and finally, the Sovereign
Technical Team, which conducts the technical modeling and analysis.
The Sovereign Participation Process also provided for expert policy
and technical input from stakeholders, including presentations from
expert panels on power, water supply and irrigation. Building upon the
bilateral Phase I Report released by the U.S. and Canadian Entities in
August 2009, the sovereigns completed three more iterations of modeling
and analysis. As each of the three iterations of modeling and analysis
was completed over the last three years, the U.S. Entity, with the
support of the other sovereigns, took the lead on reporting out the
results to stakeholders through a series of public meetings or
``listening sessions'' held across the basin. These listening sessions
provided cities, counties and other public representatives and
stakeholders to ask questions and provide feedback.
ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION
During the course of the discussions at government-to-government
and Sovereign Review Team meetings, tribal representatives and staff
were often asked what they meant by ``ecosystem-based function.''
Tribal leaders explained that since time immemorial, the rivers of the
Columbia Basin have been, and continue to be, the life blood of the
Columbia Basin Tribes. They went on to explain that Columbia Basin
Tribes view the ecosystem of the Columbia Basin watershed as its
ability to provide, protect and nurture cultural resources, traditions,
values and landscapes throughout its' length and breadth. We hold that
clean and abundant water that is sufficient to sustain healthy
populations of fish, wildlife, and plants is vital to holistic concept
of ecosystem-based function and life itself.
The Tribes believe that a modernized Treaty needs to address the
Columbia Basin using a watershed approach that integrates ecosystem-
based function, hydropower, and flood risk management on both sides of
the border. The eleven years of technical studies that led to the
negotiation of the Treaty focused on hydropower and flood risk
management, the region now has the opportunity during the next phase of
the Treaty Review to expand the scope of bilateral technical studies to
encompass ecosystem as a third purpose.
This was not done in the past and we are now dealing with a CRT
that has not addressed the needs and rights of the peoples of the
Columbia Basin whose cultural and natural resources have been affected
by the Treaty's implementation. The Columbia Basin Tribes provided the
U.S. Entity, other regional sovereigns and the Sovereign Review Team
with a definition of ecosystem-based function. While this definition
has been adopted by the tribal caucus for use in the Treaty Review
process, it has not been adopted by the U.S. Entity. I have appended
the definition to my testimony for your information and to provide
context for future conversations about the Treaty moving forward.
A restored, resilient and healthy watershed under a modernized
Treaty will include ecosystem-based function as described by this
definition. Again, this definition has not been adopted as part of the
Treaty Review, nor has it been implicitly adopted by the U.S. Entity by
the inclusion of ecosystem-based function in the draft regional
recommendation, it has been put forward by the Columbia Basin Tribes as
an aspirational definition for the Basin and to provide a context for
further regional discussions.
CLOSING
Mr. Chairman, over the next month, the Columbia Basin Tribes will
work with the U.S. Entity, other regional sovereigns and stakeholders
to resolve the remaining differences in the draft recommendation before
it is submitted to the U.S. State Department. The Columbia Basin Tribes
would be happy to answer any additional questions you might have about
the tribes' views on the progress of the regional consensus based
recommendation now, or in the future. We look forward to completing
this phase of the Treaty Review with the U.S. Entity and then working
with them and the other regional sovereigns as the State Department
considers the regional recommendation.
DEFINITION OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED FUNCTION ADOPTED BY THE COALITION OF
COLUMBIA BASIN TRIBES IN JUNE 2013
Since time immemorial, the rivers of the Columbia Basin have been,
and continue to be, the life blood of the Columbia Basin tribes.
Columbia Basin Tribes view ecosystembased function of the Columbia
Basin watershed as its ability to provide, protect and nurture cultural
resources, traditions, values and landscapes throughout its' length and
breadth. Clean and abundant water that is sufficient to sustain healthy
populations of fish, wildlife, and plants is vital to holistic
ecosystem-based function and life itself. A restored, resilient and
healthy watershed will include ecosystem-based function such as:
Increased spring and summer flows resulting in a more
natural hydrograph;
Higher and more stable headwater reservoir levels;
Restoring and maintaining fish passage to historical
habitats.
Higher river flows during dry years;
Lower late summer water temperature;
Reconnected floodplains throughout the river including a
reconnected lower river estuary ecosystem as well as reduced
salt water intrusion during summer and fall;
Columbia River plume and near shore ocean enhanced through
higher spring and summer flows and lessened duration of
hypoxia; and,
An adaptive and flexible suite of river operations
responsive to a great variety of changing environmental
conditions, such as climate change.
Improved ecosystem-based function in the Columbia Basin Watershed
is expected to result in at least:
Increased recognition, protection and preservation of tribal
first foods and cultural/sacred sites and activities. First
foods includes water, salmon, other fish, wildlife, berries,
roots, and other native medicinal plants.
An estuary with an enhanced food web and increased juvenile
fish survival;
Increases in juvenile and adult salmon survival;
Decreased mainstem travel time for migrating juvenile
salmon;
Increased resident fish productivity that provides stable,
resilient populations;
Increased wildlife productivity that provides stable,
resilient populations; and,
Salmon and other juvenile and adult fish passage to
historical habitats in the Upper Columbia and Snake River
basins, and into other currently blocked parts of the Columbia
River Basin.
Columbia Basin tribes\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Burns Paiute Tribe, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and
Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation of Oregon, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Kalispel Tribe of
Indians, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Fort
McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the
Fort Hall Reservation, the Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley
Indian Reservation, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians, with support from
the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Upper Columbia United
Tribes, and the Upper Snake River Tribes tribal organizations have been
working together to consider the effects and alternatives related to
the Columbia River Treaty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMON VIEWS ON THE FUTURE OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
February 25, 2010
The present Columbia River power and flood control system
operations are negatively affecting tribal rights and cultural
interests throughout the Columbia Basin. The Columbia River Treaty is
foundational to these operations.
The Columbia River Treaty----
Was negotiated and continues to be implemented without
regard to the tribes' unique legal and political relationship
with the federal government.
Is narrowly designed for the benefit of power and flood
control.
Does not include ecological considerations for critical
tribal natural resources.
Does not include considerations of critical tribal cultural
resources.
Created a power and flood control system that degraded
rivers, First Foods, natural resources, and tribal customs and
identities.
Significantly affects tribal economies.
Excludes tribal participation in its governance and
implementation.
Limits what can be accomplished with non-Treaty agreements
to meet tribal resource priorities.
The Columbia River Treaty is under review by the U.S. and Canadian
governments for reconsideration in 2014. Reconsideration of the Treaty
provides an opportunity for the tribes to seek benefits not realized in
50 years of Treaty implementation.
The Columbia Basin tribes' interests must be represented in the
implementation and reconsideration of the Columbia River Treaty. The
Columbia River must be managed for multiple purposes, including----
Respect for the sovereignty of each tribal government--each
tribe has a voice in governance and implementation of the
Columbia River Treaty.
Tribal cultural and natural resources must be included in
river management to protect and promote ecological processes--
healthy and useable fish, wildlife, and plant communities.
Integrate the tribes' expertise of cultural and natural
resources in river management.
Equitable benefits to each Tribe in priority to other
sovereign parties in Columbia River management.
Respecting and preserving the benefits of settlement
agreements with tribes.
Recognize tribal flood control benefits.
Protecting tribal reserved rights to current and future
beneficial uses, in a manner consistent with ecosystem-based
management.
In order to realize these principles, the tribes' collective voices
must be included in the implementation and reconsideration of the
Columbia River Treaty.
The Chairman. Thank you. I'm sure our witnesses have seen
that there is great Northwest interest in this matter with
Senator Risch and Senator Cantwell having joined us.
Dr. Karier, you have been next in line. Please proceed
right as you have Senator Cantwell here, who, of course, knows
more about Northwest energy issues than really anybody else.
We welcome you and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS KARIER, WASHINGTON STATE COUNCIL MEMBER,
NORTHWEST POWER AND CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Mr. Karier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you members
of the committee.
My name is Tom Karier. I'm one of the two Washington State
members of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. I
represent the State of Washington on the review of the Columbia
River Treaty.
In 1964 the Beatles made their first trip to America,
gasoline cost 30 cents a gallon and the United States and
Canada inaugurated a treaty to share the benefits of the
Columbia River. 50 years later the first two are a distant
memory, but the Columbia River Treaty continues to govern the
operations of several dams in Canada.
The Columbia River Treaty was a monumental achievement. Two
countries cooperated to build 3 dams and operate those on one
of the world's greatest river systems. Increased hydro power
generation attributed to the down river generation, helped to
stimulate economic growth throughout the region valued in
billions of dollars. While flood risk in the lower river was
not eliminated it was greatly reduced.
But the original Treaty recognized that an agreement to
build and operate dams could not last forever and allowed for
changes after 60 years. The world has changed since 1964 and so
must the Treaty. We no longer need an agreement to build dams
as we did in the 1960s. We need an agreement to operate the
dams that respond to today's needs.
Discussion in the Northwest has identified what a
modernized treaty can provide for the region. Washington State
shares the same vision that the Chairman so succulently
described in the beginning and which was added to by my
colleagues.
In Washington State we need relief from the costly
entitlement payments to Canada valued at $250 million to $350
million per year.
We need an agreement to protect citizens above and below
the border from flood risk.
We need to factor in fish survival, the ecosystem, cultural
resources and water supply when we modify the timing of flows
across the border.
All of these areas can and must be addressed. We are
working on a fair and balanced regional recommendation to the
State Department that fully reflects these opportunities.
Washington State has a major stake in the success of this
effort. The actual power benefits to the United States are
estimated to be only one-tenth of the current entitlement
payment to Canada. We're concerned because our ratepayers pay
approximately 70 percent of that entitlement. 27.5 percent paid
by the public utility districts in 3 counties in our State plus
our State's share of the Bonneville Power Administration cost.
We have an immense financial and social investment in
recovering fragile populations of salmon and steelhead. We
would like to see treaty operations support and reinforce those
investments.
Our cities and counties are at risk of flooding. We need to
know that the U.S. and Canada are cooperating to ensure their
safety.
We also rely on the river for irrigated agriculture that
produces food for the world and navigation to move our
production to markets.
Every year millions of tourists visit the Columbia River
and Lake Roosevelt for recreation bringing economic benefits to
local communities.
As we work to finalize our recommendations to the State
Department we need to ensure that the interest of all
sovereigns and all stakeholders are fairly represented. Once we
find that balance, however, we expect the State Department to
help the Northwest secure these benefits in the national
interest even if this means deferring to U.S. entities
accountable to Northwest sovereigns and stakeholders in the
actual negotiations. Our State and Governor stand ready to help
in that process.
Finally, in order to preserve and expand the benefits of
the Treaty we should do our best to maintain the collaborative
spirit with our Canadian partners that have served both
countries so well for so many years. We envision a future in
which the citizens of both countries will look back at 2024 as
the dawn of a modernized treaty, one that secures economic and
environmental benefits for both countries for many decades.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for
the opportunity to testify on this important Northwest issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Karier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Karier, Washington State Council Member,
Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Karier and I am one of the
two Washington state Council members who serve on the Northwest Power
and Conservation Council. I also represent the State of Washington on
the Sovereign Review Team, which was created to assist the U. S. Entity
in reviewing and developing options for an informed recommendation to
the State Department on whether it is in the best interest of the U.S.
to continue, terminate, or seek to amend the Columbia River Treaty.
The Northwest Power and Conservation Council is an interstate
compact comprising the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.
The Council was authorized by Congress in the Northwest Power Act of
1980, P.L. 96-501. The Council's mission is to ensure the Pacific
Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply
while also protecting, mitigating, and enhancing fish and wildlife
populations that are affected by the Columbia River Basin's
hydroelectric system.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, in 1964, the Beatles
made their first trip to America, gasoline cost 30 cents a gallon, and
the United States and Canada inaugurated a treaty to share the benefits
from the Columbia River. Fifty years later, the first two are a distant
memory, but the same Columbia River Treaty continues to govern the
operations of several dams in Canada.
The Columbia River Treaty was a monumental achievement. Two
countries cooperated to build and operate three major hydropower dams
on one of the world's greatest river systems. Increased hydropower
generation attributable to the Canadian dams paid for the construction
of the projects and stimulated economic growth throughout the region
valued in the billions of dollars. While flood risk in the lower river
was not eliminated, it was greatly reduced.
But the original Treaty recognized that an agreement to build and
operate dams could not last forever and allowed for changes after 60
years. The world has changed since 1964 and so must the Treaty. We no
longer need an agreement to build dams, as we did in the 1960s; we need
an agreement to operate dams that responds to today's needs.
Discussion in the Northwest has identified what a modernized treaty
can provide for the region. We need relief from costly entitlement
payments to Canada valued at $250 million to $350 million per year. We
need an agreement to protect citizens above and below the border from
flood risk. We need to factor in fish survival, the ecosystem, cultural
resources, and water supply when we modify the timing of flows across
the border. All of these areas can and must be addressed, and we are
working on a fair and balanced regional recommendation to the State
Department that fully reflects these opportunities.
Washington state has a major stake in the success of this effort.
The actual power benefits to the United States are estimated to be only
about one-tenth of the current entitlement payment to Canada. We are
concerned because our ratepayers pay approximately 70 percent of the
entitlement, including the 27.5 percent paid by public utility
districts in three counties and our state's share of Bonneville Power
Administration costs. We have an immense financial and social
investment in recovering fragile populations of salmon and steelhead,
and we would like to see treaty operations support and reinforce those
investments. Our cities and counties are at risk of flooding, and we
need to know that the United States and Canada are cooperating to
ensure their safety. We also rely on the river for irrigated
agriculture that produces food for the world and for navigation to move
our production to markets. Every year, millions of tourists visit the
Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt for recreation, bringing economic
benefits to local communities.
As we work to finalize our recommendations to the State Department,
we need to ensure that the interests of all sovereigns and stakeholders
are fairly represented. Once we find that balance, we expect the State
Department to help the Northwest secure these benefits in the national
interest, even if this means deferring to U.S. entities accountable to
Northwest sovereigns and stakeholders in the actual negotiations. Our
state and Governor stand ready to help in that process.
Finally, in order to preserve and expand the benefits of the
treaty, we should do our best to maintain the collaborative spirit with
our Canadian partners that has served both countries so well for so
many years. We envision a future in which the citizens of both
countries will look back at 2024 as the dawn of a modernized treaty,
one that secured economic and environmental benefits for both countries
for many decades.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to testify on this important Pacific Northwest issue.
The views expressed in this statement are those of the Council
members from the State of Washington and do not represent the Council
as a whole.
The Chairman. Doctor, thank you.
Let me start and pose this question for you, Mr. Oliver, if
I could. I think you heard me say that my view is Northwest
ratepayers are paying more for electricity than they ought to
due to the excessive size of payments Bonneville and others
make to Canada. That's my assessment of where we are today.
Can you give us your assessment of how excessive the
payment is? So get us into the numbers.
Mr. Oliver. Sure. Sorry.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I--our assessment has been that if you
look at the value of the coordinated operations with Canada
under the Columbia River Treaty and you just look specifically
at the value of energy created with and without those dams and
the coordination of that operation that we're presently paying
about 90 percent more than we should be.
But that doesn't take into all the other----
The Chairman. What does that translate to in terms of
dollars?
Mr. Oliver. In terms of dollars, if you looked at both the
energy and capacity value of the system, the coordinated
operations, we feel, is valued probably in the $25 to $35
million per year range. Right now we're paying back close to
$250 to $350 million worth of power and capacity annually.
So it's a significant increase. It's probably a couple
hundred million dollar range that we're paying in excess. But
that doesn't take into account all. There are other values of
coordination. That was a very straight forward look at capacity
and energy. There's also value of firming, the assured flows on
the system for both flood risk.
The Chairman. Your take is Northwest ratepayers are paying
$200 million. You said a couple hundred million dollars more
than they ought to.
Mr. Oliver. Considering that one factor, there's other
values of coordination. But I would say, you know, this is not,
we haven't, you know, finished, you know, every analysis here
that could be done in terms of the value of coordination. I
would say it's substantial. Even if you look at other values of
coordination for flood risk management purposes and the firming
of power on our system, that it is likely a substantial
overpayment that's being made right now.
I also want to be fair that, you know, when you look across
the payments that have been made under the 50 years under the
Treaty for flood risk management and power, that from the early
portions of this agreement to the later portions. Probably the
equity in those payments have flowed back and forth across the
border. At this point I think Canada is gaining some
substantial payments for power coordination that really need to
be looked at further.
The Chairman. One of the big challenges on treaties is to
be able to put these issues in something resembling English to
people, to the region and Senators and others. Can you get back
to me within a week and give us a number?
Mr. Oliver. Sure.
The Chairman. So let's go on to the reasons why, again, if
you can give it to us in language that we can explain to folks
why this is the case.
My understanding is that the heart of the problem is that
baked into this formula are a bunch of assumptions that really
aren't relevant anymore. Is that the case?
Mr. Oliver. Fundamentally what the formula does is it takes
a look at the system in 1961 in the U.S. downstream and looks
at what the value of having the treaty dams which regulate and
release water on an assured basis for power production purposes
verses without that storage. Over time a formula was developed.
There were direct payments made by the U.S. for development of
the dams in Canada through flood risk management payments.
As well as the U.S. purchased the first 30 years of
downstream benefits on a payment. Direct payment was made by
parties in the U.S. for that at that time.
Then when the formula re, sort of kicked back in after the
30-year purchase of that and we began calculating downstream
benefits and the Canadian share which is called Canadian Time
or one half of those downstream benefits. The formula looked at
an expectation of what would happen with low growth in the U.S.
and how that would be met. The original treaty negotiators, in
the simplest terms from my point of view, expected the U.S. to
develop thermal plants to meet low growth that would happen in
the U.S. Under the formula if thermal plants were developed and
hydroelectric generation in the U.S. could displace those
thermal plants, non firm hydroelectric generation than the U.S.
could displace the thermal plants.
It was considered to be firm and removed from the formula
and did not have to be returned to Canada.
The Chairman. My time is up. I want to get one other
question in.
In the response you give us with respect to the amount that
you think constitutes the excessive payment that Northwest
ratepayers are making, if you could also flush out why these
assumptions that go into the formula, that are sort of baked
into the formula, are causing the problem, I'd like that within
a week.
Can you get that to us?
Mr. Oliver. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Very good.
One question for you, if I might, Dr. Karier.
So obviously we're going to make the case that Northwest
ratepayers are making these excessive, you know, payments.
What's in an arrangement for Canada in trying to come together
with us on this Treaty?
In other words, this is something we feel strongly about.
What's doable here? What's in Canada's interest in terms of how
we try to strike this bargain and make them more willing to
address the concern that Northwest ratepayers are going to
have?
Mr. Karier. Thank you, Senator.
Right now I think Canada believes they have a very good
deal with the Treaty. So, I think, we have to recognize that
that because of the archaic formula and the payments they're
doing very well.
I think we need to start the conversation with a close look
at what are the future benefits and future costs of the Treaty.
Really it's a broad look at it. We need to look at power, when
we work together, what's the net benefit to both countries, how
do we split that net benefit?
We're no longer talking about comparing it to a world with
no dams in Canada. We're now comparing what is our cooperation
at to not cooperating with the dams there? So it's a different
type of calculation.
There's also some benefits to the U.S. of coordinating with
Canada on flood risk. We may need to consider purchasing
assured flood storage in Canada. If we purchase that benefit we
need to figure out what that's worth to pay Canada for.
So I think in an ecosystem it's similar. We identify the
benefits and the cost and the payments. It may not look exactly
like the payments that are made today. But it should be a fair
allocation where they're fairly compensated for what----
The Chairman. Very good.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just let me ask a follow up question there to you, Doctor.
You've mentioned that you think Canada has got a pretty
good deal here. What's the working relationship with Canada
right now in terms of the treaty review? Have they been
participating in any of the U.S. treaty review studies?
Mr. Karier. So there was an initial study that the entity
participated in jointly with Canada, their counterparts at BC
Hydro. So there was cooperation initially there.
The sovereign review team, which has been meeting in the
Northwest for the last 3 years with tribal, State and Federal
entities, has been closed to Canadian participation. But at
every public meeting that I've been to in the State of
Washington, there's been somebody from Canada representing them
in those forums.
I think Canada, historically, has been one of the best
partners of the United States. I expect that to continue
through this process of relooking at the treaty.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
I want to make sure that I understand this ecosystem
function that has been called for in the draft recommendation
as a third primary purpose. I guess I'll direct this to you,
General Kem.
How do you actually define ecosystem function? I think it
was you, Mr. Oliver, that mentioned a concern about, OK, so
who's going to bear the cost here?
Can you, kind of, walk me through better understanding of
what we're talking about here with ecosystem function? Will
there be things like, if you have allowed for compliance under
the Endangered Species Act, are there available credits for
that?
How does this work?
General Kem. Senator, I'll start it and then I'll let Steve
take over.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
General Kem. Because he has a little more additional
details on it.
The ecosystem function, essentially, at this point over the
last 20 years, both Canada and the United States have, as we
sit down each year continuously working on what the flow regime
is going to be for the year based on all the different things,
has modified over time. We have released water differently
based on the need for fish. That's not just the United States.
There's two species in Canada that need certain flows. So
Canada has an interest in doing that.
So collectively, and Steve can give you more numerical
details, but about a million acre feet of water in a typical
year is adjusted and modified. So between the two countries, we
sit down and figure out what that should be and then what the
impact on the financial re-numeration back and forth on that.
That's really essentially how it's been working.
But that's been done under the auspices of the treaty. It
fits, but it doesn't fit very well.
Senator Murkowski. So we have been, we've actually been
implementing this in practice, we just haven't given it either
a specific name, ecosystem function, or a specific mission or
purpose within the treaty itself?
General Kem. So what I would say what we've done is--ad hoc
is the wrong term. But as we sit down for the annual flows
based on mutual agreement between the two countries, they've
mutually agreed to operate slightly differently. But what is
always privy to that year is can you come to an agreement.
That's why it makes sense to make it so it's more
predictable and planned.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Oliver, can you comment to that?
Mr. Oliver. Yes. We have, for the past 20 years, I think
since 1996 type of time period, been reaching annual agreements
for flow migration with our Canadian counterparts to move a
million acre feet of winter paragraphs over into spring and
early summer for the purpose of providing flows for trout and
white fish spawning below Keenleyside Dam in Canada and also to
help juvenile out migration for some anads in the U.S.
We've also, through non-treaty agreements, reached an
agreement on how to manage dry year strategies where in very
low water years Canada will produce some additional water into
the system for the U.S. to help, not only ecosystem, but power
production in the U.S. under dry year conditions.
We also have agreements out of Libby Dam to operate on
what's a variable flow. It's a bar queue operation which helps
Kinney River White Sturgeon which is also an endangered
species.
So there are several things that we do together with Canada
by mutual agreement that have been happening for the past 20
years as our understanding of ecosystem issues has evolved and
we've been able to implement those.
Senator Murkowski. So if we provide for changes in the
treaty itself that specifically address ecosystem function as a
purpose do you think we get a better lock down in terms of who
does bear the cost how we do provide for acknowledgement of
assisting with endangered species?
Mr. Oliver. Yes. I think that it is a very appropriate part
of the long term dialog. If we can formalize and gain certainty
for these operations that we've been doing on a bilateral
basis. I think it is appropriate part of or an addition to the
treaty because in fact we do coordinate the storage and release
of water for ecosystem purposes as well as power and flood risk
now with Canada. It's just not a formal part of the--or one of
the primary purposes that was enunciated under the original
treaty.
Senator Murkowski. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. In order of arrival, Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess whoever is appropriate to comment on this. Probably
I'll start with you, Mr. Oliver.
But my take on this is similar to what the Chairman
indicated. That is it's no secret that the Canadians have the
upper hand in this right now to the tune of, by your estimate,
$200 million. I understand that's probably a moving target and
a very rough estimate.
But as I've reviewed the Treaty and how in the process and
everything else, I think that this is going to be a really
heavy lift to get the Canadians to try to do something about
this. I mean, if I was sitting on the other side of the border,
I'd look at this and say, guys look, here's the treaty. You
know, where's my check?
That's compounded by the fact that, you know, $200 million,
a lot of money as we sit here and talk about it. But the fact
is if you're an outsider looking at this, they know how
cavalier that the Federal Government is about money. I mean,
$200 million is less than 10 percent of what we borrow in 1 day
to pay our bills.
I mean, if you're an outsider looking at it in that
function, you're going to say that's nothing. However to us,
that's a huge deal. Give us our $200 million.
How are we going to get them off that? That's my practical
take on it. It seems to me that it's going to be a heavy lift.
Mr. Oliver. I think it's a very good question. I would say,
first of all, we have an extremely good working relationship
with our Canadian counterparts. We have resolved issues
throughout the first 50 years of this important international
water management agreement. We share studies and we understand
the system operations very well together.
So I think that certainly the Canadian perspective is that
the coordination of this system provides a lot of benefits to
the U.S. for ecosystem, flood risk and power. Unfortunately the
way the payment is made today is all by the Northwest Power
ratepayers. So it's really all in the form of a power
compensation. That component is far too high at this point.
The first 60 years we made a onetime payment for flood risk
management. Now in 2024 the flood risk management terms and
conditions change under the treaty. At that point we'll begin
paying Canada when we need to call upon them for additional
support for flood risk in the U.S. on an as needed basis. We
would also now add compensation from the U.S. for that purpose.
So and if we do additional things for ecosystem function it
is worth, I think, the U.S. looking at the total package of
compensation to Canada and talking to Canada about what part
should be by Northwest ratepayers, which part should be by the
U.S. taxpayers and other interests.
So to some extent the Canadian compensation might be
reduced from power, but filled in a bit by flood risk
management payment for example or other types of compensation
in terms of benefits that they mutually achieve for the Basin's
ecosystem.
So I think we need to take a look at the full picture.
Perhaps the total package for Canada still remains relatively
robust and equitable as we look down the road.
Senator Risch. I appreciate that. I, first of all, I agree
with you. I mean, we have no better friends in the world really
than the Canadians. We can all feel good and warm and fuzzy
about that. I have no doubt they do too when they sit down at
the table.
But money does strange things to people. When we talk about
the benefits, I guarantee you when they sit down at the table
they're going to have a list of benefits and attributing
dollars to each one of them that they're going to say we got
this all wrong. You guys owe us more than $200 million.
So in any event I wish you well as we go forward. I wish us
all well as we go forward. This is going to be a long process,
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Well stated. The whole point of having you
quickly get us those numbers, Mr. Oliver, which is what I asked
for in my questioning, is to get right at the very appropriate
issues that Senator Risch has brought up.
This is not going to be for the faint hearted, this kind of
discussion. We do enjoy our relations with Canada. But
certainly as people begin to state their positions in treaties,
there are going to be strong views expressed here. So get us
those numbers within a week because that's going to be the key
to getting at exactly the issues that Senator Risch just talked
about.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this important hearing.
It's great to be here with my Pacific Northwest colleagues.
To me, I'm remembering many, many debates when I was in our
State legislature about PNWER which was the economic
partnership of five States and three provinces working together
on many things. So I'm definitely one who believes that we
think as a region, and that there is an opportunity for us, as
a region, to solve this problem.
So I appreciate everybody's attention to detail. I would
just mention I felt this summer as I traveled in our State of
Washington and throughout the region visiting some Native
American issues on behalf of my colleague from Montana, you
know, everywhere across the Pacific Northwest the tribes,
farmers, businesses, everyone is very concerned about this
treaty and what happens next. So it is of utmost importance.
I join my colleagues in saying that, yes, we need to have
a, you know, returning our fair share is an important part of
this treaty. The fact that, you know, flood control is an
important issue. But this amount of, whatever it is, $200
million, $250 million, is something that we feel the impact of.
I have a question about that. But I wanted to point out
that the draft recommendation does have a quote that says,
``Inclusion of the ecosystem based function in the treaty and
implementation of these functions should not prevent the region
from achieving its objective of reducing U.S. power cost.'' So
I just want to point that out.
It's an important goal. We can do both and still see a
reduction here.
I did want to, I guess, if I could get parochial for a
minute about Washington. That is that the added congestion from
the delivery of entitlements threaten the reliability of power
to one of our most populated parts, you know, of the State,
Seattle, Puget Sound. That is because that is how we deliver
that payment back.
So I wanted to ask either General Kem, Mr. Oliver, or Dr.
Karier, do you think the Canadians will be willing to provide
flexibility in how the entitlement gets delivered? Whether the
U.S. entity is fully committed to exploring solutions to these
transmission impacts?
Mr. Oliver. So I should probably take that.
Yes, we completely understand that the delivery of the
payment as made in physical capacity in energy and the
Bonneville Power Administration reserves in the order of
probably 14 hundred megawatts of capacity in our transmission
lines which is allocated largely to the Western portion of our
transmission system. It's been a concern to the utilities in
the area of the Puget Sound in terms of that transmission
obligation.
That agreement for that delivery of energy goes through
2024 as well. So it's something that we have made clear that we
want to talk about as part of a future discussion with Canada
about and by necessity because it does end in 2024, we need to
and talk about what is the mutually best means for return of
that entitlement post 2024.
Right now there's a very large capacity component in the
order of 12 to 14 hundred megawatts of capacity and an energy
component which is probably in the order of about 400 average
megawatts of energy. Therefore it would be possible to look at
if there were reductions in the obligation or even if there
were not significant reductions in the obligation looking at
making that return perhaps less peaky in nature.
So if it were flatter, you would need to reserve perhaps
less transmission. So it's something that we can engage in
conversations about as well. We completely understand the
concerns about the congested transmission paths from time to
time in the Puget Sound area. That will be certainly on our
screen as we move forward in having this conversations to make
sure that that issue is a part of the conversation.
Senator Cantwell. But you agree that it's important given
that we share, I think, something like 70 percent of the
Canadian entitlement, that Washington State does?
Mr. Oliver. Yes. It is important.
Senator Cantwell. OK.
Mr. Oliver. That, you know, that we look at assuring that
there's firm assured transmission paths for utility and firm
loads in the State of Washington as well as for the return of
this delivery.
Senator Cantwell. OK.
Anybody else want to add to that particular point?
Dr. Karier.
Mr. Karier. The transmission will be a key part of that.
The, you know, one of the issues for Washington State is also
about water supply. We haven't mentioned much about that.
The States of Washington and Oregon are both willing to
compensate Canada for water storage that can enhance our water
supply in the central parts of our states. That's something
that's not currently part of the treaty. It's another revenue
source for the Canadians along with any power entitlement or
flood risk payments. That is included in those recommendations
as well.
Senator Cantwell. How would that work?
Mr. Karier. It would be somewhat of a commercial agreement
with the Canadians to hold additional water for spring and
summer irrigation periods and to let that water out, kind of,
as needed for out of stream purposes. We would, the States of
Washington and Oregon would compensate them for that, for those
water flows.
Both states have policies that whenever we enhance water
flows for out of stream use we also add some fraction of water
to increase in stream flows to benefit fish as well. So it's
kind of a win/win type of arrangement. That's another element
that we would add into this negotiation.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Gentlemen, we're going to excuse you at this time. We're
going to have votes here before long in the Senate.
Mr. Oliver, obviously getting those numbers from you within
a week is absolutely key. I mean these, as Senator Risch has
touched on, are going to be issues where the parties feel
strongly about. We want to maximize on a bipartisan basis, the
influence of this committee and the Senators, particularly
those from the Pacific Northwest.
So we'll look forward to getting those in a week. We'd like
the numbers in terms of what is the excessive amount that
Northwest ratepayers are paying. Then have you detail this
matter of the assumptions that are baked into the formula
because that is going to be key to positioning the Pacific
Northwest as strongly as we can in the discussions that are
going to happen.
Gentlemen, thank you. We'll excuse you at this time.
Our next panel.
Mr. George Cann, Executive Director of Washington Public
Utility Districts in Olympia.
Mr. Norm Semanko, Executive Director and General Counsel of
the Idaho Water Users in Boise.
Ms. Kristin Meira, Executive Director of the Pacific
Northwest Waterways Association in Portland.
Mr. Gregory Haller, Conservation Director of Pacific Rivers
Council.
If you 4 will come forward.
Alright.
As I tried valiantly with the last panel I know it's the
temptation to just read every single word that is in that
statement. But because things are going to be hectic, extra
points for anyone who can summarize. We're going to make your
prepared remarks a part of the record in their entirety. Why
don't you proceed?
Let's start with you, Mr. Caan.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE CAAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION, OLYMPIA, WA
Mr. Caan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to behave and
give my summary very quickly.
The Chairman. Great.
Mr. Caan. So Chairman Wyden, members of the committee, good
morning. My name is George Caan. I'm the Executive Director of
the Washington Public Utilities District Association. I am here
representing the Columbia River Treaty Power Group, a
collection of over 80 members representing 6.4 million electric
consumers in the Northwest.
We appreciate the opportunity to talk to your committee and
to raise these critical issues. I want to thank you for your
opening statements which I believe effectively framed this
issue for the committee and for the rest of us.
I have 3 items that I would like to discuss with you today.
The Canadian entitlement.
Ecosystem measures.
The process going forward.
The Canadian entitlement needs to be rebalanced. As Dr.
Karier mentioned, I represent the Public Utilities Districts,
the 3 Douglas, Grant and Chelan along the Columbia River that
pay 27 and one half percent of the Canadian entitlement. The
balance of my membership relies on BPA, who pays for the rest.
Over the next 10 years it is expected that $2.5 to $3.5
billion will be spent on the Canadian entitlement. For every
dollar that we send north, we receive about ten cents worth of
value. This amount comes from our consumers.
The treaty is the only vehicle we have available to
rebalance this entitlement. We look forward to a laser like
focus on making this issue a high priority for the benefit of
our consumers and Mr. Chairman, your constituents.
Ecosystem. We have a commitment in the Northwest to
ecosystem measures that is illustrated by the $13 billion we've
already spent in the Federal Columbia River Power System
biological opinions. In addition to that we have habitat
conservation plans, Columbia Basin fish accords and FERC
license agreements that all add to this effort.
These investments are proof our constituents desire to
address ecosystem issues.
The proposed recommendation includes trans-boundary
ecosystem measures. We think that they should be addressed
since most of the measures, domestic ecosystem matters are
domestic issues these trans-boundary ecosystems should be
addressed with the following considerations.
First, they should acknowledge and account for the existing
investments already made and will continue to be made in the
Northwest.
These measures should, these trans-boundary ecosystem
measures, should be based on sound science.
They should be measureable.
They should be achievable.
These trans-boundary ecosystem measures should also ensure
that there's not any detriment to the Federal hydropower system
in terms of its reliability, resiliency and flexibility.
Further, these trans-boundary ecosystem measures should not
add any risk to the flood control regime designed to protect
our communities.
Finally, any new additions to ecosystem issues should
receive congressional authorization and Congressional
appropriation through your committee.
Finally, the process going forward.
We appreciate very much the Corps and the BPA, Bonneville
Power Administration, for turning what started out as a fairly
opaque process into a much more transparent process that
engaged the power group and other stakeholders to come up with
a better recommendation but still not where we want to see the
recommendation.
We want to publicly thank them for their efforts.
Further, we look forward to after the recommendation is
made and the State Department decides what to do, that we have
a meaningful role in providing information and data and
analysis so we can help the United States be in a great
position, a better position, to help influence the negotiations
on behalf of the power group and other stakeholders.
We look forward to that meaningful participation.
We appreciate the opportunity to take before the committee
to represent our views.
We appreciate the leadership this committee has taken to
help us.
We are looking forward to helping to shape the future of
the Columbia River Treaty.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I stand ready to
answer any questions that you might have when we're done.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caan follows:]
Prepared Statement of George Caan, Executive Director, Washington
Public Utilities Districts Association, Olympia, WA
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
Committee on behalf of the Columbia River Power Group (Power Group). My
name is George Caan and I serve as the Executive Director of the
Washington Public Utility District Association.
I am providing this written testimony today in addition to my oral
remarks that I will make during the hearing.
The Power Group, formed in 2011, consists of over 80 electric
utilities, industry associations and other entities that depend on
power produced by the Columbia River hydropower generating plants.
Together, we represent at least 6.4 million electric customers in the
four Northwest states that are directly impacted by the Columbia River
Treaty. WPUDA is an active member of the Power Group. A list of the
Power Group membership is provided at the end of my testimony.
The Power Group appreciates the Committee's interest in the future
of the Columbia River Treaty and the Draft Recommendation to the
Department of State that the U.S. Entity released for public comment on
September 20 (``Draft Recommendation''). As the Committee is aware, the
U.S. Entity is currently working to produce a final recommendation to
the Department of State sometime in the next few months; the final
recommendation will serve as a basis for possible negotiations with
Canada to improve and modernize the Treaty.
We especially appreciate the Committee's interest the Power Group's
views on the Draft Recommendation and our views on how the U.S. Entity
can improve that recommendation. On October 25 the Power Group
submitted comments on the Draft Recommendation. My testimony follows
the points made in those Power Group comments. The Power Group has been
working with the U.S. Entity on improving the Draft Recommendation.
Going forward, it is vital that Power Group members, along with Tribes
and other regional stakeholders, continue to be involved in discussions
on the future of the Treaty. This hearing is a key step in ensuring
that involvement.
The Power Group has two primary concerns with the Draft
Recommendation:
1. The U.S. Entity, in its attempt to craft a regional
recommendation to the State Department, has failed to focus on
and properly prioritize the fundamental need to reestablish an
equitable distribution of power benefits between the U.S. and
Canada. Unlike other resource priorities identified in the
Draft Recommendation, this paramount issue-the amount of the
Canadian Entitlement payment (together with determination of
cross-border flood risk management cooperation post-2024)-can
be resolved only between the U.S. and Canada.
2. To the extent the U.S. Entity recommends to the State
Department that a renegotiated Treaty should formally adopt
ecosystem functions as a ``third primary purpose'' of the
Treaty, that recommendation must recognize and fully account
for efforts already being undertaken under existing federal and
state programs to protect fish and wildlife resources in the
Columbia River and its tributaries. This means that any effort
to expand the Treaty to include ecosystem function must not
interfere with or adversely affect these ongoing programs, as
they are publicly developed programs that have resulted in
billions of dollars already invested by Northwest electric
customers, and hundreds of millions of dollars in fish and
wildlife measures each year. In addition, the Draft
Recommendation should clearly assert that domestic ecosystem
issues--such as fish passage at Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph
dams--are outside the scope of any renegotiated Treaty.
For these reasons, the Power Group wants the Committee to know that
we believe more work needs to be done to reach a regional
recommendation.
REBALANCING OF THE CANADIAN ENTITLEMENT IS THE PARAMOUNT ISSUE TO
ADDRESS IN ANY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA
The primary objective of engaging in any Treaty negotiations with
Canada must be intensely focused on correcting the current inequity of
the U.S. obligation under the Canadian Entitlement. Any regional
consensus on a recommendation to the State Department hinges on this
being the paramount issue in any Treaty negotiations. The Power Group
believes that among the U.S. Entity, Sovereign Review Team, and other
stakeholders there is consensus on the need to rebalance the Canadian
Entitlement. Reducing the financial burden to Northwest electric
customers, caused by a Canadian Entitlement vastly out of sync with
current conditions, and returning the use of clean, renewable
hydroelectricity to the Northwest, is clearly in the best interest of
the United States.
Unfortunately, the Draft Recommendation seems to lose sight of this
fundamental point by appearing to position ecosystem function as the
leading issue to pursue in Treaty negotiations. From its opening
paragraph in the introduction through the end of the document,
ecosystem function is consistently and prominently listed before other
Treaty purposes.\1\ Most of the ``General Principles'' touch upon
ecosystem function, with little discussion of other Treaty purposes.\2\
The specific recommendations for ecosystem function are far more
numerous and expansive than any other proposed Treaty purpose.\3\ Even
where the Draft Recommendation sets forth proposals for other Treaty
purposes, in some instances those recommendations appear to apply only
to the extent they do not infringe upon the inclusion of ecosystem
function proposals.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Draft Recommendation at 2 (``[T]he region's goal is
for the United States and Canada to develop a modernized framework for
the Treaty that ensures a more resilient and healthy ecosystem-based
function throughout the Columbia River Basin while maintaining an
acceptable level of flood risk and assuring reliable and economic
hydropower benefits.'' (footnote omitted)); id. at 3 (``Treaty
provisions should enable the greatest possible shared benefits in the
United States and Canada from the coordinated operation of Treaty
reservoirs for ecosystem, hydropower, and flood risk management, as
well as water supply, recreation . . . .'' (General Principle 1)).
\2\ Id. at 3-4.
\3\ Id at 4-5.
\4\ See, e.g., id. at 6 (providing that storage and release
allocations for water supply ``should be made through a future domestic
process and be consistent with water rights, including tribal reserved
water rights and ecosystem-based function''); id. (``A modernized
Treaty should consider impacts from climate change to all elements
above, and create new terms in the post-2024 Treaty to allow the
adaptive management of coordinated Treaty operations to better mitigate
any impacts associated with climate change.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Power Group believes that the Draft Recommendation's approach
elevates a resource issue that is inherently domestic in nature (and
addressed thoroughly under well-established federal and state statutory
programs, some of which are under this Committees' jurisdiction\5\) at
the expense of the cornerstone issue-the Canadian Entitlement-that can
be addressed only through negotiations between the U.S. and Canada via
the Treaty. While the Canadian Entitlement is the financial lynchpin of
the Treaty, the U.S. obligation under the Entitlement far exceeds the
actual power benefit received. The U.S. Entity has estimated that the
U.S.'s obligation under the Entitlement costs Northwest electric
customers between $250 and $350 million in annual power benefits
transferred by the U.S. to Canada,\6\ even though the U.S. Entity
itself has estimated that one-half of the downstream power benefits
received by the U.S. would be about one-tenth of the exported
electricity (valued at $25 to $30 million annually).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ : Projects and activities are subject to the substantive and
procedural requirements of numerous federal and state programs such as
the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,
Endangered Species Act, Federal Power Act, Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
National Forest Management Act, state water quality standards, state
water rights, and numerous other requirements.
Letter to Stephen Oliver, Bonneville Power Administration, and
David Ponganis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, from The Columbia River
Treaty Power Group at 6 (Aug. 16, 2013) [hereinafter, Power Group
Comment].
\6\ See Iteration #2 Alternatives & Components: General Summary of
Results at 33 (Apr. 10, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This disparity is wholly unacceptable. At this stage of developing
a regional recommendation to the State Department, the U.S. Entity-
instead of exerting significant resources on domestic ecosystem issues-
should be focused on analyzing the problems in the current methodology
for calculating the Canadian Entitlement, identifying possible
solutions for correcting these problems, and developing a
recommendation for addressing these matters with Canada at the earliest
possible time. By 2024, 60 years will have passed since the Treaty was
ratified. The U.S. has a duty on behalf of its citizens, and Northwest
electric customers in particular, to rebalance the Canadian Entitlement
in a manner that ensures that the U.S. obligation under the Treaty is
commensurate with the power benefits actually received.
Thus, any regional recommendation must prioritize rebalancing the
Canadian Entitlement to reflect the actual power benefits of ongoing
coordinated operation. This priority must appear on page 1 and
throughout the U.S. Entity's final recommendation to the State
Department.
Correcting the Canadian Entitlement also is consistent with the
Administration's clean energy policy objectives. From that perspective,
it is counterproductive to export between $2 and $3 billion in clean,
renewable, domestically produced energy over the next decade. Moreover,
if left unchanged, this situation will continue after 2024. By 2025,
the current calculations for determining the Canadian Entitlement will
require providing Canada approximately 450 MW average megawatts of
energy and 1,300 MW of capacity each year. Correcting that inequity
should be the highest priority of the State Department when pursuing
any Treaty negotiations with Canada. Each year after 2024 in which the
Canadian Entitlement remains unchanged is a significant loss of
resources and value for the U.S.
Article VII of the Treaty defines downstream power benefits as the
``difference in hydroelectric power capable of being generated in the
U.S. with and without the use of Canadian storage.''\7\ Going forward
post-2024, this is the wrong baseline. The appropriate level of value
returning to Canada after the initial 60-year agreement must be based
on the benefits of ongoing coordinated operations between the U.S. and
Canada-not on a comparison of conditions pre-and-post dam construction.
The Power Group supports a Canadian Entitlement that does not exceed
one-half of the actual incremental power benefit achieved through a
coordinated U.S./Canada operation as compared to non-coordinated
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Article VII(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the 60th anniversary of the Treaty draws closer, the U.S. and
Canada face an ideal opportunity to reevaluate the approach and
methodologies utilized to determine downstream power benefits (and
thus, the Canadian Entitlement). The current approach for determining
downstream power benefits is based on the following question: What are
the downstream power benefits resulting from the construction of the
Canadian storage projects compared to the operation of a U.S. power
system, as it stood prior to 1965, without the upstream Canadian
storage dams? This question, however, is outdated and irrelevant when
determining the Canadian Entitlement methodology that should apply on a
going-forward basis. As the Canadian storage is now in place, and will
continue to operate into the future, the fundamental approach to
Canadian Entitlement determination should be redirected towards clearly
determining the downstream power benefits resulting from a post-2024
Treaty assured operation (as opposed to the uncoordinated operation of
each country's hydropower system). Moreover, the important experience
gained and the lessons learned over the last five decades related to
shortcomings and problems with the methodologies currently employed in
the Canadian Entitlement determination should be strongly considered
and used to ensure a more equitable, flexible, and robust downstream
power benefit determination process exists going forward.
History has shown that no matter how sincere the effort to
appropriately calculate the Canadian Entitlement might have been, a
static formula based upon extrapolations of then-current conditions
into the future was not an optimal approach to ensuring fair and
equitable outcomes. The original methodology was not developed to
capture the actual realized downstream power benefits created by the
Treaty provisions so much as it was a compromise method that-based upon
then-current expectations about the future-might have been expected to
result in a fair ``price'' for each country relative to the benefits
each was expected to receive. During original Treaty negotiations,
there clearly was an expectation by both countries that the Canadian
Entitlement would end well before 2024. The current methodology was a
choice, based upon expert judgment in the early 1960s, that it would be
a reasonable approximation to the actual power benefits created by
Canadian storage based upon certain expectations as to how the future
would unfold. However, the future unfolded much differently than
expected.
Factors such as significantly lower than expected regional electric
load growth, greatly expanded opportunities to market non-firm
hydropower outside the region, a much wider slate of power supply
resource types available for consideration than existed at the time of
Treaty signing, and changing societal preferences regarding
environmental and cultural issues have greatly affected the
reasonableness of the current methods as an approximation of the actual
downstream power benefits resulting from the original Treaty
provisions, and thus the accuracy of the calculated Canadian
Entitlement. The result was the severe imbalance in benefits received
relative to costs paid by U.S. power consumers.
For these reasons, the Power Group believes that the U.S. Entity's
final recommendation to the State Department must clearly call out
these methodological deficiencies and delineate a path to rectify them.
The primary objective for the State Department in any Treaty
negotiation should be to ensure that after 2024, the U.S. should pay
Canada only one-half of the actual downstream power benefits of ongoing
coordinated operations.
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION REMAINS UNCLEAR
The Power Group appreciates the U.S. Entity's acknowledgement in
the Draft Recommendation that any expansion of the Treaty to include
ecosystem function must ``formalize, provide certainty, and build on
the many ecosystem actions already undertaken through annual or
seasonal mutual agreements between the countries.''\8\ The Power Group
is concerned, however, that the ecosystem function recommendation,
including programs under this Committee's jurisdiction, is vague and
offers little certainty and structure. Without additional details,
adding a sweeping and broad third primary purpose of the Treaty would
lead to conflicting obligations and priorities. Further, the Draft
Recommendation provides no explanation as to how an expanded Treaty
would fit in with the numerous environmental programs currently in
place within the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) and at the
generating projects of Power Group members. These uncertainties could
diminish, or threaten altogether, ecological benefits achieved after
years of detailed studies, tireless investigations and negotiations,
and at times, litigation. The uncertainties associated with ecosystem
function, as presented in the Draft Recommendation, create significant
risk to environmental resources and electric customers in the
Northwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Draft Recommendation at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members of the Power Group are proud of their environmental
stewardship and the progress that their significant efforts have made
in protecting and managing fish and wildlife resources. This is why, in
our prior comment letter, we urged the U.S. Entity to ``account for the
significant ecosystem stewardship actions taken to date.''\9\ By asking
for this recognition, Power Group members were not merely seeking
acknowledgement of our successful environmental programs, though it is
important for stakeholders to have a robust understanding of the
investments already undertaken. Rather, we are expressing concern that
proposals to inject ecosystem functions at the Treaty level could have
unintended consequences for existing, publicly developed programs in
the U.S. that represent significant investments for electric customers.
Treaty-mandated changes in flow regimes, fish passage operations, or
similar requirements could conflict or interfere with ongoing programs
in the Columbia River Basin and harm the very resources Treaty-imposed
ecosystem functions seek to protect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Power Group Comment at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Draft Recommendation acknowledges the ``[s]ignificant
efforts to address ecosystem concerns'' and that ``the region,
principally through its electric utility ratepayers, has invested
hundreds of millions of dollars annually to achieve ecosystem
improvements throughout the Basin,''\10\ the Draft Recommendation does
not actually account for these ongoing programs. Instead, the Draft
Recommendation only expresses a desire to ``expand, enhance, and
complement these existing ecosystem investments as part of the post-
2024 Treaty''\11\--without any accompanying analysis as to how this is
to be achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Draft Recommendation at 1.
\11\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, any final recommendation to the State Department related to
ecosystem function, including those under this Committees jurisdiction,
should carefully account for all ongoing efforts in the Basin, to
ensure that the recommendation does not inadvertently conflict with,
undermine, or disrupt these efforts--particularly those that were
developed in close consultation and negotiations with the public, many
members of the Sovereign Review Team, other federal and state resource
agencies and Tribes, and environmental advocacy groups. Such ongoing
programs include, for example:
The FCRPS Biological Opinion;
Requirements of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
licenses, Habitat Conservation Plans, and other permitted
activities of Power Group Members; and
The Columbia Basin Fish Accords.
An important role for the U.S. Entity, as the technical expert on
river operations, is to provide sideboards for this Treaty discussion
by describing the operational constraints of the existing Columbia
River system and its tributaries, their complexity, and the current
constraints relating to flood control and flow augmentation. In
addition, in order for this region to have a fuller understanding of
the cost and benefit of ecosystem proposals, the U.S. Entity should
provide insight into the costs, and the funding sources, for
contemplated ecosystem proposals.
In this regard, the Power Group appreciates the U.S. Entity's
recognition of the importance of the hydropower system to electric
customers in General Principle 8 of the Draft Recommendation.\12\ We
strongly support the statement that any modification to the Treaty
should not prevent the region from achieving its objective of reducing
U.S. power costs. In fact, General Principle 8 should specifically
state: ``The U.S. should rebalance the Canadian Entitlement and thereby
reduce power costs. Any other modifications should not undermine that
overall effect.'' Even more important is the ability to use the clean,
renewable hydroelectricity in the United States to meet customer needs,
and assist with integrating other renewable resources, rather than
sending an over-allocation of energy and capacity to Canada. Our
electric customers and the Northwest economy are sensitive to energy
prices, and residential electric customers and businesses have seen
substantial rate increases over the past several years. The Northwest
economy relies on the multiple uses of the Columbia River to support
the vibrant mix of technology, trade and agriculture that contributes
to this region's quality of life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the second sentence in General Principle 8, however,
the use of the word ``funding'' seems inappropriate if it is suggesting
that savings from a rebalanced Canadian Entitlement could be used to
purchase ecosystem measures. The currency of the Canadian Entitlement
is megawatts of hydropower energy and hydropower capacity. The
Bonneville Power Administration may lack statutory authority to
``spend'' the value of any rebalanced Canadian Entitlement payments on
new ecosystem issues. The Power Group recommends that the sentence be
restructured to ensure the reference to ``funding'' applies only to
``other sources,'' such as federal appropriations.
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION ISSUES
The Power Group offered the following comments to the U.S. Entity
in response to several specific ecosystem functions discussed in the
Draft Recommendation:
Cross-Border Flows: The Power Group believes that cross-
border flows with Canada may be an appropriate topic for
international discussions-specifically, the quantity and timing
of flows across the border. Such discussions, however, would
need to include sideboards. Changes in flows for ecosystem-
based functions, for example, would need to be based on
documented, scientifically proven analysis. Moreover, the
effects of changes in flow on ongoing ecosystem projects and
programs must be fully understood in order to prevent
unintended negative impacts. The Power Group remains concerned
that a shift in flows from winter to spring will reduce the
amount of useable hydroelectric energy and capacity,
potentially impact grid reliability, inhibit the system's
ability to integrate renewable generation and accelerate the
need for fossil-fuel capacity, and contribute to high levels of
total dissolved gas in the river during the spring migration
period.
It is also important for the U.S. Entity to differentiate between
cross-border flows and any other proposed flow augmentation
that would rely solely on changes to U.S. project operations.
Any discussion of flow augmentation that is not directly tied
to cross-border flow discussions must be considered a domestic
issue, and addressed in an appropriate domestic forum.
Non-Treaty Storage Agreements and Ecosystem Actions: There
may be advantages to both countries to bringing existing, non-
Treaty actions (such as the non-Treaty storage agreements) into
the Treaty discussions, with a goal of better integrating both
Treaty and Non-Treaty storage agreements that govern river
operations. The Power Group notes, however, that bringing
ecosystem issues into the Treaty may trigger a more formal
review and approval process.
Fish Passage at Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams: The
construction and operation of fish passage facilities in the
U.S. is a domestic issue, and should be addressed, if
warranted, through current domestic laws and regulations. On
this point, the Province of British Columbia's recent Draft BC
Recommendation states the following Principle: ``Salmon
migration into the Columbia River in Canada was eliminated by
the Grand Coulee Dam in 1938 (26 years prior to Treaty
ratification), and as such is not a Treaty issue. British
Columbia's perspective is that restoration of fish passage and
habitat, if feasible, should be the responsibility of each
country regarding their respective infrastructure.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ British Columbia, Columbia River Treaty Review Draft BC
Recommendation, Principle 11.
In addition, because the study of fish passage into Canada would be
subject to Congressional appropriations and authorizations, the Power
Group believes it is inappropriate even to include a reconnaissance
study in the Draft Recommendation. The Power Group has reservations
about being able to satisfy our goal of reducing U.S. power system
costs to our customers if fish passage at Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph
is included in the recommendations.
OTHER CHANGES TO THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ARE WARRANTED
In addition to the Canadian Entitlement and ecosystem function
issues described above, the Power Group believes the following changes
should be incorporated into the final recommendation to the State
Department:
Flood Risk Management: Public safety should continue to be a
high priority, and for this reason the Power Group believes
that a modernized framework for the Treaty should maintain
flood risk management similar to current levels. In addition,
funding for flood risk management should be consistent with
national flood risk policy of federal funding with applicable
local beneficiaries sharing those costs as appropriate.
Delivery of the Canadian Entitlement: The Power Group is
also concerned about transmission issues associated with the
return of the Canadian Entitlement, an issue that also must be
addressed in any renegotiated Treaty. As a result of the U.S.
Entity's decision not to build the Oliver-Chief Joseph
transmission line, the Canadian Entitlement energy has been
returned to Canada via transmission lines running through the
heavily-populated Puget Sound area. In recent decades, this has
created transmission congestion events and threatened service
reliability. The Power Group agrees with the Draft
Recommendation\14\ that the U.S. should seek a least-cost
transmission strategy with Canada for any power returned to
Canada after 2024, including reconsidering the flexibility of
the return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Draft Recommendation at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Change: Climate change is a recurring theme
throughout the Draft Recommendation, which calls for ``new
terms in the post-2024 Treaty to allow the adaptive management
of coordinated Treaty operations to better mitigate any impacts
associated with climate change.''\15\ The Power Group
recommends that any climate change ``adaptive management'' or
``mitigation'' activities respond to a demonstrable adverse
effect upon ecosystem resources or hydropower production
attributable to climate conditions, such as a long-term change
in flow patterns from baseline conditions, that can be
supported with the best available scientific information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrigation and Water Supply: Any changes in flow regime
under a renegotiated Treaty should not adversely affect
existing water rights established pursuant to federal or state
law. Any future decisions under the Treaty related to water
supply must include those holding existing water rights.
Navigation: In addition to hydropower operations, navigation
also would be affected by increased spring flows and lower fall
and winter flows. These changes could affect operational
restrictions and dredging required in the lower Columbia River
due to increased sediment distributions. To ensure that
navigation concerns are fully analyzed and considered, more
detailed study of the proposed shift in flow timing would be
necessary.
Domestic Matters to be Addressed Post-2013: The Power Group
should be represented in any Domestic Advisory Forum created by
the State Department. Our electric customers are responsible
for paying the value of the Canadian Entitlement to Canada, and
they will be directly impacted each year by a compounding lost
opportunity if the Canadian Entitlement is not rebalanced.
Additional Areas of Discussion for U.S. and Canada: The
working draft recommendation issued June 27, 2013 stated: ``If
unable to achieve agreement in principle on key aspects by
summer 2014, we recommend evaluating other options to create a
modernized post-2024 Treaty, such as starting from a clean
slate.''\16\ This statement is excluded from the current Draft
Recommendation. The Power Group strongly believes this language
should be reinserted in the final recommendation to the State
Department. The Treaty expressly recognizes the possibility of
termination following the initial 60-year term, and the Power
Group believes that the State Department should evaluate all
available options to protect the interests of the U.S. when
engaging with Canada on these important matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Working Draft Recommendation at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Draft Recommendation must place the Canadian Entitlement
``front-and-center'' as the primary international issue that can only
be addressed through the Treaty. Further, the Draft Recommendation
remains inappropriately vague in terms of proposed ecosystem function,
inviting uncertainty about the effects on hydropower operations and
existing environmental programs.
The Power Group also believes that a regional consensus that seeks
to rebalance the Canadian Entitlement and provides real return in value
to the U.S. electric system is in the best interest of all citizens of
the U.S., and particularly Northwest electric customers. At this time,
the Power Group supports concluding the Sovereign Review Team process.
Again, we appreciate the Committee's interest in this important
issue. I look forward to answering any questions that Committee members
may have either in oral testimony or in follow-up written form.
Columbia River Treaty Power Group Members
Alcoa Inc. Avista Benton PUD Benton Rural Electric
Association Blachly-Lane Electric Cooperative Canby Utility Board
Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Centralia City Light Central
Lincoln PUD Chelan County PUD City of Bonners Ferry City of
Cheney Clark Public Utilities Clatskanie People's Utility
Clearwater Power Company Columbia River PUD Columbia Rural Electric
Consumers Power Inc. Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative Cowlitz PUD
Douglas County PUD Douglas Electric Cooperative Emerald PUD
Eugene Water and Electric Board Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative
Ferry County PUD Flathead Electric Cooperative Franklin PUD
Glacier Electric Cooperative Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric
Authority Grant County PUD Grays Harbor PUD Harney Electric
Cooperative Idaho Consumer-Owned Utilities Association Idaho County
Light & Power Cooperative Idaho Falls Power Idaho Power Inland
Power and Light Company Kootenai Electric Cooperative Lewis County
PUD Lane Electric Cooperative Lincoln Electric Cooperative Lost
River Electric Lower Valley Energy Mason County PUD #1 Mason
County PUD #3 McMinnville Water and Light Midstate Electric
Missoula Electric Cooperative Monmouth Power & Light Nevada Rural
Electric Association Northern Lights, Inc. Northern Wasco County
PUD Northwest Requirements Utilities Okanogan County Electric
Cooperative Okanogan County PUD Orcas Power & Light Cooperative
Oregon Municipal Electric Utilities Association Oregon Rural Electric
Cooperative Association Pacific County PUD#2 PacifiCorp Pacific
Northwest Utilities Conference Committee Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association Pend Oreille County PUD #1 Peninsula Light Company
PNGC Power Portland General Electric Public Generating Pool
Public Power Council Puget Sound Energy Raft River Electric
Cooperative Ravalli County Electric Cooperative Richland Energy
Services Salem Electric Salmon River Electric Seattle City Light
Snohomish County PUD Springfield Utility Board Tacoma Power
Tillamook PUD Umatilla Electric Cooperative United Electric Co-op,
Inc. Vigilante Electric Cooperative Washington Public Utility
Districts Association Washington Rural Electric Cooperative
Association Wells Rural Electric Western Montana Generating &
Transmission Cooperative West Oregon Electric Cooperative
The Chairman. Thank you. Very good.
Mr. Semanko.
STATEMENT OF NORM SEMANKO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & GENERAL
COUNSEL, IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, BOISE, ID
Mr. Semanko. Mr. Chairman, committee members, Senator
Risch, appreciate the opportunity to be with you today to talk
about the Columbia River Treaty.
It took a while for us to, kind of, wrap our minds around
what this thing was and whether we should care about it and why
we should care about it. But we're there now. We certainly
appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the regional
process, to provide input through this comment process and
also, frankly, through the State of Idaho, Jim Yost, who is our
Power Conservation Council member sitting at the table on the
Bureau of Reclamation, who is also involved at that table.
We're not there. But we appreciate having them there and
having that opportunity to talk with them.
We also work closely with our sister organizations, the
Oregon Water Resource Congress and the Washington State Water
Resource Association. Their Executive Directors have asked me
to share their comments with you. I've submitted that for the
record along with my written statement. I hope that you'll have
time to take a look at that.
I want to touch on just a few points.
First of all, ecosystem based function.
The obvious lack, in our view, of any regional consensus
and I think as you review all the comments that have been
submitted to the U.S. entity, you'll see this. Regarding the
inclusion of ecosystem based function as a third primary
purpose, and that's important, of the treaty suggests strongly
that flood control and power production should remain the
primary purposes of the treaty. At the same time, it's
appropriate to recognize ecosystem based function as one of the
``important elements of a modernized treaty'' or additional
purposes in the Columbia River Basin.
However, and this is the important part, because unintended
consequences are what we're worried about. Ecosystem based
function should not receive greater recognition or stature
under the treaty than or adversely impact the other long
standing authorized purposes in the Basin including irrigation,
water supply, recreation and navigation.
Already this morning we've heard a difference of views from
the government panel about what including ecosystem based
function is. Is it a co-equal, primary purpose that's equal to
the other two and in fact needs to be listed first in the
treaty recommendation or is it to get it on the radar screen
where it has not been, as the Chairman astutely mentioned at
the beginning of this hearing? Those are two completely
different things.
As we've already heard here today the United States has
been able to cooperate with Canada to provide robust ecosystem
based function benefits under the treaty without formally
elevating the purpose above the other authorized purposes in
the Basin. If it becomes a primary purpose what more needs to
be added?
As a matter of Federal law under an approved treaty, if
this does go through that process, or whether it's through
protocols or exchanges and notes, what standing and what
unintended consequences have we now created? That's a very
important point.
While ecosystem based functioning is a recognized purpose
and other environmental laws need to be complied with the
treaty, should not be used as an independent mechanism to
provide for additional environmental regulations or
requirements. Such an end run would be inappropriate and unfair
to those in the Basin who are impacted by and pay the costs of
those efforts.
I want to mention, just for a minute, flood risk
management. This hasn't been discussed much this morning. The
Canadian entity has taken the position that beginning in 2024
all U.S. storage projects in the Basin must be utilized for
system wide flood control to demonstrate effective use before
Canadian reservoirs can be called upon. The U.S. entity has
provided a white paper identifying storage that would be
available in 8 projects where that storage is currently
available for system wide flood control. It appropriately
recognizes the limitations of authorizations on other projects.
The projects that we rely upon for irrigation, for storage
above Brownlee Reservoir in Idaho are authorized primarily for
irrigation. They're not part of the system wide flood control.
We think the U.S. has a right on this. We know the
Canadians have a different position and look forward to that
discussion occurring.
Finally, with regard to irrigation.
While it's appropriate to recognize the generic term of
water supply as an authorized purpose in the Basin. Irrigation,
which is more than just supplying water, it's growing crops to
feed the Nation and the world and to provide fiber as well. It
needs to be recognized specifically.
Irrigation for crop production and other purposes has a
long history throughout the Basin. Certainly with the Columbia
River Basin projects started about the time the treaty was
entered into, supported by Federal laws and water storage
projects.
In addition the final recommendation and I think that it
will now, should include additional detail to make clear that
allocation of any additional water coming from Canada is a
matter of State law, not Federal or international law. Congress
has always deferred to the states on allocation and management
of water. That should continue.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here and look forward to
answering any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Semanko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Norm Semanko, Executive Director & General
Counsel, Idaho Water Users Association, Boise, ID
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Wyden and members of the Committee, my name is Norm
Semanko. I am the Executive Director and General Counsel for the Idaho
Water Users Association (IWUA). I appreciate the opportunity to submit
this testimony on behalf of IWUA regarding the Draft Regional
Recommendation for the Columbia River Treaty.
IWUA is a non-profit corporation representing more than 300
irrigation districts, canal companies, water districts, ground water
districts, public and municipal water providers, hydroelectric
companies, aquaculture facilities, agribusinesses, professional firms
and individuals, dedicated to the wise and efficient use of our water
resources. Our members deliver irrigation water to more than two and a
half million acres. Many of our members also deliver water for
municipal and domestic uses throughout the State.
IWUA is affiliated with the National Water Resources Association,
of which I am a Past President and currently serve as Federal Affairs
Committee Chairman. I am also a past member of the Western States Water
Council, which advises the Western Governors' Association on water-
related matters, and a member of the Advisory Committee for the Family
Farm Alliance, a grass-roots organization representing farmers and
ranchers that receive water from Bureau of Reclamation projects in the
West.
IWUA works closely with its sister organizations in the States of
Oregon and Washington--the Oregon Water Resources Congress and the
Washington State Water Resources Association--on Columbia Basin issues,
including the Columbia River Treaty review. They have authorized me to
submit a copy of their recent comments on the Draft Regional
Recommendation with my written statement. I request that those comments
be included in the official hearing record, along with the comments
submitted by Idaho Water Users, which I have also submitted with my
written statement.
TREATY REVIEW PROCESS
IWUA appreciates the efforts of the U.S. Entity--the Bonneville
Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--to provide
an opportunity for review and comment on the Draft Regional
Recommendation, as well as the Working Draft earlier this year. We also
appreciate the role that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has played in
this process, as well as the State of Idaho. It has been important for
water users to have those voices at the table in the Sovereign Review
Team process.
IWUA has attended and participated in listening sessions, open
houses, webinars, and hearings on the Columbia River Treaty review in
Spokane, Grand Coulee Dam, Pasco, Portland and Boise. We have submitted
comments throughout the process, including general comments on the
Working Draft and very specific comments and suggested language changes
for the Draft Regional Recommendation. Those specific language changes
are included in the additional materials that I have submitted for the
record. Last week, we met with the U.S. Entity in Boise to discuss our
comments on the Draft Regional Recommendation.
IWUA urges the U.S. Entity and Department of State to continue the
dialogue with Columbia River Basin stakeholders, including IWUA, as the
process moves forward.
IDAHO WATER USERS COMMENTS
IWUA submitted joint comments on the Draft Regional Recommendation
with the Committee of Nine, which is the official advisory committee
for Water District 1, the largest water district in Idaho. A copy of
these comments has been submitted for the record with my written
statement. I will provide you with a brief overview of our concerns and
suggestions below, grouped by topic.
Idaho, as part of the arid-West, has always faced water supply
challenges. In the past, we have worked with the Bureau of Reclamation
to build great irrigation water storage and delivery projects including
the Minidoka and Palisades Projects of eastern Idaho, the Boise Project
on the Boise and Payette Rivers in the southwest part of the State, the
Owyhee Project, which we share with eastern Oregon, and the Lewiston
Orchards and Rathdrum Prairie Projects in North Idaho, along with
several others. This has allowed our part of the world to be irrigated
and bloom, providing food and fiber for the nation, and also providing
water for ranches and domestic users throughout the State. It is
critical that these supplies be protected as part of the Columbia River
Treaty review process.
Regional Goals for the Columbia River Treaty
The purpose of the Columbia River Treaty is to reduce impacts from
flooding and to increase power production. The U.S. has proposed
``modernizing'' the Treaty to include ecosystem-based function as a
third primary purpose of the Treaty, while recognizing other additional
elements such as future water supply, recreation and navigation needs.
Irrigation is another important, authorized purpose, which should be
expressly recognized in the final Regional Recommendation to the U.S.
Department of State.
The obvious lack of any regional consensus regarding the inclusion
of ecosystem-based function as a third primary purpose of the Treaty
suggests strongly that flood control and power production should remain
the primary purposes of the Treaty. At the same time, it is appropriate
to recognize ecosystem-based function as one of the ``important
elements of a modernized Treaty'', or additional purposes authorized in
the Columbia River Basin, as evidenced by the ongoing implementation of
the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. However,
ecosystem-based function should not receive greater recognition or
stature under the Treaty than, or adversely impact, the other long-
authorized purposes in the basin, including irrigation, water supply,
recreation and navigation.
As noted in the Draft Regional Recommendation, the United States
has been able to cooperate with Canada to provide ecosystem-based
function benefits under the current Treaty without formally elevating
this purpose above the other authorized purposes in the basin. We see
no need to make the dramatic change proposed in the Draft Regional
Recommendation and elevate ecosystem-based function above all of the
other authorized purposes in the basin. There is certainly no regional
consensus on that point.
Ecosystem-based Function
While ecosystem-based function is a recognized purpose in the
Columbia River Basin, pursuant to implementation of the Endangered
Species Act and other environmental laws, the Treaty should not be used
as an independent mechanism to provide for additional environmental
regulations or requirements. Flow augmentation and other forms of
ecosystem-based function are currently provided for pursuant to very
specific and rigorous adherence to environmental and conservation laws,
including extensive federal court litigation. The Treaty should not
frustrate or contradict those efforts, but it also should not be used
to expand current requirements. Such an ``end-run'' would be
inappropriate and unfair to those in the basin who are impacted by and
pay the costs of those efforts.
The Treaty should not place any additional burdens on U.S. water
and storage projects. U.S. environmental laws, including the Endangered
Species Act, have been implemented extensively in the Columbia River
Basin as the result of numerous listing of salmon and other species.
Various biological opinions issued by the National Marine Fisheries
Service have placed considerable constraints on federal water project
operations, including spill and flow augmentation. Agreements have been
entered into between various parties in the region, including States,
Tribes and those who operate or benefits directly from the federal
water projects. The Treaty should not be used as a vehicle to place
additional restrictions or limitations on these U.S. projects.,
including any proposed reintroduction of listed species.
In particular, Idaho Water Users, the Nez Perce Tribe, the State of
Idaho and the federal government are all parties to the historic Nez
Perce Water Rights Agreement of 2004, also referred to as the Snake
River Water Rights Settlement Agreement. The Agreement was approved by
Congress in 2004, as well as the State of Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe
during 2005. The Agreement, which has since been the basis for the
proposed actions of the federal agencies in the Upper Snake River Basin
above Brownlee Reservoir, provides the amount and method for obtaining
water for flow augmentation from federal water storage projects in the
area.
The Agreement has specifically been approved by Congress and must
be adhered to by the United States. There is no basis for adding to,
changing or adversely impacting the Agreement as part of the Treaty or
the review process. Any modification of Upper Snake River operations
may jeopardize the delicate balance struck between the parties in 2004,
as part of a 30-year agreement, which includes an option to renew for
an additional 30 years. We urge the U.S. Entity to affirmatively
recognize the Agreement and its provisions in the final Regional
Recommendation to the U.S. Department of State.
Flood Risk Management
The Canadian Entity has taken the position that, beginning in 2024,
all U.S. storage projects in the Columbia River Basin must be utilized
for system-wide flood control to demonstrate ``effective use'', before
Canadian reservoirs can be ``called upon'' to provide flood control
space.
The U.S. Entity previously prepared a white paper, identifying
storage that would be available for system-wide flood control in the
event of a ``called upon'' scenario post-2024. As part of this
analysis, appropriate consideration was given to the Congressionally
authorized purposes of the respective storage projects.
In particular, storage projects in the Upper Snake River Basin
above Brownlee Reservoir are not authorized for system-wide flood
control. They are authorized almost exclusively for irrigation, with
some hydroelectric, local flood control and other considerations
included in the various Congressional authorizations, as documented in
the U.S. Entity's white paper.
The U.S. Entity is correct to limit system-wide flood control
activities to those eight identified projects within the Columbia River
Basin that are specifically authorized for such purposes. On this
point, we believe there is a strong regional consensus. This limitation
should be expressly recognized and included in the U.S. Entity's final
recommendation to the Department of State.
Irrigation, Water Supply and State Water Law
While it is appropriate to recognize Water Supply as an authorized
purpose in the basin, irrigation should be specifically included, as
well. Irrigation for crop production and other purposes has a long
history throughout the basin, supported by federal laws and water
storage projects.
In addition, the final recommendation should include additional
detail to make clear that water allocation is a matter of state, not
federal or international, law. The federal government has a long and
purposeful history of deferring to the states on water allocation and
management. This should be specifically recognized and adhered to in
the final recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The water user community in Idaho is committed to seeing this
process through to the end. The potential consequences are too
important to leave to chance. We urge the U.S. Entity and the U.S.
Department of State to incorporate our suggestions into their future
work on the Treaty.
Chairman Wyden and members of the Committee, thank you once again
for the opportunity to provide this testimony regarding the Draft
Regional Recommendation for the Columbia River Treaty.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Meira.
STATEMENT OF KRISTIN MEIRA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC
NORTHWEST WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION (PNWA), PORTLAND, OR
Ms. Meira. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cantwell,
Senator Risch. I'm Kristin Meira. I'm the Executive Director of
the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide the navigation perspective on the
Columbia River Treaty.
As you know our Nation's economy relies on a safe,
efficient and cost effective, multimodal transportation system
that includes road, rail, air and water. The Columbia/Snake
River system is a critical piece of the Nation's water
infrastructure portfolio.
We're an export heavy system. We play a very important role
in balancing the Nation's trade deficit. We're the top export
gateway in the country for wheat. We're No. 2 in the country
for soy, No. 1 on the West Coast for wood exports and mineral
bulks, major import and export gateway for autos. This is a
significant navigation infrastructure asset.
We had over 42 million tons in international trade move
through the waterway in 2010 valued at over $20 billion and a
very conservative estimate of the number of jobs that are
reliant just on the deep draft, lower Columbia River channel
are 40 thousand. That's an old figure that should be updated.
We feel that this significant navigation infrastructure
asset should be considered when any changes are proposed for
how we manage water flow on the Columbia/Snake River system.
We've had substantial infrastructure investments in the deep
draft, lower Columbia River.
You're well aware of the channel deepening project that we
completed in the fall of 2010 that was a $200 million project.
We just had $60 million in new lock gates be installed on
our inland system.
We've had repairs to the jetties. We have more on the
horizon.
This is a system where the entire region has pulled
together and voted that this is an important transportation
gateway.
Navigation stakeholders are most concerned with the
assumption in the draft recommendation that existing spring and
summer flows should be augmented through an expansion of
existing treaty or present treaty agreements. Increased flows
equal increased shoaling which equals increased dredging costs.
The draft recommendation further suggests that these
increased flows would be accompanied by lower flows in the fall
and winter. This provides even less water over which to
navigate these increased shoals.
The most recent example we have of the impact of high flows
occurred in spring and summer of 2011. Within 6 months of the
completion of the Columbia River channel deepening project
these high flows resulted in severe shoaling that could not be
adequately addressed by the Corps existing funding and their
existing dredging program. As of last month a consistently
maintained 43 foot, lower Columbia River channel had still not
been provided and restored.
We've very concerned about the availability of funding to
address similar shoaling events which may result from any
changes to current river operations and current flows.
We're also very concerned about potential impacts to add
other navigation infrastructure. We have an extensive pile dike
system that helps to guide the Federal navigation channel and
guide the sediments. It's already in serious disrepair.
We're also very concerned about any potential weakening of
the base of the Columbia River jetties at the mouth of our
system. They've essentially been described as a cork in the
bottle. If we have an event at one of those Columbia River
jetties, that closes the entire system and the gates, all of
the investments that we've made over the years.
Higher flows that occur more frequently would also hinder
the efficiency and the safety of barging. High flows reduce the
number of barges that the towboats can safely handle in swift
currents. This impacts how our wheat flows and how our other
shipments move on the system.
High flows also impact whether our Columbia River pilots
are able to safely move deep draft vessels on the lower
Columbia River and bring them in to anchor.
All of this system needs to work together. We need to have
the flows that the navigation system has been built upon in
past decades.
I want to conclude by noting that we've met several times
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We sincerely appreciate
their dedication and the professionalism of both the Corps and
BPA, who've been tasked in coordinating this significant
regional effort.
I will note though that navigation, of course, has not been
part of the sovereign review team. We would encourage greater
stakeholder participation in the future to ensure that we're
capturing all these potential impacts to any proposed changes
that the region considers.
I'll finish by noting that we strongly support a vibrant
river system that includes all the benefits we enjoy including
to our fish. We look forward to being a part of the
conversation going forward.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Meira follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kristin Meira, Executive Director, Pacific
Northwest Waterways Association (PNWA), Portland, OR
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
Good morning. My name is Kristin Meira and I am the Executive
Director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, or PNWA. PNWA
is a non-profit trade association that advocates for federal policies
and funding in support of regional economic development. Our membership
includes over 130 public ports, navigation, transportation, trade,
tourism, agriculture, forest products, energy and local government
interests in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and northern California.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide the perspective of the
navigation community in the Northwest as it relates to the Columbia
River Treaty.
BACKGROUND ON THE COLUMBIA SNAKE RIVER SYSTEM
Our nation's economy relies on a safe, efficient and cost-effective
multi-modal transportation system. That system includes road, rail, air
and water.
The Columbia Snake River System is a critical piece of the nation's
water portfolio, providing benefits not just to the Pacific Northwest,
but far into the heartland of our country. We are an export heavy
system, and play an important role in balancing the nation's trade
deficit. The Columbia River is the nation's number one gateway for the
export of wheat and barley, and when you consider the movement of soy
and other grains, our river system is the third largest grain export
gateway in the world. We also lead the West Coast on wood exports and
mineral bulk exports.
The Columbia Snake River System is essentially a river highway. It
includes our 105-mile deep draft Columbia River channel from Astoria to
Portland, Oregon. From there, a 360-mile inland barging channel
stretches from Portland, Oregon to Lewiston, Idaho, with a series of
eight locks along the way. These are the highest lift locks in the
United States, and are among the highest in the world, with the John
Day lock topping out at 110 feet. There are also three large jetties at
the Mouth of the Columbia, hundreds of pile dikes, and many other
critical pieces of federal and port-owned infrastructure which ensure
safe navigation and the free flow of trade.
Over 42 million tons of international trade moved on this waterway
in 2010, valued at over $20 billion. A conservative estimate of the
jobs directly tied to the deep draft navigation channel finds that
40,000 individuals rely on this waterway for their livelihood. This
economic benefit is expected to increase in the future, supporting even
more jobs as additional companies make use of the river system.
This waterway is a significant federal navigation infrastructure
asset, and any potential changes which may impact its efficiency should
be evaluated thoroughly. Substantial federal investments have been made
in both the deep draft Lower Columbia River as well as the inland
barging channel and locks. The most recent examples include the $200M
Columbia River channel deepening project, $60M for three new downstream
lock gates on the inland system, and significant Columbia River jetty
repairs. A major rehabilitation of the Columbia River jetties is on the
horizon, along with additional lock investments and ongoing annual
maintenance dredging on the Lower Columbia and at the Mouth of the
Columbia.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY CONCERNS
Despite the national significance of navigation on the Columbia
Snake River System, the current Draft Regional Recommendation contains
only two sentences devoted to this authorized purpose. The navigation
community has repeatedly urged the Entity to recognize the connected
nature of flood risk management, flows for ecosystem benefit, and the
ability to provide the federally authorized navigation channel and
river conditions which will allow for safe and reliable navigation.
Of particular concern is Section One in the ``Domestic Matters to
be Addressed Post-2013'' section, which highlights the purported
agreement by the Sovereign Review Team that ``greater ecosystem flows''
are desirable and should be examined. The note that ``if a process is
initiated, it will be a comprehensive approach, subject to public
input, that addresses all opportunities to manage high flow events,
including floodplain management, Columbia Basin reservoir operations,
and strategic improvements to existing levees and the need for
additional levees'' leaves out any mention of impacts to navigation,
and potential mitigation measures. This is a major oversight, and must
be corrected.
Navigation stakeholders are most concerned with the assumption in
the Draft Recommendation that existing spring and summer flows should
be augmented through an expansion of present Treaty agreements. These
augmented flows will increase shoaling which will, in turn, increase
dredging costs. The document further posits that these increased flows
would be accompanied by lower flows in the fall and winter. This will
provide even less water over which to navigate these increased shoals.
Navigation stakeholders have repeatedly expressed their concern with
higher flows in the spring and summer, and lower flows in the fall and
winter. Their concerns focus on both increased commercial handicap and
decreased operational safety.
The ``ecosystem flows'' referred to throughout the Draft
Recommendation are accompanied by no scientific explanation or
reference. These suggested ``ecosystem flows'' may have significant
impacts on navigation and navigation structures on the Columbia Snake
River System. Navigation stakeholders have had the opportunity to meet
with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff and contractors to provide
feedback, and to urge a more comprehensive evaluation of the potential
impacts to navigation. We strongly encourage the U.S. Entity and
Sovereign Review Team to take into further consideration the following
concerns.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECTS
When evaluating the costs and benefits to the federal government
for any changes to current river operations, our membership strongly
encourages the U.S. Entity to fully capture the potential costs to
existing federal navigation programs. Of particular concern is the
increased sedimentation that will inevitably occur on the Columbia
Snake River System with an increase in spring and summer flows. The
most recent example of the impact of high flows was experienced by the
region in 2011. Within six months of the Columbia River channel
deepening completion in November 2010, high river flows in 2011
resulted in severe shoaling that could not be adequately addressed by
the level of funding provided to the Corps of Engineers' federal
dredging program. As of October 2013, a consistently maintained 43'
channel has still not been restored. We are concerned about the
availability of funding to address similar shoaling events which may
result from changes to river operations.
Stakeholders have additional concerns regarding potential impacts
to other federal navigation infrastructure. The Columbia River pile
dike system which helps guide the federal navigation channel and the
movement of sediment is already in serious disrepair. This system would
likely be undermined by higher flows that occur with greater frequency.
Our membership is also very concerned about any potential weakening of
the base of the Columbia River jetties, the rubble-mound structures
that protect the entrance to the system from powerful Pacific storms. A
seven-year, $257 million jetty rehab project will hopefully begin in
2014. Any impact to the jetty structures below the waterline would be
devastating and costly to the ports and communities along the 465-mile
Columbia/Snake river channel, and to a critical national transportation
infrastructure investment.
ABILITY TO SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY NAVIGATE
The ability of Northwest businesses to compete in international
markets relies on timely and cost-effective transportation of goods on
the river. Higher flows that occur more frequently will also hinder
safe navigation, as well as the efficiency of barging in the federal
navigation channel. High flows reduce the number of barges that can be
safely handled by a towboat in swift currents, including around the
dams where spill operations may be in effect. Higher flows for longer
periods of time will undermine the ability of barge operators to move
full tows, which will impact shipments of Northwest agricultural
products, petroleum, and all other cargo handled on the Columbia Snake
River System. Detailed information from the Northwest towboat community
has been provided to the Corps on this issue.
PNWA members are also concerned about the impact flows may have on
deep-draft ship handling on the Lower Columbia River. Higher flows may
impact vessel handling, transit time, and the ability to safely anchor.
Additionally, lower flows will exacerbate the lack of available draft
that is already occurring on the Lower Columbia River. Operating the
river at a lower level for extended periods will have significant
adverse impacts to the regional economy, and will reduce the ability of
U.S. growers and manufacturers to compete in international markets.
While we realize the flows being modeled may be within the
authorized operating ranges of storage projects, these flows will
represent a significant departure from the historic highs and lows
anticipated by the navigation community on the river system. It is
critical to assess the full economic impacts to each part of the river
system before institutionalizing a new regime of higher high flows and
lower low flows.
In earlier meetings with the U.S. Entity, navigation stakeholders
have requested analysis of the potential impacts to the Corps' federal
dredging program and other infrastructure, which are very likely to
occur if changes to the current approach for managing spring high flows
and fall low flows are pursued. We have reviewed this analysis, and
noted that several of the flood control approaches being modeled by the
U.S. Entity would result in an increased occurrence of flows which have
historically presented significant challenges to safe navigation and
the Corps' ability to maintain the deep draft Lower Columbia River
navigation channel.
To date, the potential financial impacts to the Corps dredging
program have not been evaluated. Given the significance of this
navigation infrastructure to the Northwest and the nation, we feel it
is critical to quantify how much additional federal funding will be
required to maintain the deep draft Columbia River if changes are
proposed to the current approach to managing flows on the river system.
Failure to capture these increased costs would result in an incomplete
picture of the burdens which would be shouldered by the U.S. taxpayer
after 2024.
We have met several times with the U.S. Entity since autumn 2012.
However, our participation has been limited, as the navigation
community is not part of the Sovereign Review Team of federal agencies,
states and tribes who are guiding development of the U.S. Entity
recommendation. Greater stakeholder involvement in future Columbia
River Treaty discussions and decision-making forums is essential to
understanding comprehensive impacts to navigation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I welcome any questions
you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Haller.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY HALLER, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, PACIFIC
RIVERS COUNCIL
Mr. Haller. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski,
Senator Cantwell and Senator Risch, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024
Review Process.
My name is Gregory Haller. I'm the Conservation Director
for the Pacific Rivers Council or PRC. PRC is based in
Portland, Oregon. We're a regional conservation group that
works throughout the Columbia Basin in Northern California to
protect rivers, their watersheds and the native aquatic species
that depend on high quality, functioning ecosystems.
On the main points of my testimony, notably for modernizing
the treaty by including ecosystem function as a third primary
purpose, I also speak today for the Columbia River Treaty
Conservation Caucus consisting of environmental and renewable
energy advocacy organizations with several million members
nationwide and tens of thousands in the Northwest.
In my testimony this morning I will discuss 5 issues for
your consideration.
Support for modernizing the treaty with ecosystem function.
Opportunities to enhance ecosystem function through a Basin
wide review of flood risk management.
Our view on the Canadian entitlement.
Issues with calls for additional flows for out of stream
purpose.
Expanding the U.S. entity to include a representative for
ecosystem function in the process moving forward.
PRC and the Conservation Caucus support the U.S. entity's
inclusion in its draft recommendation to the Department of
State that modernizing the Columbia River Treaty with Canada is
in the best interest of the United States, the millions of
people that rely on the river and of the Columbia River
ecosystem. The elevation of ecosystem function as a primary
purpose of a modernized treaty, along with flood control and
power, accurately reflects the high value that citizens of the
Pacific Northwest place on the health of the river and is
consistent with nationally held opinions about how society
should manage its interaction with the environment as evidenced
by environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and
the Clean Water Act.
Because ecosystem based function was not addressed when the
current treaty was enacted in 1964 modernizing the treaty
represents a rare opportunity to positively reflect the river
ecosystem at the Basin scale through a comprehensive public
planning process. Such an effort would integrate new analysis
of flood risk management under predicted climate change
scenarios with an assessment of how renewable and conventional
energy sources will affect the demand for and the use of power
produced at Federal dams on the Columbia. This will help to
determine the degree to which flows can be enhanced in the
spring and summer, particularly in dry years where target flows
for migratory fish are regularly not met and water temperatures
are dangerously high for extended periods during the critical
pre-spawning timeframe.
Further the planning process would involve a review of the
adequacy of existing flood control infrastructure and an
assessment of where plains can safely be reconnected to the
river.
Because the Army Corps position is that it will not move
forward with such a review absent Congressional authorization,
we urge the Congress to direct the Corps to perform this
review.
Absent a modernized treaty the Army Corps will default the
flood risk strategies that may require larger and more frequent
draw downs at Lake Roosevelt and perhaps all U.S. storage
reservoirs including non-treaty dams such as Dworshak and
Brownlee. Such operations would adversely impact anadromous and
resident fish, recreation, riverbank stability, cultural
resources and public safety and could limit system capability
to provide needed spring and summer flows for salmon. Further
it could jeopardize operations at Dworshak Dam develop pursuant
to the Nez Perce water rights agreement and designed to enhance
flows and lower temperature in the Snake River in the critical
summer period when both ESA listed juvenile and adult Chinook
and steelhead are present.
Treaty negotiations should proceed with full understanding
and respect for these operations.
Given that ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest enjoy some
of the lowest electric rates in the Nation, the United States
must be cautious in its approach to suggestions that reducing
or eliminating the Canadian entitlement to be a primary driver
in treaty negotiations or as a basis to terminate the treaty to
avoid power deliveries. The significance of entitlement power
deliveries as an inducement to British Columbia and Canada to
negotiate changes to the treaty that the U.S. may seek should
not be underestimated, particularly when Canada can point to
other benefits provided to the U.S. from operations of Canadian
treaty dams.
Moving forward an ecosystem expert should be added to the
U.S. entity to better prepare for negotiations with Canada and
to implement the treaty for today's Northwest. This could
include a third agency or sovereign in the U.S. entity co-equal
to Bonneville Power and the Army Corps of Engineers for both
negotiations and implementation of the treaty. We suggest that
either the 15 Columbia Basin tribes along with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, NOAA fisheries or the Environmental
Protection Agency be co-managers of ecosystem based function.
While there are some differences that may remain unresolved
among the region's stakeholders, states and Native American
Indian tribes about the shape of the final recommendation,
these differences should not be interpreted as a reason not to
proceed with negotiations with Canada. Rather these differences
merely highlight the importance and complexity of the many
values the Columbia provides to society.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory Haller, Conservation Director, Pacific
Rivers Council
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Columbia
River Treaty 2014/2024 Review process. My name is Gregory Haller, and I
am the Conservation Director for the Pacific Rivers Council. The
Pacific Rivers Council is a regional river conservation group, located
in Portland, Oregon, which works throughout the Columbia Basin and
northern California to protect rivers, their watersheds and the native
aquatic species that depend on functioning, high quality ecosystems. On
the main points of my testimony, notably for modernizing the Treaty by
including ecosystem function as a third primary purpose, I also speak
today for the Columbia River Treaty Conservation Caucus, consisting of
environmental and renewable energy advocacy organizations with several
million members nationwide, and tens of thousands in the Northwest.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Columbia River Treaty Conservation Caucus consists of
Pacific Rivers Council, Save our Wild Salmon, Waterwatch of Oregon, The
Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Sierra Club, NW Energy
Coalition and Earthjustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORT FOR MODERNIZING THE TREATY WITH ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION AS A PRIMARY
PURPOSE
The Pacific Rivers Council and Columbia River Treaty Conservation
Caucus support the U.S. Entity's conclusion in its Draft Recommendation
to the U.S. Department of State that modernizing the Columbia River
Treaty with Canada is in the best interest of the United States, the
millions of people that rely on the river and the Columbia River
ecosystem. We commend the U.S. Entity for recommending ecosystem
function as a primary purpose of the Treaty, along with flood risk
management and power supply. The elevation of ecosystem function as a
primary purpose accurately reflects the high value that citizens of the
Pacific Northwest place on the health of the Columbia River and is
consistent with nationally held opinions about how society should
manage its interaction with the environment, as evidenced by
environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the
Clean Water Act (CWA). It also reflects the reality in today's
Northwest that ecosystem health and economic health are inextricable.
Because Ecosystem-based Function was not addressed when the current
Treaty was enacted in 1964, modernizing the Treaty represents a rare
opportunity to positively affect the river ecosystem at the basin scale
through a comprehensive, public planning process. This effort should
integrate new analysis of flood risk management under predicted climate
change scenarios with an assessment of the how renewable and
conventional energy sources will affect the demand for and use of power
produced at the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) in order to
determine the degree to which flows can be enhanced in the spring and
summer, particularly in dry years, where target flows for migratory
fish are regularly not met and water temperatures are dangerously high
for extended periods during the critical pre-spawning timeframe.\2\
Further, it will involve a review of the adequacy of existing flood
control infrastructure and an assessment of where floodplains can
safely be reconnected with the river.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This summer, the reach of the lower Columbia River that
includes The Dalles and John Day Dams experienced water temperatures of
70 degrees (or above) for 56 straight days. This previews coming years,
when this year's highest temperature, 73.2 degrees at John Day Dam on
September 11, will be the new norm that portends an unhealthy river
pushing salmon to extinction. The Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River
experiences temperatures well above 70 degrees into September,
dangerously high for ESA-listed fall Chinook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the fact that 38% of the Columbia's average annual flow and
50% of the peak flow originates in Canada,\3\ the United States has
little choice but to seek modernization of the Treaty in order to
continue coordinated river management to maximize the benefits that the
three primary purposes of a modernized treaty will provide to the
citizens in the U.S side of the basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Shurts, J. 2012. Rethinking the Columbia River Treaty. In B.
Cosens, editor. The Columbia River Treaty revisited: transboundary
river governance in the face of uncertainty. Oregon State University
Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of dam building throughout the Basin, the Columbia
River is now a highly fragmented and mechanized system, with degraded
habitat and water quality and large areas of river inaccessible to
anadromous fish. The sharply reduced populations of salmon and lamprey
have imposed a substantial burden on communities throughout the region
that rely on these species for recreation, cultural heritage, food and
economic purposes. Recent returns of Columbia River fall Chinook, which
are not listed under the Endangered Species Act, are cause for
celebration, but these runs are the result of good ocean conditions and
the court-ordered spill program at the Columbia and lower Snake River
dams. Because there is still no lawful federal plan to restore
endangered Columbia-Snake salmon and steelhead, and because all but one
of ESA-listed stocks are still far below levels needed for recovery,
there is still much work to be done, particularly regarding flow
management, improving river temperatures, which are dangerously high in
both the Snake and Columbia rivers during the summer and early fall,
restoring habitat, improving passage for lamprey, reconnecting
floodplains and restoring salmon to areas now blocked by dams.
Modernization of the Treaty will allow the region to address some of
these issues by integrating strategies more consistent with regional
salmon recovery and ecosystem health goals. Salmon recovery is only one
component of a healthy Columbia River ecosystem, but it is a very
important one.
Absent a modernized Treaty, the Army Corps of Engineers must
demonstrate that is has ``effectively used'' all U.S storage capacity
for system flood control before it can ``call upon'' Canadian
reservoirs for additional storage. Proceeding with this type of flood
risk management may require larger and more frequent drawdowns at Lake
Roosevelt and perhaps at all U.S. storage reservoirs, including non-
treaty dams such as Dworshak and Brownlee. Such operations would
adversely impact anadromous and resident fish, recreation, riverbank
stability, cultural resources and public safety and could limit system
capability to provide needed spring and summer flows for salmon.
Further, it could jeopardize operations at Dworshak Dam, developed
pursuant to the Nez Perce Water Rights Agreement, and designed to
enhance flows and lower temperature in the Snake River in the critical
late summer period when both ESA-listed juvenile and adult Chinook are
present.\4\ Treaty negotiations should proceed with full understanding
and respect for these operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Mediators Term Sheet, Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power production under a modernized Treaty must account for and
promote development of non-carbon energy sources in the Northwest,
including conservation and renewable resources, consistent with the
region's goals as stated in the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council's Sixth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan. Energy
efficiency and new renewables are the dominant growth areas in the
region's energy supplies. Based on expanded power production model, the
United States and Canada should re-evaluate the division of surplus
power generation between the two nations.
The Canadian Entitlement
Though we acknowledge the concern about the calculation and size of
power deliveries made to Canada pursuant to the current Treaty, we
strongly believe that calls to terminate the Treaty as a negotiation
tactic in order to reduce the so-called Canadian Entitlement are
shortsighted. The United States must be cautious in its approach to
suggestions that reducing or eliminating the Canadian Entitlement be a
primary driver in Treaty negotiations, or as a basis to terminate the
Treaty to avoid power deliveries. The significance of entitlement power
deliveries as an inducement to British Columbia and Canada to negotiate
changes to the Treaty that the U.S may seek should not be
underestimated, particularly when Canada can point to other benefits
provided to the U.S. from operations of Canadian Treaty dams, including
predictability of hydropower forecasting, flood control, recreation,
navigation, water supply and ecosystem benefits. The U.S. analysis that
has been done to determine what the cost of termination would be to the
United States in reduced hydropower flexibility, and in resorting to
``called upon'' flood control is based upon assumptions of how Canada
might operate in the absence of the Treaty, this should be a bilateral
analysis. See http://www.crt2014-2024review.gov/Files/Final--Report--
No--Treaty--Canadian--Operations.pdf. Canada estimates the benefits to
the US of flood control over the lifetime of the current Treaty at $32
billion, and in 2012 alone at over $2 billion.\5\ Those numbers do not
address the enormous economic benefit of predictable hydropower
management, recreation, navigation, water supply and ecosystem
benefits, Therefore, this issue, while important, should not be given
undue weight moving forward, but should be fully examined in a
transparent process to determine its role in modernizing the Treaty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Province of British Columbia, ``U.S. Benefits from the Columbia
River Treaty-Past, Present, and Future: A Province of British Columbia
Perspective,'' June 25, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our view, the most critical issue facing residents and users of
the Columbia River and its tributaries over coming decades is not
dividing up money or seeking to protect current power and flood
management operations. Weathering and adapting to climate change will
be the major issue on the Columbia. The Northwest is far better placed
to tackle this very difficult economic and environmental transition if
ecosystem function is included in the Columbia River Treaty.
WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATION
PRC is concerned by calls from states and irrigators, and as
acknowledged by the Draft Recommendation, for a process to allocate
additional water from Canada for out-of-stream uses. Given existing
streamflow deficits, allocating additional spring and summer flows for
out-of-stream uses would be inconsistent with the elevation of
ecosystem function as a primary purpose of a modernized Treaty. Only
after instream uses are fully supported should analysis of consumptive
uses be considered. Further, the Canadian government has already
signaled that water supply is one of the many benefits it should be
compensated for, and therefore, any additional out-of-stream use will
be viewed as an additional benefit requiring additional compensation.
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN FLOOD RISK POLICY REVIEW
In order to improve the health of the river's ecosystem and fulfill
the promise of a modernized Treaty with ecosystem function as a primary
purpose, a basin-wide assessment of flood risk management and how to
best modernize it for the era of climate change is required. Only with
such an assessment can the region move forward with confidence that
flows can be increased without jeopardizing public health or property.
The analysis should include an assessment of current flood control
infrastructure and funding for the integration of modern precipitation
and runoff forecasting techniques into seasonal planning processes.
Flood risk management based on monthly forecasts has often resulted in
unnecessarily large reservoir drawdowns and missed refill targets,
resulting in diminished flows for anadromous fish and higher river
temperatures. With improved forecasting and modeling, reservoirs can
safely be maintained at higher levels to aid both anadromous and
resident fish species. Maintaining reservoirs at higher levels also
enhances recreational opportunities and protects Native American
cultural resources. Because the Army Corps' current position is that
the agency will not move forward with a basin-wide flood risk
management review absent congressional authorization, we strongly urge
Congress, particularly Northwest members of Congress, to direct the
Corps, to perform this review, using the best available science in a
fully transparent and public process.
Modernizing flood risk management offers the region a unique
opportunity to address the challenges of climate change. Climate change
will manifest in the Pacific Northwest as decreased snowpack, shorter
and earlier runoff periods and elevated summer river temperatures.
Improvements in Treaty-based operations can help to mitigate these
issues by providing additional flow and temperature benefits during the
summer months.
A REPRESENTATIVE FOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION IN THE U.S. ENTITY
An ecosystem-expert should be added to the U.S. Entity, to better
prepare for negotiations with Canada and to better implement this 50-
year Treaty for today's Northwest. The Treaty process should include a
third agency or sovereign in the U.S. Entity, co-equal to Bonneville
Power and the Army Corps of Engineers, for both negotiations on and
implementation of the Treaty. We suggest that the 15 Columbia Basin
Tribes, along with appropriate federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries, and the Environmental Protection
Agency, should be co-managers of ecosystem-based function.
In closing, PRC, and the Treaty Coalition of fishing and
conservation groups, believes that modernizing the Treaty to include
Ecosystem Function as a primary purpose is in the best interest of the
United States and the Columbia River's ecosystem and economy. We
believe the Draft Recommendation lays a solid foundation to begin
negotiations with Canada. We also appreciate the commitment made by
Deputy Assistant Secretary Mathew Rooney during the recent listening
sessions held by the US Entity and the State Department that PRC would
be invited to participate in the negotiation process as it relates to
Ecosystem Function. We believe that while some differences may remain
unresolved among the region's stakeholders, states, and Native American
Indian Tribes about the shape of the final Recommendation, these
differences should not be interpreted by the U.S. Department of State
as reason not to proceed with negotiations with Canada. Rather, these
differences merely highlight the importance and complexity of the many
values the Columbia provides to society.
The Chairman. Thank you.
We wanted to have this panel because you are, sort of, a
microcosm of the debate about resources in the Pacific
Northwest. I mean, you 4 really bring, front and center, the
debate about jobs, which, of course, we care about because our
economy has been hard hit in the Pacific Northwest. ratepayers
and the 3 of us here, Northwest Senators, have been talking
about that and then salmon.
I mean let's just stipulate right at the beginning that
this whole question about ecosystem function is really code for
salmon protection. That's really what this issue is all about.
I had a chance to look at your statements and I will tell you I
think the premium is going to be trying to find ways that you
can advance your interests in a way that's going to be
compatible with some of the interests of the other stakeholders
that are at this table and in the Pacific Northwest.
For example, Ms. Meira, I think you know I also Chair the
Finance Subcommittee on International Trade. You know, I think
that trade and shipping is practically in our chromosomes.
Senator Cantwell and I have teamed up often for market opening
kind of agreements. Why not if 6 jobs in Oregon depends on
international trade, the trade jobs pay better than do the non-
trade jobs?
So the question is going to be can we find some ways in
this agreement to better protect navigation that Mr. Haller and
people who care about fish are also going to be on the program
for?
So that's going to be the premium for you four.
I was very interested. Maybe we'll start with you, Mr.
Semanko. You said that you didn't want to have ecosystem
function as a treaty purpose, but in your prepared statement
you said there were other ways to address the issue.
If you feel like it, tell me what the other ways are to
address the issue because maybe we can find a way to bring this
in to the agreement.
Mr. Caan, same with you. You were concerned about the
additional cost from ecosystem function. The question is going
to be are there some activities that can promote, you know,
salmon, that you all can live with. Because it goes right to
that triangle of jobs and rates and fish protection.
So for any of you who would like to talk about some fresh
ideas for advancing your interests, whether it's navigation,
public power conservation, that also reach out to some of the
other stakeholders, that's going to be the premium. I invite
any of you 4 who'd like to take a crack at that.
You want to do it, Mr. Semanko?
Mr. Semanko. Sure.
The Chairman. You said there were other ways to protect
fish.
Mr. Semanko. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Other than the traditional approach of
another purpose in the treaty.
Mr. Semanko. I appreciate that. I must say I appreciate the
bipartisan/nonpartisan manner within which you're approaching
these issues as you have hydropower and other issues.
The Chairman. By the way, when we're talking about bringing
stakeholders together in the Pacific Northwest, the gentleman,
who has, sort of, written the book on that is Senator Risch,
who, as you know, you know, has a degree in forestry and he has
really done a good job over the years of environmentalist and
timber industry people.
So this is not something that's new to us. But if we're
going to advance the multiple interests that we have in the
Pacific Northwest, the premium is going to be on people who can
advance purposes that they feel strongly about that the other
stakeholders are going to come together on.
So we'll give you the first crack at it.
Mr. Semanko. Absolutely. As you said, the river is the life
blood of our region. It's not a partisan issue. It's something
that we all rely upon.
I think it goes back to what you said at the beginning of
the hearing that ecosystem function should be included but it
needs to be clearly defined and limited. So as an example
when--and Mr. Haller referenced this, when we entered into the
historic Nez Perce water rights agreement, the Federal
Government, the State of Idaho, the Nez Perce nation, the water
users. That agreement was heard in this committee room and
approved by this committee in 2004 and included in the Omnibus
Appropriations bill that was signed into law later that year.
We all knew, with clarity, for the next 30 years what we
were signing up for. The amount of flow augmentation we were
going to provide. How it was going to be provided, under what
State laws, under what local rental pool procedures. Those are
the kinds of things that we need.
But the Oregon Water Resource Congress observed it in their
comments as well. The problem with ecosystem based function
being included as a primary purpose is it becomes this
overriding gloss that's laid on top of the treaty without any
specificity.
When I'm talking to the U.S. entity and they were in Boise
last week. We talked about what exactly do you want? Let's look
at the 6 things that are listed under ecosystem.
You want better, firmer, longer term assurances from Canada
that Canada will do certain things. Say that. Put that in the
treaty.
But leaving the ability for others in the region to
interpret this change to mean that we are going to go outside
the bounds of domestic environmental laws beyond what's already
required under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act,
which is incredibly huge already. That's the danger that we
see. That this, as an international treaty, will now expand the
obligations even beyond what's required and what's well
understood in some cases like under the Nez Perce agreement.
The Chairman. So would it be fair to summarize what you're
saying is that you're open to some specific language with
respect to salmon protection? You just don't want something
open-ended that goes to this ecosystem function that might be
misinterpreted.
Is that accurate?
Mr. Semanko. Mr. Chairman, that's exactly right.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Semanko. I'll go so far as to say in the materials that
we submitted we provided red line changes to the
recommendation. We didn't just bark and moan and vent. We
provided specific recommendations.
Things like we can do these things provided that they don't
adversely impact the other authorized uses on the river, that
kind of language. So yes, absolutely, we are trying to play
within the rule.
The Chairman. I never saw you in the barking and moaning
caucus.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. You know, I think this is tough stuff.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. If you want to take on my friend, your
Senator, it's your Constitutional right.
Mr. Semanko. No.
The Chairman. But the point is this is heavy lifting. This
is what we do in the Pacific Northwest. We've got jobs over
here. We need more of them. We need good paying ones.
We got ratepayers over here. As Senator Risch and I thrash
around on a bunch of these, we also have certain environmental
values. I mean, those are in our chromosomes, too, protecting
fish and thinking about our resources.
So I think that your point is well made, Mr. Semanko. We're
going to follow it up.
Anybody else for the purposes of coalition building?
Ms. Meira.
Ms. Meira. OK, I'll jump in.
The Chairman. The first bill that I wrote back when I was a
legislator and had a full head of hair and rugged good looks
and all that was working with you all on the Bonneville lock.
Ms. Meira. Yes.
The Chairman. Because that was important to the shipping. I
don't think most of your members even knew anything about me.
They said who's that Gray Panther kid? What's he talking to us
about?
So we worked often with you all.
So tell us a little bit about shipping. How we can promote
your interests and have them intersect with some of these other
kinds of questions?
Ms. Meira. Understood. Thank you again for Bonneville lock.
I think that was 1993 that that was installed.
The Chairman. Thank the late Senator Hatfield. I was just
the kid partner.
Ms. Meira. Yes.
I think the ports in the navigation community in the
Northwest recognizes that we do things differently in our
region. That's a good thing. We all care deeply about how the
system is run because we're all living on it. We're working on
it.
I think the question that the navigation community has had
is what do we need to be doing that's beyond what our agencies
and what our colleagues are doing now? If we need to be doing
something more why aren't we already doing it?
If we're looking for more through those treaty negotiations
well why isn't it happening already through the buy op or
through all the other processes that we have going that we all
support?
We come back here to talk and to request funding, not just
for navigation projects but we're advocating for the Corps
salmon recovery budget and other things.
If we're not already doing it in the region why are we
talking about doing more in 2024? Why isn't it a part of the
conversation today?
So when we think about the ecosystem function and that
becoming a part of the treaty conversations that's what we
continue coming back to. If more is desired why aren't we
already talking about it through existing efforts?
The Chairman. I'm way over my time.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for putting this panel together. I think this has
been really good for an opening solve on this. I think your
description of this particular panel as bringing to focus all
the various interests here is really important.
I don't know the others well, but Mr. Semanko I know well.
He represents the view of his particular interest incredibly
well.
I think that rather than ask any questions I would just
point out that I think the testimony of each of the 4 people
have really focused on the rubics cube, kind of a difficulty
we're going to have in bringing this thing together. I think,
particularly here at the beginning, this is a good opening
discussion of what part will each of these interests play. The
focus has been here, I think, a little bit more on
environmental things, but every one of these interests is
important. I think it's appropriate that we have a robust
discussion as to where each of these are going to fall in what
we're looking for in redoing this.
This is probably lifetime employment for a number of people
to get through this. But it's going to take a while. It's going
to be a heavy lift, as you pointed out. Thanks so much for
having the hearing.
Thank all of you for coming today and helping us.
The Chairman. Thank you and as I've tried to indicate I
think the premium is going to be on those who've got fresh
ideas that address concerns that they have that can reach out
to other kinds of parties and to get to us quickly. You heard
me ask the Bonneville people to get us the numbers and the
assumptions within a week because the clock is really ticking
down on it.
Mr. Haller, you have something I think--did you have
something you wanted to just add because I'm going to have to
get to the Budget Conference where we're also working on some
Northwest issues, or the budget meeting that's being held.
Mr. Haller. Sure, thank you, Chairman.
Regarding your question about fresh ideas.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Haller. Finding an intersection of goals. I really
believe the lynch pin to that is this Basin wide assessment of
flood risk management. I think with that we can get a better
understanding of how reservoirs can be maintained at a fuller
level which will enhance recreation and other values in those
areas which will also provide spring and summer flows at a
critical time period. But will also potentially maintain system
capability for power production at a greater level.
So I think that flood risk assessment is probably the key
to that.
The Chairman. Very good. Good way to wrap up.
Thank you all.
The Energy Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Brigadier General John Kem to Questions From
Senator Murkowski
Question 1a. In your view, what have been the greatest strengths of
the Columbia River Treaty over the last 50 years?
Answer. The view of the U.S. Entity is that the Columbia River
Treaty (CRT) between the United States and Canada has been an important
economic driver for the region on both sides of the border since it was
executed in 1964. The Treaty required the construction of three large
dams in British Columbia, Canada, and gave the United States the right
to build Libby Dam in Montana with a reservoir that extends into
Canada. This more than doubled the amount of Columbia River basin
reservoir storage, which eliminated major flood damages for all but
extreme events and increased downstream hydropower generation. The
smoothing of annual stream flows has also provided billions of dollars
of power benefits in both countries.
The U.S. Entity also believes that one of the strengths of the
Treaty is that it also provides for the certainty of coordination of
flows across the border and benefits a number of other uses of the
Columbia River, including navigation, irrigation and municipal and
industrial water supply. In addition, the two nations have been able to
negotiate supplemental agreements for other ecosystem benefits,
including an annual agreement that provides up to 1 million acre-feet
to augment flows for fish in both the U.S. and Canada.
Question 1b. What are its greatest shortcomings?
Answer. While the CTR has provided many critically important
benefits to the Region particularly in energy production and flood risk
management, the Treaty does not identify ecosystem considerations.
While it is recognized that significant ecological improvements are
being implemented and realized in a number of critical areas and are
anticipated to continue over time, there is an opportunity for
inclusion of certain additional ecosystem operations to expand,
enhance, and complement these existing ecosystem investments as part of
the post-2024 Treaty. Accordingly, the U.S. Entity sees opportunities
to better meet future needs and changing values through ``modernizing''
the Treaty in several important areas including: designing a mutually-
workable ``called-upon'' flood risk management operation; rebalancing
the Canadian Entitlement; incorporation of ecosystem operations;
providing for future water supply needs; and the ability to address
climate change.
Question 2. What are the Administration's expectations for the
advice and consent of the Senate? Are there any potential Treaty
modifications under consideration that the Administration does not
believe would require consideration by the Senate? If so, please
explain.
Answer. The U.S. Entity cannot speak to the Administration's
expectations for the advice and consent of the Senate. However, the
entities (U.S. Entity and Canadian Entity) are empowered and charged
with the duty to formulate and carry out the operating arrangements
necessary to implement the Columbia River Treaty, in the form the two
countries have entered into it. Through the Columbia River Treaty
Review, the U.S. Entity conducted a preliminary evaluation of
implementation of the current Treaty post 2024 and looked at possible
alternative scenarios to assist us in the development of a regional
recommendation for consideration by the Administration through the
National Policy Interest Review. The region's goal is for the United
States and Canada to develop a modernized framework for the Treaty that
ensures a more resilient and healthy ecosystem-based function
throughout the Columbia River Basin while maintaining an acceptable
level of flood risk and assuring reliable and economic hydropower
benefits. Therefore, the U.S. Entity believes it is important to
achieve a modernized framework for the Treaty that balances power
production, flood risk management, and ecosystem-based function as the
primary purposes, while also recognizing and implementing all
authorized purposes.
Question 3. You've testified that the U.S. Entity would also like
to ``pursue operational flexibility necessary to respond to climate
change'' in an updated Treaty. Indeed, the Draft Recommendation states
that there should be ``new terms in the post-2024 Treaty to allow the
adaptive management of coordinated Treaty operations to better mitigate
any impacts associated with climate change.'' What exactly does that
mean? How will ``associated impacts'' of climate change be measured? Is
this concentration on climate change in addition to a new Ecosystem
Function as an authorized purpose of the Treaty?
Answer. While the U.S. Entity is not a principal element of the
U.S. Government engaged in climate studies or analysis of impacts,
climate change studies conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
and BPA for the Columbia River basin have indicated the potential for
increased runoff in the winter, earlier timing of the peak spring
snowmelt, and the subsequent risk of lower summer flows. It is the
conclusion of the U.S. Entity that greater operational flexibility
would give both the U.S. and Canada the ability to address these risks
as they may appear in the future.
With respect to measuring the ``associated impacts'' of climate
change, the U.S. and Canadian Entities have a joint Hydro-
Meteorological team that continuously studies precipitation and
streamflows in the basin. In addition, the U.S. Entity continues to
work with the research community to intensify regional monitoring,
particularly temperatures and streamflow timing, using existing
meteorological and streamflow data networks. This allows us to monitor
whether the warming we are already observing in the region is beginning
to impact our ability to manage floods, to meet electricity demands,
and sustain ecosystems. Using this regional monitoring data and the
best available science, operating criteria can be adapted in response
to a changed climate.
With respect to the relation of climate change to purposes of the
Treaty, the latest climate change modeling by the Corps, BPA,
University of Washington, USGS and others suggests that flood control,
power production, and ecosystems could all be impacted by climate
change. Thus, the U.S. Entity sees climate change, not as a proposed
new primary purpose, but as an overarching issue which could impact all
Treaty operations if the Treaty were to continue over the long term.
Question 4. The ``Canadian Entitlement'' as it has become known, is
the amount of electric power the U.S. is obligated to deliver to
Canada--equal to one-half the estimated downstream power benefits from
the operation of Canadian Treaty storage. Currently, the entitlement
requires the U.S. to deliver power to Canada worth approximately $250-
$350 million annually. However, the Treaty assumes that the power
generation in the U.S is optimized for power generation even though our
system operations have a number of competing demands, such as
environmental requirements. How does Canada perceive the ``Canadian
Entitlement''? How does the U.S. position differ? Do you agree with Dr.
Karier's assessment that the U.S. is receiving only about one-tenth of
the actual power benefits? Should the U.S. obligation to return power
to Canada be reduced?
Answer.
HOW DOES CANADA PERCEIVE THE ``CANADIAN ENTITLEMENT''?
The Government of Canada, to our knowledge, has not asserted a
formal perspective on the Canadian Entitlement.
The Province of British Columbia, through the BC Ministry of Energy
and Mines, released a paper on June 25, 2013 on, ``U.S. benefits from
the Columbia River Treaty--Past, Present, and Future: A Province of
British Columbia Perspective''. http://blog.gov.bc.ca/
columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/US-Benefits-from-CRT-June-25-132.pdf
. Further, the Province of British Columbia released its draft
recommendation on the Treaty earlier this fall that included a
statement about its view of the Canadian Entitlement in its second of
14 principles. It reads, ``2. The ongoing impacts to the Canadian
Columbia Basin to meet Treaty requirements should be acknowledged and
compensated for. The level of benefits to the Province, which is
currently primarily in the form of the Canadian Entitlement, does not
account for the full range of benefits in the United States (U.S.) or
the impacts in British Columbia.''
HOW DOES THE U.S. POSITION DIFFER?
While the U.S. Entity cannot speak for the U.S. government on this
point, the U.S. Entity perspective is that the Treaty should be
modernized so that the payments to Canada post 2024 should be based on
an equitable sharing of the power benefits of a coordinated Canadian
operation as compared to a non-coordinated operation. Based on the
present formula developed in the 1960s, BPA estimates the Canadian
share of the downstream benefits in 2024 is significantly greater than
anticipated, and far exceeds the value of coordinated power operations
under the Treaty.
DO YOU AGREE WITH DR. KARIER'S ASSESSMENT THAT THE U.S. IS RECEIVING
ONLY ABOUT ONE-TENTH OF THE ACTUAL POWER BENEFITS?
Dr. Karier's assessment is based on only one specific predominant
aspect of the Entitlement relative to its energy value. If we consider
a more complete array of factors, however, preliminary estimates by BPA
of one-half of the estimated actual value of Canadian coordination post
2024 range from 10 percent to 30 percent. This range considers other
factors such as 1) certainty of operations, 2) firm energy value, and
3) seasonal shape and value of energy and capacity.
THE U.S. OBLIGATION TO RETURN POWER TO CANADA BE REDUCED?
In the opinion of the U.S. Entity, yes, although this is a matter
for the U.S. Government to decide. In our opinion, based on the present
formula developed in the 1960s, the estimated value of the Canadian
share of the downstream benefits in 2024 is significantly greater than
anticipated, and far exceeds the value of coordinated power operations
under the Treaty.
Question 5. What is the Executive Branch doing to integrate the
concerns raised by various groups in their public comments on the draft
recommendations? Should Congress expect major changes to the draft
recommendations?
Answer. The U.S. Entity was tasked by the Department of State and
the Interagency Policy Committee to produce a regional recommendation
that reflects the broadest possible consensus. The regional
recommendation was developed by the U.S. Entity in collaboration and
consultation with the Pacific Northwest states and federally recognized
Columbia Basin Tribes, a variety of stakeholders, and the public
through the multi-year Columbia River Treaty Review process. As such,
it is a regional recommendation only, not an Executive Branch Statement
of Administration Policy. We have conducted extensive stakeholder and
public outreach through workshops, panel discussions, and individual
meetings, and amassed valuable perspectives, comments, and technical
analyses.
We have collated all the comments received on the June 27, 2013,
working draft regional recommendation and the September 20, 2013, draft
regional recommendation, and have continued to coordinate and seek
input from sovereigns and interested stakeholders as we complete the
recommendation.
Changes to the recommendation have been made in an attempt to
accommodate various perspectives, achieve as much regional consensus as
possible, and ultimately to develop a modernized framework.
Question 6. Do you support the continuation of this treaty with
Canada?
Answer. The determination on the future of the Treaty is within the
purview of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Entity supports improving the
Treaty for the benefit of all interests in the Pacific Northwest region
and ensuring that the Treaty is sustainable for the long term.
Question 7. Has Canadian flood storage provided for under the
Columbia River Treaty been utilized to the extent envisioned in the
original Treaty? Why or why not?
Answer. Yes, the Canadian flood storage provided for under the
Columbia River Treaty has been utilized as envisioned in the original
Treaty. Under the existing Treaty flood control operating plan, Canada
operates their projects to provide assured flood storage up to 8.95
million acre-feet based on forecasted runoff. Since 1964, this assured
flood storage, combined with additional flood control storage provided
by the Canadian power drafts, has been utilized as envisioned to manage
streamflows conditions.
Question 8. What are the primary differences between the U.S. and
Canada with regard to the assumptions and estimates related to ``called
upon'' flood control? Which U.S. reservoirs are currently expected to
alter their operations for called upon operations?
Answer. Any differences between the U.S. and Canada with regard to
the assumptions and estimates related to `Called Upon' flood control
are at the core of the interpretation of the Treaty and would be the
subject of discussions between the U.S. and Canadian Governments.
At this point, the U.S. Government has not formulated a position on
the assumptions for Called Upon. However, through the Columbia River
Treaty Review, a preliminary evaluation of operations post 2024 was
conducted, which looked at possible alternative scenarios to assist in
the development of a regional recommendation for consideration by the
Administration through the National Policy Interest Review. Eight U.S.
reservoirs in the U.S. portion of the Columbia Basin are now authorized
for flood control. Those eight projects are Grand Coulee, Hungry Horse,
John Day, Libby, Dworshak, Albeni Falls, Brownlee, and Kerr. Under the
regional recommendation for post 2024 flood risk management, the U.S.
would continue providing for similar level of flood risk and operate
all eight of these projects for all authorized uses.
The Canadian Entity has preliminarily expressed its views on the
``Called Upon'' provisions; although unclear, it appears these are the
views solely of the Canadian Entity, so it is uncertain whether or not
they also represent the views of the Canadian Government. From what we
have heard, it is the U.S. Entity's understanding that the Canadian
Entity may be assuming that all reservoirs in the U.S. portion of the
Columbia Basin should be used first prior to calling upon Canadian
storage, regardless of the U.S. project authorizations or impacts to
other project uses. The U.S. Department of State has informed the U.S.
Entity that the U.S. Government does not share the Canadian Entity's
interpretation of this provision of the Treaty. In addition, the U.S
Entity's analysis indicates that the Canadian Entity's views on the
forecasted water supply that would allow the U.S. Entity to call upon
Canadian storage post 2024 could increase flood risk in the U.S.
Question 9. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the
scheduled transfer to called upon flood storage? Would there be an
increased risk for flooding in the basin under a called upon storage
scenario?
Answer. Transferring from the current assured flood control
procedures to Called Upon flood storage will require both countries to
reevaluate reservoir flood control operations and develop a new flood
control operating procedure for operating the reservoirs in the future
for flood control. It is premature to speculate on whether the called
upon flood control procedure has advantages or disadvantages for the
U.S.
The issue of increased or decreased flood control risk would be
considered and would inform future U.S. positions that might arise in
any negotiation with Canada, and therefore any speculation by the U.S.
Entity at this point is premature.
Question 10. Who should or will be responsible for paying for the
costs of called upon flood storage under the Treaty?
Answer. The allocation of such costs as between Canada and the U.S.
would be one of the subjects of any negotiation. Under the existing
provisions of the Treaty, the first 60 years of flood risk management
were pre-paid through transfer of U.S. funds to Canada. Unrelated to
treatment of this issue under any new or modified Treaty, the U.S.
Entity's regional recommendation suggests that any U.S. payments for
Columbia River flood risk management post-2024 should be consistent
with the U.S. national flood risk law and policy.
______
Responses of Gregory Haller to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. In your view, what have been the greatest strengths of
the Columbia River Treaty over the last 50 years? What are its greatest
shortcomings?
Answer. The greatest strength of the Columbia River Treaty over the
last fifty years has been the added system flexibility to manage flood
risk in the United States. Without the benefits of the Canadian storage
reservoirs, storage reservoirs in the United States would bear the
brunt of flood control operations, resulting in deeper drawdowns and
less flexibility to provide critical spring and summer flows for salmon
migration. Coordinated power production has also provided important
benefits.
The greatest shortcoming of the Treaty is its narrow focus on flood
risk management and power production, which have occurred at the
expense of ecosystem health, salmon fisheries, and economies and
communities dependent on river and watershed health. An important
example among many is the Army Corps of Engineers' overly conservative
management of reservoirs for flood risk, which can result in diminished
capability of the system to provide summer flows--particularly in dry
years--and limits the ability to provide more natural flow conditions
in the spring. A second shortcoming is the extinction and endangerment
of many salmon stocks and species that Treaty dams and operations have
contributed to. Finally, the Treaty's failure to co-manage for
ecosystem health is significantly hampering the ability of people and
ecosystems in the Columbia Basin to respond to and weather climate
change effects now occurring, and this shortcoming will grow each year
in its negative effect on the Basin and its people.
Question 2. The Draft Recommendation calls for adding a
comprehensive Ecosystem Function as the third primary purpose (in
addition to power production and flood control) of the Columbia River
Treaty. How do you define Ecosystem Function? Would it include credit
for actions already being done, such as compliance with the Endangered
Species Act? Who will bear the costs of this new Ecosystem Function? Do
you support the addition of this new Treaty purpose?
Answer. Pacific Rivers Council strongly supports including
Ecosystem-based Function (EbF) as a new primary purpose of the Treaty.
Our definition of EbF: The interaction of the living components
(plants, animals and microorganisms) with the non-living components
(air, water, rocks, physical and chemical processes) of the environment
which sustain an environmental community rich in abundance and
diversity and resilient to natural processes and disruptions so that it
may persist into the future. In the context of the Columbia River,
ecosystem function is the interaction of physical and chemical
processes that create environmental conditions, i.e., good water
quality, normative hydrograph, and cool river temperatures that support
healthy populations of wild salmon and steelhead, sturgeon, and Pacific
lamprey and the food web that supports them.
A vital corollary to any definition is that, in the Northwest,
ecosystem function underlies economic function. The health of the river
is the basis for every economic activity undertaken in the basin.
At this time, the ``costs'' of including EbF in a modernized Treaty
are speculative. Any attempt to quantify those costs must also include
a parallel estimation of benefits that including EbF will provide.
A economic analysis of the existing Treaty's costs and benefits,
and a modernized Treaty's costs and benefits, would likely benefit the
dialogue between both nations about the Treaty. But we do not see a
legal, analytic or commonsense basis for creating ``credits'' for
compliance with the Endangered Species Act (or any law) that would be
subtracted from yet-to-be-determined costs (if any) that EbF may
provide. For example, such one-sided analysis ignores the very large
benefits accruing to Northwest communities and people from compliance
with such laws. We also note that the federal dam system on the
Columbia and Snake Rivers is not in compliance with the Endangered
Species Act, and has not been since 2000.
Question 3. The ``Canadian Entitlement'' as it has become known, is
the amount of electric power the U.S. is obligated to deliver to
Canada--equal to one-half the estimated downstream power benefits from
the operation of Canadian Treaty storage. Currently, the entitlement
requires the U.S. to deliver power to Canada worth approximately $250-
$350 million annually. However, the Treaty assumes that the power
generation in the U.S is optimized for power generation even though our
system operations have a number of competing demands, such as
environmental requirements. How does Canada perceive the ``Canadian
Entitlement''? How does the U.S. position differ? Do you agree with Dr.
Karier's assessment that the U.S. is receiving only about one-tenth of
the actual power benefits? Should the U.S. obligation to return power
to Canada be reduced?
Answer. Canada perceives the Canadian Entitlement, as it is
currently calculated, as a very good deal for the United States. Canada
believes that if all the benefits (power, reduced flood risk, water for
ecosystem benefits, irrigation, navigation, recreation, etc.) that the
Canadian reservoirs provide to the U.S. were calculated, the U.S would
be paying much more than $250-350 million currently paid in power
deliveries. The U.S. position is that the Entitlement, combined with a
separate flood risk management payment, has more than repaid the cost
to Canada of the three dams built in Canada pursuant to the Treaty.
Without additional information, we are not comfortable providing an
opinion on Dr. Karier's estimation that the U.S. is receiving one-tenth
of the actual power benefits or on whether the U.S. obligation to
return power be reduced. However, the U.S. should be cautious in its
approach and avoid making reduction of the Canadian Entitlementthe
central focus of Treaty negotiations going forward, particularly as
power delivery is the primary inducement to Canada to negotiate changes
to the Treaty.
Question 4. Has the Executive branch adequately captured your
concerns and interests during the Treaty Review process?
Answer. The Executive Branch has done a commendable job of
recognizing our concerns and interests. We are particularly pleased
with the commitment made by former Deputy Assistant Secretary Mathew
Rooney during recent listening sessions that PRC would be invited to
participate in the negotiation process as it relates to EbF.
Question 5. Do you support the continuation of this treaty with
Canada?
Answer. We absolutely believe that continuation of a modernized
treaty with Canada is in the best interests of the United States, the
Columbia River ecosystem and of the regional economy.
Question 6. To date, how has the Columbia River Treaty taken
fisheries and ecosystem resources into account?
Answer. In the development of annual operating plans (AOP) under
the Treaty, issues such as the ability to provide flows for salmon
migration and the ability to refill reservoirs under projected run-off
scenarios are considered. However, these issues are secondary to power
and flood risk management--i.e., they are addressed only in the context
of what is left over after these two purposes are fulfilled.
Additionally, the AOPs are made in well advance of the spring run-off
season and therefore do not reflect actual conditions when they occur.
And although adjustments are made as the timing of run-off is more
accurately ascertained, these changes are limited due to the Corps'
very conservative flood risk management operations. Modernizing flood
risk management through a basin-wide review of flood risk is necessary
in order to provide for and realize the benefits of an enhanced
ecosystem.
In addition, the current Treaty and operations under it have not
genuinely tackled the rising effects of climate change on both the
Columbia itself and its current uses and operations. We believe this is
a vital new task for both nations within the Treaty framework, and only
by making EbF a co-equal Treaty purpose can it be done effectively and
pro-actively.
______
Response of Stephen Oliver to Question From Senator Wyden
Question 1. The United States is obligated to return to Canada one-
half of the downstream power benefits gained as a result of operation
of the three Columbia River Treaty dams in Canada. My understanding is
that the half of the downstream power benefits owed to Canada is called
the ``Canadian Entitlement.'' What is the current Canadian Entitlement
calculated using the current assumptions built into the Columbia River
Treaty? What now does BPA estimate is the actual value of the Canadian
Entitlement?
Answer. Currently, Canada's portion of the downstream power
benefit, the ``Canadian Entitlement,'' is based on the additional
hydrogeneration produced by Canadian Treaty dams--essentially, the
difference between the power generated by the U.S. 1961 power system
with and without the dams. The Canadian Entitlement is power returned
to Canada, not a monetary payment. The current value of the power
returned to Canada is estimated to be between $220 million and $360
million annually. It is the opinion of the U.S. Entity--and Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA)--that the power benefits between the two
countries should be rebalanced to instead be based on the more
realistic measure of the power value of coordinated operations as
compared to non-coordinated operations. BPA estimates that the
resulting value of the Canadian Entitlement would be between $44
million and $110 million annually. A document describing in more detail
how we continue to analyze this estimate is attached to this response.
Responses of Stephen Oliver to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1a. In your view, what have been the greatest strengths of
the Columbia River Treaty over the last 50 years?
Question 1b. What are its greatest shortcomings?
Answer 1a. The view of the U.S. Entity is that the Columbia River
Treaty (CRT) between the United States and Canada has been an important
economic driver for the region on both sides of the border since it was
executed in 1964. The Treaty required the construction of three large
dams in British Columbia, Canada, and gave the United States the right
to build Libby Dam in Montana with a reservoir that extends into
Canada. This more than doubled the amount of Columbia River basin
reservoir storage, which eliminated major flood damages for all but
extreme events and increased downstream hydropower generation. The
smoothing of annual stream flows has also provided billions of dollars
of power benefits in both countries.
The U.S. Entity also believes that one of the strengths of the
Treaty is that it also provides for the certainty of coordination of
flows across the border and benefits a number of other uses of the
Columbia River, including navigation, irrigation and municipal and
industrial water supply. In addition, the two nations have been able to
negotiate supplemental agreements for other ecosystem benefits,
including an annual agreement that provides up to 1 million acre-feet
to augment flows for fish in both the U.S. and Canada.
Answer 1b. While the CTR has provided many critically important
benefits to the Region particularly in energy production and flood risk
management, the Treaty does not identify ecosystem considerations.
While it is recognized that significant ecological improvements are
being implemented and realized in a number of critical areas and are
anticipated to continue over time, there is an opportunity for
inclusion of certain additional ecosystem operations to expand,
enhance, and complement these existing ecosystem investments as part of
the post-2024 Treaty. Accordingly, the U.S. Entity sees opportunities
to better meet future needs and changing values through ``modernizing''
the Treaty in several important areas including: designing a mutually-
workable ``called-upon'' flood risk management operation; rebalancing
the Canadian Entitlement; incorporation of ecosystem operations;
providing for future water supply needs; and the ability to address
climate change.
Question 2. What are the Administration's expectations for the
advice and consent of the Senate? Are there any potential Treaty
modifications under consideration that the Administration does not
believe would require consideration by the Senate? If so, please
explain.
Answer. The U.S. Entity cannot speak to the Administration's
expectations for the advice and consent of the Senate. However, the
entities (U.S. Entity and Canadian Entity) are empowered and charged
with the duty to formulate and carry out the operating arrangements
necessary to implement the Columbia River Treaty, in the form the two
countries have entered into it. Through the Columbia River Treaty
Review, the U.S. Entity conducted a preliminary evaluation of
implementation of the current Treaty post 2024 and looked at possible
alternative scenarios to assist us in the development of a regional
recommendation for consideration by the Administration through the
National Policy Interest Review. The region's goal is for the United
States and Canada to develop a modernized framework for the Treaty that
ensures a more resilient and healthy ecosystem-based function
throughout the Columbia River Basin while maintaining an acceptable
level of flood risk and assuring reliable and economic hydropower
benefits. Therefore, the U.S. Entity believes it is important to
achieve a modernized framework for the Treaty that balances power
production, flood risk management, and ecosystem-based function as the
primary purposes, while also recognizing and implementing all
authorized purposes.
Question 3a. The Draft Recommendation calls for adding a
comprehensive Ecosystem Function as the third primary purpose (in
addition to power production and flood control) of the Columbia River
Treaty. How do you define Ecosystem Function?
Question 3b. Would it include credit for actions already being
done, such as compliance with the Endangered Species Act?
Question 3c. Who will bear the costs of this new Ecosystem
Function?
Answer 3a. The U.S. Entity's perspective is that although the
definition of ecosystem in general is very broad, the definition of
Ecosystem-based Function in the context of the Columbia River Treaty
Regional Recommendation is specifically defined by the content of the
recommendation. The Ecosystem-based Function section states that
providing streamflows from Canada with appropriate timing, quantity and
water quality to promote productive populations of anadromous and
resident fish, and provide reservoir conditions to promote productive
populations of native fish and wildlife is the general objective. Then
the specific recommendations are to: incorporate current flow
augmentation and dry year flow strategies; accommodate flow
augmentation modifications post-2024; recognize and minimize adverse
effects to tribal, First Nations and other cultural resources in Canada
and the United States; adapt to meeting ecosystem-based function
requirements as new information becomes available or conditions change;
jointly explore fish passage on the main stem Columbia with Canada;
and, continue to coordinate the variable quantity flows from Libby in
support of specific listed fisheries.
Answer 3b. This is a question that would have to be negotiated
between Canada and the U.S., however, in the Recommendation, it is
expected that any storage and release actions performed under the
Treaty would be coordinated and complement U.S. domestic fishery
mitigation actions. The recommendation states this as follows: ``it is
recognized that significant ecological improvements are being
implemented and realized in a number of critical areas and are
anticipated to continue over time, there is an opportunity for
inclusion of certain additional ecosystem operations to expand,
enhance, and complement these existing ecosystem investments as part of
the post-2024 Treaty''.
Answer 3c. While the exact allocation of costs would be a subject
of a negotiation between the parties, one of the central principles of
our recommendation is that we are advocating a balanced approach to any
Treaty modernization that respects the current balance of water uses in
the Pacific Northwest, ``with the intent that all of the interests
addressed herein be improved''. The recommendation states that, ``U.S.
interests should ensure that costs associated with any Treaty operation
are aligned with the appropriate party.'' We also make it clear that,
``implementation of ecosystem-based functions in the Treaty should be
compatible with rebalancing the entitlement and reducing U.S. power
costs'' as well as ``preserving an acceptable level of flood risk to
the people of the Basin, and continuing to recognize and implement the
other authorized purposes in the Basin''.
Analyses performed as part of the Sovereign Review Team process
showed that some Ecosystem-based Function actions could potentially
involve significant tradeoffs from a power operations perspective and
flood risk perspective for both the U.S. and Canada.
We also identified some lesser magnitude actions potentially
beneficial to ecosystems that would not entail significant costs or
risks that might be explored.
Question 4. You've testified that the U.S. Entity would also like
to ``pursue operational flexibility necessary to respond to climate
change'' in an updated Treaty. Indeed, the Draft Recommendation states
that there should be ``new terms in the post-2024 Treaty to allow the
adaptive management of coordinated Treaty operations to better mitigate
any impacts associated with climate change.'' What exactly does that
mean? How will ``associated impacts'' of climate change be measured? Is
this concentration on climate change in addition to a new Ecosystem
Function as an authorized purpose of the Treaty?
Answer. While the U.S. Entity is not a principal element of the
U.S. Government engaged in climate studies or analysis of impacts,
climate change studies conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
and BPA for the Columbia River basin have indicated the potential for
increased runoff in the winter, earlier timing of the peak spring
snowmelt, and the subsequent risk of lower summer flows. It is the
conclusion of the U.S. Entity that greater operational flexibility
would give both the U.S. and Canada the ability to address these risks
as they may appear in the future.
With respect to measuring the ``associated impacts'' of climate
change, the U.S. and Canadian Entities have a joint Hydro-
Meteorological team that continuously studies precipitation and
streamflows in the basin. In addition, the U.S. Entity continues to
work with the research community to intensify regional monitoring,
particularly temperatures and streamflow timing, using existing
meteorological and streamflow data networks. This allows us to monitor
whether the warming we are already observing in the region is beginning
to impact our ability to manage floods, to meet electricity demands,
and sustain ecosystems. Using this regional monitoring data and the
best available science, operating criteria can be adapted in response
to a changed climate.
With respect to the relation of climate change to purposes of the
Treaty, the latest climate change modeling by the Corps, BPA,
University of Washington, USGS and others suggests that flood control,
power production, and ecosystems could all be impacted by climate
change. Thus, the U.S. Entity sees climate change, not as a proposed
new primary purpose, but as an overarching issue which could impact all
Treaty operations if the Treaty were to continue over the long term.
Question 5a. The ``Canadian Entitlement'' as it has become known,
is the amount of electric power the U.S. is obligated to deliver to
Canada--equal to one-half the estimated downstream power benefits from
the operation of Canadian Treaty storage. Currently, the entitlement
requires the U.S. to deliver power to Canada worth approximately $250-
$350 million annually. However, the Treaty assumes that the power
generation in the U.S is optimized for power generation even though our
system operations have a number of competing demands, such as
environmental requirements. How does Canada perceive the ``Canadian
Entitlement''?
Question 5b. How does the U.S. position differ?
Question 5c. Do you agree with Dr. Karier's assessment that the
U.S. is receiving only about one-tenth of the actual power benefits?
Question 5d. Should the U.S. obligation to return power to Canada
be reduced?
Answer 5a. The Government of Canada, to our knowledge, has not
asserted a formal perspective on the Canadian Entitlement.
The Province of British Columbia, through the BC Ministry of Energy
and Mines, released a paper on June 25, 2013 on, ``U.S. benefits from
the Columbia River Treaty--Past, Present, and Future: A Province of
British Columbia Perspective''. http://blog.gov.bc.ca/
columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/US-Benefits-from-CRT-June-25- 132.pdf
. Further, the Province of British Columbia released its draft
recommendation on the Treaty earlier this fall that included a
statement about its view of the Canadian Entitlement in its second of
14 principles. It reads, ``2. The ongoing impacts to the Canadian
Columbia Basin to meet Treaty requirements should be acknowledged and
compensated for. The level of benefits to the Province, which is
currently primarily in the form of the Canadian Entitlement, does not
account for the full range of benefits in the United States (U.S.) or
the impacts in British Columbia.''
Answer 5b. While the U.S. Entity cannot speak for the U.S.
government on this point, the U.S. Entity perspective is that the
Treaty should be modernized so that the payments to Canada post 2024
should be based on an equitable sharing of the power benefits of a
coordinated Canadian operation as compared to a non-coordinated
operation. Based on the present formula developed in the 1960s, BPA
estimates the Canadian share of the downstream benefits in 2024 is
significantly greater than anticipated, and far exceeds the value of
coordinated power operations under the Treaty.
Answer 5c. Dr. Karier's assessment is based on only one specific
predominant aspect of the Entitlement relative to its energy value. If
we consider a more complete array of factors, however, preliminary
estimates by BPA of one-half of the estimated actual value of Canadian
coordination post 2024 range from 10 percent to 30 percent. This range
considers other factors such as 1) certainty of operations, 2) firm
energy value, and 3) seasonal shape and value of energy and capacity.
Answer 5d. In the opinion of the U.S. Entity, yes, although this is
a matter for the U.S. Government to decide. In our opinion, based on
the present formula developed in the 1960s, the estimated value of the
Canadian share of the downstream benefits in 2024 is significantly
greater than anticipated, and far exceeds the value of coordinated
power operations under the Treaty.
Question 6. What is the Executive Branch doing to integrate the
concerns raised by various groups in their public comments on the draft
recommendations? Should Congress expect major changes to the draft
recommendations?
Answer. The U.S. Entity was tasked by the Department of State and
the Interagency Policy Committee to produce a regional recommendation
that reflects the broadest possible consensus. The regional
recommendation was developed by the U.S. Entity in collaboration and
consultation with the Pacific Northwest states and federally recognized
Columbia Basin Tribes, a variety of stakeholders, and the public
through the multi-year Columbia River Treaty Review process. As such,
it is a regional recommendation only, not an Executive Branch Statement
of Administration Policy. We have conducted extensive stakeholder and
public outreach through workshops, panel discussions, and individual
meetings, and amassed valuable perspectives, comments, and technical
analyses.
We have collated all the comments received on the June 27, 2013,
working draft regional recommendation and the September 20, 2013, draft
regional recommendation, and have continued to coordinate and seek
input from sovereigns and interested stakeholders as we complete the
recommendation.
Changes to the recommendation have been made in an attempt to
accommodate various perspectives, achieve as much regional consensus as
possible, and ultimately to develop a modernized framework.
Question 7. Do you support the continuation of this treaty with
Canada?
Answer. The determination on the future of the Treaty is within the
purview of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Entity supports improving the
Treaty for the benefit of all interests in the Pacific Northwest region
and ensuring that the Treaty is sustainable for the long term.
______
Responses of George Caan to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. In your view, what have been the greatest strengths of
the Columbia River Treaty over the last 50 years? What are its greatest
shortcomings?
Answer. The Columbia River is a magnificent asset that plays a
central role in the Northwest's economy and cultural identity. It
generates clean electricity to millions of people, avoids carbon
emissions, provides habitat for fish and wildlife, offers recreational
opportunities, provides water for navigation, and has been pressed into
service to integrate wind into the electric grid.
The Columbia River Treaty's (Treaty) greatest strengths remain the
original reasons for its negotiation and adoption to provide hydropower
and flood risk management to the Columbia River Basin.
The Treaty's greatest shortcoming is the calculation of the
Canadian Entitlement. When the Treaty was ratified, both the U.S. and
Canada anticipated that the Treaty calculation of U.S. power benefits
would result in a much smaller energy benefit by 2024, with any
capacity benefit being eliminated even earlier due to certain
assumptions such as high load growth and a large amount of thermal
installations. The U.S. and Canada acknowledged that the real power
benefits would be much less than the Treaty calculation due to
additional U.S. storage reservoirs and transmission interconnections
that are not included in the Treaty calculation.
Question 2. The Draft Recommendation calls for adding a
comprehensive Ecosystem Function as the third primary purpose (in
addition to power production and flood control) of the Columbia River
Treaty. How do you define Ecosystem Function? Would it include credit
for actions already being done, such as compliance with the Endangered
Species Act? Who will bear the costs of this new Ecosystem Function? Do
you support the addition of this new Treaty purpose?
Answer. The Power Group appreciates the U.S. Entity's
acknowledgement in the September 20th Draft Recommendation that any
expansion of the Treaty to include ecosystem function must ``formalize,
provide certainty, and build on the many ecosystem actions already
undertaken through annual or seasonal mutual agreements between the
countries.'' The Power Group is concerned, however, that the ecosystem
function recommendation remains vague and offers little certainty and
structure. Without additional details, adding a sweeping and broad
third primary purpose of the Treaty would lead to conflicting
obligations and priorities. Further, the Draft Recommendation provides
no explanation as to how an expanded Treaty would fit in with the
numerous environmental programs currently in place within the Federal
Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) and at the generating projects of
Power Group members. These uncertainties could diminish, or threaten
altogether, ecological benefits achieved after years of detailed
studies, tireless investigations and negotiations, and at times,
litigation. The uncertainties associated with ecosystem function, as
presented in the Draft Recommendation, create significant risk to
environmental resources and electric customers in the Northwest.
Members of the Power Group are proud of their environmental
stewardship and the progress that their significant efforts have made
in protecting and managing fish and wildlife resources. This is why we
urged the U.S. Entity to ``account for the significant ecosystem
stewardship actions taken to date.'' By asking for this recognition,
Power Group members were not merely seeking acknowledgement of our
successful environmental programs, though it is important for
stakeholders to have a robust understanding of the investments already
undertaken. Rather, we are expressing concern that proposals to inject
ecosystem functions at the Treaty level could have unintended
consequences for existing, publicly developed programs in the U.S. that
represent significant investments for electric customers. Treaty-
mandated changes in flow regimes, fish passage operations, or similar
requirements could conflict or interfere with ongoing programs in the
Columbia River Basin and harm the very resources Treaty-imposed
ecosystem functions seek to protect.
Any final recommendation to the State Department related to
ecosystem function should carefully account for all ongoing efforts in
the Basin, to ensure that the recommendation does not inadvertently
conflict with, undermine, or disrupt these efforts--particularly those
that were developed in close consultation and negotiations with the
public, other federal and state resource agencies and Tribes, and
environmental advocacy groups. Such ongoing programs include, for
example:
The FCRPS Biological Opinion;
Requirements of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
licenses, Habitat Conservation Plans, and other permitted
activities of Power Group Members; and
The Columbia Basin Fish Accords.
Question 3. The ``Canadian Entitlement'' as it has become known, is
the amount of electric power the U.S. is obligated to deliver to
Canada--equal to one-half the estimated downstream power benefits from
the operation of Canadian Treaty storage. Currently, the entitlement
requires the U.S. to deliver power to Canada worth approximately $250-
$350 million annually. However, the Treaty assumes that the power
generation in the U.S is optimized for power generation even though our
system operations have a number of competing demands, such as
environmental requirements. How does Canada perceive the ``Canadian
Entitlement''? How does the U.S. position differ? Do you agree with Dr.
Karier's assessment that the U.S. is receiving only about one-tenth of
the actual power benefits? Should the U.S. obligation to return power
to Canada be reduced?
Answer. While the Canadian Entitlement is the financial lynchpin of
the Treaty, the U.S. obligation under the Entitlement far exceeds the
actual power benefit received. The U.S. Entity has estimated that the
U.S.'s obligation under the Entitlement costs Northwest electric
customers between $250 and $350 million in annual power benefits
transferred by the U.S. to Canada, even though the U.S. Entity itself
has estimated that one-half of the downstream power benefits received
the U.S. would be worth about one-tenth of the exported electricity
(valued at $25 to $30 million annually).
This disparity is wholly unacceptable to the Power Group . We
believe the U.S. has a duty on behalf of its citizens, and all
Northwest electric customers in particular, to rebalance the Canadian
Entitlement in a manner that ensure the U.S. obligation under the
Treaty is commensurate with the power benefits actually received.
The Province of British Columbia has issued several papers
including a recent Draft BC Recommendation that acknowledges Treaty
dams, ``in creating renewable energy that powers a large portion of the
province, in providing jobs and economic spinoff to nearby communities,
and contributing to the province's general revenue that supports
services to all British Columbians.''
Question 4. Has the Executive branch adequately captured your
concerns and interests during the Treaty Review process?
Answer. For three years, the U.S. Entity has led a review of the
Columbia River Treaty. During most of this review, the Columbia River
Power Group and other key stakeholders in the Northwest were largely
excluded from the process established by the U.S. Entity. This process
resulted in an initial recommendation that failed to capture the
interests of the Power Group and its 6.4 million electric customers in
the Northwest.
Over the last three months, the U.S. Entity has actively sought
more input from all Columbia River Treaty stakeholders including the
Power Group. We appreciate the leadership demonstrated by the U.S.
Entity as it seeks to craft a Final Recommendation to be delivered to
the State Department on the future of the Columbia River Treaty. The
Columbia River Power Group believes this high level engagement with all
stakeholders should continue, and specifically, the Power Group should
be included in the Administration's review of the Treaty in 2014 and
follow-on engagement with Canada.
Question 5. Do you support the continuation of this treaty with
Canada?
Answer. The Power Group encourages the U.S. government to engage
directly with our Canadian neighbors, trading partners and allies to
secure a mutually beneficial future for the Columbia River Treaty
beyond 2024. The primary U.S. objective of engaging in any negotiations
with Canada must be intensely focused on correcting the current
inequity of the U.S. obligation under the Canadian Entitlement.
______
Responses of Thomas Karier to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. In your view, what have been the greatest strengths of
the Columbia River Treaty over the last 50 years? What are its greatest
shortcomings?
Answer. The value of the Columbia River Treaty over the past 50
years to both Canada and the Northwest has been significant. The treaty
made the construction of three large hydroelectric projects in Canada
possible when the United States agreed to split the downstream power
benefits with Canada and pay for additional flood control. The entire
Columbia River power system, with the addition of the Canadian
projects, almost eliminated mainstem flood damage and ensured billions
of dollars worth of power generation in both countries.
Fulfilling the vision of the treaty, the dams were constructed and
Canada was fully compensated for their costs. They are Canadian
projects, owned and operated by Canada. But continuing the agreement as
it was initially designed--to finance the construction of new dams--
would place a disproportionate economic burden on the Northwest while
creating a windfall for Canada. For this reason, the current Canadian
entitlement payment by the Northwest is unsustainable.
In addition to correcting the entitlement formula, the region has
identified other benefits that the United States should pursue in a
modernized treaty. The two countries should go further than they have
to date to incorporate scientifically defensible actions into treaty
planning that provide benefits to fish and the ecosystem. We should
also ensure that additional storage secured through the treaty will
supplement both in-stream flows for the ecosystem and out-of-stream use
for domestic water supply in Washington and Oregon. The final outcome
should add these benefits in an equitable manner so that the Northwest
achieves gains in all areas: power, flood risk, ecosystem and water
supply. Along with these additional values, we can prepare the Treaty
to better address climate change and protect ongoing benefits for
recreation, transportation, water quality, irrigation, and cultural
resources.
Question 2. The Draft Recommendation calls for adding a
comprehensive Ecosystem Function as the third primary purpose (in
addition to power production and flood control) of the Columbia River
Treaty. How do you define Ecosystem Function? Would it include credit
for actions already being done, such as compliance with the Endangered
Species Act? Who will bear the costs of this new Ecosystem Function? Do
you support the addition of this new Treaty purpose?
Answer. The ecosystem is a complex environment defined by physical
conditions and living organisms. One purpose of the treaty should be to
enhance the natural conditions in which native plants and animals
survive and flourish.
We have made significant progress in the Northwest, especially
since 1980, in recognizing the importance of the ecosystem and trying
to protect natural functions. Through various mechanisms, including the
Northwest Power Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water and
Clean Air Acts, and FERC relicensing, the Northwest has dedicated
significant funding to restoring its health. The treaty should not be
an exception. Where we find cost-effective and scientifically warranted
opportunities to improve the ecosystem through treaty operations we
should pursue them.
The draft recommendations from the U.S. entity states that ``The
health of the Columbia River ecosystem is a shared benefit and cost of
the United States and Canada,'' and that ``United States interests
should ensure that the costs associated with any Treaty operation are
aligned with the appropriate party.'' These are the right principles to
begin the discussion about who pays for ecosystem operations.
The state of Washington supports incorporating ecosystem function
into a modernized treaty, along with the other essential elements
included in the draft recommendations.
Question 3. Has the executive branch adequately captured your
concerns and interests during the treaty review process?
Answer. The draft recommendation does a good job of capturing the
many interests represented by the state of Washington. Although we
might have used different language, the essential message would have
been the same: The State Department needs to involve the region in
developing a new, modernized treaty with significant and balanced
improvements in a number of areas.
Question 4. Do you support continuing this treaty with Canada?
Answer. We support developing and implementing an improved and
modernized treaty. Under the current treaty, every three to five years
the Northwest delivers approximately a billion dollars worth of carbon-
free hydropower to British Columbia in excess of actual downstream
benefits. Also, the current treaty does not adequately incorporate
ecosystem operations, water supply, or potential climate change
impacts. For these reasons, the current treaty, as it is now
implemented, is not sustainable for the long term.
______
Responses of Kristin Meira to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. In your view, what have been the greatest strengths of
the Columbia River Treaty over the last 50 years? What are its greatest
shortcomings?
Answer. For nearly fifty years, the Columbia River Treaty has been
a model of cross-border cooperation for management of a river system
for critical flood protection and mutually beneficial hydropower
production. As the time arrives for the United States and Canada to
evaluate the future of their historic partnership, the original goals
and successful implementation of the Treaty should be recognized. The
Treaty was constructed to protect people and businesses from ravaging
floods, and to coordinate the efforts of the U.S. and Canada as both
nations sought to harness the strength of the Columbia River to provide
power to a growing region.
However, as the decades have passed, it has become clear that the
original calculations which produced the Canadian Entitlement are
flawed, and must be addressed by both nations. Rebalancing the Canadian
Entitlement must be a major goal of the United States in any
negotiations with Canada regarding the future of the Treaty. We would
also strongly encourage continued cooperation to provide the same level
of flood damage protection that is currently provided under the Treaty.
Question 2. The Draft Recommendation calls for adding a
comprehensive Ecosystem Function as the third primary purpose (in
addition to power production and flood control) of the Columbia River
Treaty. How do you define Ecosystem Function? Would it include credit
for actions already being done, such as compliance with the Endangered
Species Act? Who will bear the costs of this new Ecosystem Function? Do
you support the addition of this new Treaty purpose?
Answer. The current environmental programs underway in the Columbia
River Basin are comprehensive and costly, and the result of decades of
science and effort in both the United States and Canada. Though earlier
versions did not recognize these activities, the current Draft Regional
Recommendation notes that ``the region, principally through its
electric utility ratepayers, has invested hundreds of millions of
dollars annually to achieve ecosystem mitigation and improvements
throughout the Basin.'' The current Draft also notes ``there are a
number of domestic actions that have contributed, and will contribute,
to ecological improvements in the Basin. These include the Federal
Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion requirements under the
Endangered Species Act, the Nez Perce Water Rights Agreements of 2004,
actions under the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, actions under the Clean Water
Act to improve water quality, and implementation of the Columbia Basin
Fish Accords. In addition, there are numerous habitat and conservation
programs and FERC license requirements associated with non-federal dams
on the Columbia.''
The United States and Canada already work together to manage flows
for ecosystem function. The Draft Recommendation notes that ``in 1993
the United States and Canadian entities began using the flexibilities
in the Treaty to assist in meeting Endangered Species Act (ESA)
requirements and to address ecosystem considerations on an annual basis
through actions such as flow augmentation agreements.''
Despite the recognition of the decades of cross-border cooperation,
and significant programs in the United States to benefit ecosystem
health in the Basin, the Draft Recommendation still suggests that
``there is an opportunity for inclusion of certain additional ecosystem
operations to expand, enhance, and complement these existing ecosystem
investments as part of the post-2024 Treaty.'' This generalized idea of
expansion does not appear to be the result of a federal agency study,
nor is it tied to any specific proposal from a federal agency. This
vague suggestion of ``more'' should not undermine the many ongoing
programs already underway in the Basin, which are the product of years
of science, multi-party collaboration and significant work in the water
and on land to benefit our protected species. These publicly developed
programs have resulted in billions of dollars already invested by
Northwest electric customers and hundreds of millions of dollars in
fish and wildlife programs each year.
Question 3. The ``Canadian Entitlement'' as it has become known, is
the amount of electric power the U.S. is obligated to deliver to
Canada--equal to one-half the estimated downstream power benefits from
the operation of Canadian Treaty storage. Currently, the entitlement
requires the U.S. to deliver power to Canada worth approximately $250-
$350 million annually. However, the Treaty assumes that the power
generation in the U.S is optimized for power generation even though our
system operations have a number of competing demands, such as
environmental requirements. How does Canada perceive the ``Canadian
Entitlement''? How does the U.S. position differ? Do you agree with Dr.
Karier's assessment that the U.S. is receiving only about one-tenth of
the actual power benefits? Should the U.S. obligation to return power
to Canada be reduced?
Answer. The Columbia River Treaty review has provided an
opportunity to highlight the fundamental need to reestablish an
equitable distribution of power benefits between the U.S. and Canada.
We agree with the Draft Recommendation's note that ``when the Treaty
was ratified, the United States and Canada structured Canada's share of
these benefits as one-half of the downstream power benefits with the
Canadian Treaty projects as compared to without those projects. An
equitable sharing of these benefits should instead be based on the more
realistic measure of the power value of coordinated operations as
compared to non-coordinated operations. Based on the present formula
developed in the 1960s, the estimated value of the Canadian share of
the downstream benefits in 2024 is significantly greater than
anticipated, and far exceeds the value of coordinated power operations
under the Treaty.''
Question 4. Has the Executive branch adequately captured your
concerns and interests during the Treaty Review process?
Answer. The membership of the Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association sincerely appreciates the efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and the
select representatives from the region who have given many hours of
their time on the Sovereign Review Team (SRT). This historic Columbia
River Treaty review effort was a unique endeavor for which there were
not an abundance of existing federal templates for stakeholder
participation. We recognize the efforts of the Corps and BPA to
construct a review process to provide a regional recommendation in the
time available.
Moving forward, we would strongly recommend increased stakeholder
involvement. It is critical that regional interests that would be
impacted by changes to the river system--utilities, navigation,
irrigators, and flood control authorities--have more opportunity to
participate. These regional interests serve millions of Northwest
residents through power delivery, facilitating trade routes for
regional and national cargo, producing high-value crops, and protecting
lives and businesses from floods. Their expertise is critical as
proposed changes to river operations are contemplated.
Question 5. Do you support the continuation of this treaty with
Canada?
Answer. The Columbia River Treaty has provided great benefits for
both nations, and it is clear that continued cooperative management of
the valuable--and sometimes dangerous--flows of the Columbia River is
in the interest of both countries. The current review process provides
the opportunity to correct outdated calculations for the Canadian
Entitlement, while also addressing the need for continued management of
the river system to mitigate the threat to human life and property from
flood waters.
Question 6. You testified that the Columbia River is essentially a
river highway and is the nation's number one gateway for the export of
wheat and barley. It appears that navigation stakeholders are most
concerned with the Draft Recommendation of providing higher flows in
the spring and summer which could impede the ability to safely and
efficiently navigate the river. You further note that the ``ecosystem
flows'' referred to throughout the Draft Recommendation are not backed
up by scientific explanation or reference. Do you believe the U.S.
Entity is not giving proper consideration to navigation issues? Do you
expect any scientific explanation in a final document?
Answer. Early drafts of the regional recommendation contained scant
reference to navigation, and did not capture any of the concerns which
had been repeatedly expressed by the navigation community. However, in
the past few months we have been provided additional opportunities to
provide feedback to the U.S. Entity. The latest version of the Draft
Recommendation, circulated by the U.S. Entity on November 26, 2013,
represents an improvement from earlier drafts in its inclusion of the
importance of Columbia River navigation to the region and the nation,
and the concerns expressed by navigation stakeholders.
We appreciate the work of the Corps team over the past year to
analyze potential impacts to navigation which would result from
implementation of several of the flow regimes sought by some state and
tribal members of the Sovereign Review Team. The desire of some for
increased ``ecosystem flows'', and the reflection of this desire in
early drafts of the regional recommendation with no reference to
potential impacts to navigation and other authorized purposes, created
great concern among many river system users. The current draft of the
regional recommendation now notes that ``potential impacts to other
river uses and infrastructure such as navigation, bridges, and other
transportation features, hydropower, irrigation, recreation, fish and
wildlife, and cultural resources will also be evaluated and
addressed.''
We would expect that any proposed change to existing river system
operations would only result from a federally-authorized study, using
the best available science.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond. Please do not
hesitate to contact me with any questions you or the Members of the
Committee may have.
______
Response of Joel Moffett to Question From Senator Wyden
Question 1. When the Treaty was first negotiated, tribes were not
at the table. Now, most affected tribes are part of the Sovereign
Review Team. Do you think your inclusion this time around will ensure
our goal of steering clear of unintended consequences related to tribal
interests?''
Answer. Despite limited financial resources the 15 tribes have
committed substantial policy and technical resources to participation
in the Sovereign Review Team (SRT) process. The SRT has been an
invaluable forum to introduce and vet the rights, interests and
aspirations of the millions of residents of the Basin, including the
tribal citizenry. Much has been accomplished in the SRT. Significant
consensus has been forged. However, the essence of the SRT has not
always been faithfully rendered in the draft US Entity recommendations.
At this writing, we hold concerns that the final Recommendation may
fall short of capturing both the Tribes' views and those of the broader
SRT.
Responses of Joel Moffett to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. In your view, what have been the greatest strengths of
the Columbia River Treaty over the last 50 years? What are its greatest
shortcomings?
Answer. The Treaty has performed well for its narrowly scoped
purposes, hydropower and flood control. The Treaty's greatest
shortcomings are dual: lack of tribal consideration and; failure to
include ecosystem functions in its original, and current iteration. The
regional sovereigns agrees that the Treaty can and should be
modernized, specifically to include ecosystem function as a third
primary purpose. It stands to reason that a modernized treaty should
consider modernized governance. That might include full tribal
participation in a new US Entity.
Question 2. The Draft Recommendation calls for adding a
comprehensive Ecosystem Function as the third primary purpose (in
addition to power production and flood control) of the Columbia River
Treaty. How do you define Ecosystem Function? Would it include credit
for actions already being done, such as compliance with the Endangered
Species Act? Who will bear the costs of this new Ecosystem Function?
Answer. Columbia Basin Tribes view ecosystem-based function of the
Columbia Basin watershed as its ability to provide, protect and nurture
cultural resources, traditions, values and landscapes throughout its'
length and breadth. Clean and abundant water that is sufficient to
sustain healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plants is vital to
holistic ecosystem-based function and life itself. A restored,
resilient and healthy watershed will include ecosystem-based function
such as:
Increased spring and summer flows resulting in a more
natural hydrograph;
Higher and more stable headwater reservoir levels;
Restoring and maintaining fish passage to historical
habitats.
Higher river flows during dry years;
Lower late summer water temperature;
Reconnected floodplains throughout the river including a
reconnected lower river estuary ecosystem as well as reduced
salt water intrusion during summer and fall;
Columbia River plume and near shore ocean enhanced through
higher spring and summer flows and lessened duration of
hypoxia;
An adaptive and flexible suite of river operations
responsive to a great variety of changing environmental
conditions, such as climate change;
Improved ecosystem-based function in the Columbia Basin Watershed
is expected to result in at least:
Increased recognition, protection and preservation of tribal
first foods and cultural/sacred sites and activities. First
foods includes water, salmon, other fish, wildlife, berries,
roots, and other native medicinal plants.
An estuary with an enhanced food web and increased juvenile
fish survival;
Increases in juvenile and adult salmon survival;
Decreased mainstem travel time for migrating juvenile
salmon;
Increased resident fish productivity that provides stable,
resilient populations;
Increased wildlife productivity that provides stable,
resilient populations;
Salmon and other juvenile and adult fish passage to
historical habitats in the Upper Columbia and Snake River
basins, and into other currently blocked parts of the Columbia
River Basin.
A modernized CRT needs to address the Columbia Basin using a
watershed approach that integrates Ecosystem-based Function,
hydropower, and flood risk management on both sides of the border.
The tribes developed and offered this definition of Ecosystem
Function to the Regional Sovereigns and the U.S. Entity. Despite this,
the U.S. Entity has not adopted a definition of Ecosystem-based
Function. The reason the Columbia Basin tribes developed the definition
and offered it for use by the U.S. Entity and the other members of the
Sovereign Review and Technical Teams was that the tribes' designees on
the Sovereign Review Team were often asked by the U.S. Entity ``what do
you mean by ecosystem-based function?'' The tribes thought it was
important to provide the definition so that folks had a better context
and understanding for our conversations. You'll find that it's really
not much different than a standard text book definition, except that it
probably has a greater focus on riverine and riparian ecosystems--that
is, river-focused ecosystems. By way of example, very early in the
process (December 2010), as Entity, federal, tribal and state staff
were working on developing the Sovereign Participation Process
structure, tribal staff had used ``ecosystem-based function'' in
several places throughout the ``charter'' for the Sovereigns process--
and the Entity staff took it out and replaced it with ``salmon
fisheries'' because they thought that is what the tribes meant. That
event made it clear that a definition was needed for this process.
Again, at this time we don't know that the Entity has adopted a
definition--we would hope they adopt the tribes' proposed definition as
we think it would help the State Department in their consideration of
the regional recommendation.
The flows and spills that are now part of the river and reservoir
operations now provide a good platform upon which to build a more
comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach. We've made a good start in the
region, but we think we can do better with a comprehensive, bilateral
approach with Canada, where they too are invested in the benefits of
changed river and reservoir operations. Remember, the BiOp and the
litigation over the BiOp are focused on recovery goals for ESA-listed
salmon populations, as well as a few sturgeon and bull trout population
needs. We're advocating for a more comprehensive approach than that, an
ecosystem-based function approach for the watershed, where we're also
taking into consideration goals and objectives for healthy and
sustainable fish and wildlife populations.
It's premature to attempt to estimate costs or define credits. It's
far preferable to build a bi-nation ecosystem function and ethic into a
new treaty to create shared benefits and obligations. In so doing, it
makes sense to establish a new formula for calculating downstream
benefits to ensure ratepayers are paying only for those benefits
directly realized as hydropower production.
Question 3. Has the Executive branch adequately captured your
concerns and interests during the Treaty Review process?
Answer. The tribes have had sustained engagement across the
Administration including the U.S. Entity on all aspects of the Columbia
River Treaty Review. It is apparent to us that the Administration
itself has wide-ranging interests on the future of the Treaty ranging
from agency mission-specific interests to the broader rubric of trade
and national security. The US Entity's efforts to gather regional
perspective in the form of a recommendation has not fully captured the
concerns and interests of our tribes. As such, we reserve our
opportunity for full consultation with the Administration post-regional
recommendation to ensure our concerns and interests are captured.
Question 4. Do you support the continuation of this treaty with
Canada?
Answer. We support a modernized treaty that includes ecosystem
function as a new primary purpose. We could not support the
continuation of status-quo due to the effects on the ecosystem and
thereby tribal rights and interests.
Question 5. To date, how has the Columbia River Treaty taken
fisheries and ecosystem resources into account?
Answer. Fisheries, particularly ESA-affected stocks, have been
subject to annual negotiations for flows. These annual negotiations
create uncertainty for the species, ratepayers and tribal rights.
The Ecosystem, when taken as a whole, has been severely altered and
compromised as a direct consequence of treaty requirements and ongoing
implementation. As my testimony states, to prevent the chance of
downriver floods, we've created permanent floods upriver. Our nations
are unlikely to radically alter our hydropower and flood risk
management infrastructure, but we can give equitable weight and
consideration, through planning, forecasting and commitment to a
healthy ecosystem.
______
Responses of Norm Semanko to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. In your view, what have been the greatest strengths of
the Columbia River Treaty over the last 50 years? What are its greatest
shortcomings?
Answer. The greatest strengths of the Treaty over the last 50 years
have been its ability to assist in effectively managing flood risk in
the region and providing flows to support the region's hydropower
system. The greatest shortcoming of the current Treaty is the change to
``called upon'' flood protection in 2024 and the differing
interpretations of this provision by the United States and Canada.
Question 2. The Draft Recommendation calls for adding a
comprehensive Ecosystem Function as the third primary purpose (in
addition to power production and flood control) of the Columbia River
Treaty. How do you define Ecosystem Function? Would it include credit
for actions already being done, such as compliance with the Endangered
Species Act? Who will bear the costs of this new Ecosystem Function? Do
you support the addition of this new Treaty purpose?
Answer. We do not support the addition of ``Ecosystem-Based
Function'' as a third primary purpose of the Treaty. The term is not
defined and means different things to different groups, as was apparent
at the hearing. The Tribes' understanding of the term and the U.S.
Entity's understanding are worlds apart. It is appropriate to recognize
compliance with domestic environmental laws as an authorized purpose,
similar to other authorized purposes such as water supply, irrigation,
navigation and recreation. That should be the limit of the ecosystem
component in the Treaty. Including ecosystem-based function as a
separate, primary purpose of the Treaty will cause uncertainty and
chaos in the operation of the river system for decades to come. It will
also add untold costs to the region.
Question 3. The ``Canadian Entitlement'' as it has become known, is
the amount of electric power the U.S. is obligated to deliver to
Canada--equal to one-half the estimated downstream power benefits from
the operation of Canadian Treaty storage.
Currently, the entitlement requires the U.S. to deliver power to
Canada worth approximately $250-$350 million annually. However, the
Treaty assumes that the power generation in the U.S. is optimized for
power generation even though our system operations have a number of
competing demands, such as environmental requirements. How does Canada
perceive the ``Canadian Entitlement''? How does the U.S. position
differ? Do you agree with Dr. Karier's assessment that the U.S. is
receiving only about one-tenth of the actual power benefits? Should the
U.S. obligation to return power to Canada be reduced?
Answer. This topic lies outside of our area of expertise and we
have no opinion on these matters. We defer to the opinions provided by
the U.S. power interests in the region.
Question 4. Has the Executive branch adequately captured your
concerns and interests during the Treaty Review process?
Answer. We believe that the U.S. Entity has listened to our
concerns during the process. In particular, they have done an adequate
job of addressing our concerns regarding ``called upon'' flood control
procedures by advocating a position that only the eight authorized dams
in the U.S. should be used to provide system flood control.
Unfortunately, our concerns regarding ecosystem-based function have not
been adequately addressed, as discussed in response to question 2
above.
Question 5. Do you support the continuation of this treaty with
Canada?
Answer. Yes.