Last July, in what many of us thought to be the nick of time, painstaking negotiations between Canada and the United States produced a modernized, momentous agreement-in-principle to one of North America’s most consequential transboundary pacts.
The Columbia River Treaty, the framework for hydropower generation and flood control between the two countries, had been left untouched without an amendment since the 1990s – the only time it had been amended since its ratification three decades prior. Not surprisingly, both countries wanted changes.
With elections in both countries looming, negotiators resolved differences with the amendment so legislators could rubber-stamp the deal’s provisions for better water management, revenue sharing and Indigenous participation.
In principle, a great accomplishment. In practice, perhaps a wasted effort.
The treaty compensates Canada for storing water and British Columbia through the "Canadian Entitlement," granting a half-share of hydropower benefits generated in the U.S. from the presence of Canadian dams. Those benefits today total about US$200 million annually for the province.
But the treaty amendment languishes in limbo. It couldn’t be ratified by the U.S. Senate before last year’s American presidential election. BC Hydro negotiated on behalf of the B.C. government for Canada, but the deal formally requires federal cabinet sign-off, too, unlikely before our own expected federal election.
In place now in the absence of a legally binding amendment is a temporary measure. It preserves U.S. flood protection and extends payments into B.C. for two decades, and reduces water storage for the U.S. by two-thirds for the next three years.
This sounds reasonable as a stop-gap, but an interim arrangement is just that, one far easier to abrogate than a legal amendment. Remember that last September, in a speech in California, then-candidate Donald Trump referred to the “large faucet” in British Columbia that could be turned on to help the water-starved state, which has since faced devastating wildfires.
The most cynical and anxious among us might believe there was a reason for American political indifference after the hard bureaucratic work, that to dicker for our water would be yet another shiny object of desire for the Trump administration. Now that some of us stoop to jeer The Star-Spangled Banner at Canucks games, we appear capable of thinking these dark thoughts of our neighbours.
Given the president seems willing to steamroll our trade deal before it expires, is it unreasonable to wonder if the stalled treaty amendment might prove a Trump card?
Before we blame America and its fractured Congress, or speculate on its motives, let’s own our own mistake. There were billions of dollars and many other benefits for B.C. in the amendment, and the American side hinted that B.C. didn’t treat its pursuit as the priority it was and is.
Of course, the Columbia is not just a source of vast electricity or insurance for flood protection. It involves a vital ecosystem that supports fisheries, agriculture and local economies. One critique is that the treaty’s provisions have inadequately considered ecological sustainability, so inaction further jeopardizes the health of the river basin. Due to climate change’s impacts of droughts and snowmelt patterns, water management needs to be guided by modern science. What we are left with is an engineering feat and a revenue source, but hardly the best operating principles.
A newly amended treaty would have been seen as a long-needed step toward acknowledging Indigenous rights. First Nations in Canada and Indigenous tribes in the U.S. were excluded from the original negotiations, despite the treaty’s profound flooding of their lands, devastation of their fisheries, displacement of people and disregard of their cultural heritage. The amendment would have incorporated Indigenous voices in decision-making and has instead left intact those historical injustices.
What should have been a slam-dunk bipartisan and binational success has proven to be yet another example of political inertia. What we are left with is a setback for economic co-operation, environmental stewardship and Indigenous reconciliation. We have a 21st century agreement with 20th century provisions, suddenly with no prospect of renewal, and possibly not the renewal that was reached after a series of 19 negotiating sessions.
It is logical that Trump and whoever shortly runs this country will want to review the deal before signing off, whenever that will be. We can only hope that the negotiating power on this side remains resolute and that this file doesn’t hit Trump’s radar at the wrong juncture in his biorhythm to provoke a claim on our water or propose a flimsier payment.
We’ve seen that movie. It’s too bad now we didn’t use the opportunity to more clearly avert an unhappy ending.
Kirk LaPointe is a Glacier Media columnist with an extensive background in journalism.
