30 January 2013 1

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Too Much

orToo

Little Water!

Treaty History & Requirements

Trail B.C. flood in 1948Vanport destroyed in 1948

Grand Coulee spill

Draught

30 January 2013 2

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Why did we need a Treaty?

About 1/3 of the ColumbiaRiver water comes from Canada.

Canada has 15% of the basin area, but 30% of 134 million acre feet (Maf) average annual flow at The Dalles.

50% of worst Columbia flood flows (1894) at The Dallescame from Canada.

Flow at border varies from 14,000 to 555,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), much wider variation (1:40) than Mississippi or St. Lawrence.

30 January 2013 3

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Year to Year Variation in FlowAbout +/- 50% of Average

Minimum = 53.5 maf, Average = 105.6 maf, Maximum = 173.8 mafLong-term trends are apparent over time, but year to year variations are

almost random, with no reliable next year forecast.

3545

5565

7585

951 05

1 151 25

1 351 45

1 551 65

1 75

Y e a r ly J a n . - J u ly V o lu m e R u n o ff

5 y e a r M o v in g A v e ra g e

C o lu m b ia R iv e r J a n u a ry-J u ly V o lu m e R u n o ff a t T h e D a lle s fro m 1 8 7 9 to 1 9 9 9 (1 2 1 ye a rs )

30 January 2013 4

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Unregulated flow at The Dalles varies from 36,000 to 1,240,000 cfsa 1:34 ratio, comparedto the St. Lawrence 1:2 & Mississippi 1:25 ratios

Reservoir storage converts spill, nonfirm,and unusable energy tofirm energy and usablenonfirm energy.

Seasonal flow forecastsare poor. The 95% probability forecast errorfor the January forecast of the Jan-Julyvolume runoff at The Dalles is +/- 27 maf.

Large Seasonal Variation in FlowComparison of 50-year Average Monthly Unregulated Flow

to Desired Regulated Flow at The Dalles in Kcfs

050

100150200250300350400450500

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

UnregulatedDesired Regulated

30 January 2013 5

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Columbia is the most powerful river in North America

Hydropower is measured by river flow times change in elevation (called “head”)

St. Lawrence and Mississippi have more flow, but much less head

Grand Coulee has twice the head of Niagara Falls

Niagara Falls & PowerhouseGrand Coulee

30 January 2013 6

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Average Annual RunoffAnd Usable Reservoir StorageMajor Western River Basins

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250

Columbia Colorado MissouriRIVER BASINS

MIL

LIO

NS

OF

AC

RE

FEET

Average Annual Runoff

Usable Reservoir Storage

30 January 2013 7

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Relief Map of B.C.

Note that the river basins generally run North / South… more connections with the U.S. than with Alberta.

Border with Alberta runs along the Columbia River watershed boundary.

30 January 2013 8

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia River Flows South from B.C.

30 January 2013 9

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia / Kootenay System

MCA

REV

HLK

LIB

DDM

30 January 2013 10

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

How did we get the Treaty?

Proclamation and Exchangeof Diplomatic Notes at Peace Arch

- 16 Sept. 1964

Signing the Treaty in 1961

6

1954-60 negotiations led to signing of Columbia River Treaty by Prime Minister Diefenbaker and President Eisenhower on 1/17/61

Treaty soon ratified by U.S. Senate, but not by Canada. B.C. needed money to build dams on both Columbia and Peace rivers, so needed to sell the downstream power benefits; the Canadian government initially opposed such a sale.

1961-64 negotiations between U.S. & Canadian governments led to a Treaty Protocol, signed January 22, 1964, that allowed the sale of the Canadian Entitlement to the U.S., and clarified several issues, one of which increased the Canadian Entitlement to U.S. downstream power benefits from earlier estimates.

1961-64 negotiations between Canada, British Columbia, the U.S. government, and U.S. mid-Columbia utilities led to an agreement on $254.4 million price for 30-year sale of the Canadian Entitlement.

30 January 2013 11

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Columbia River Treaty OrganizationCANADIAN GOVERNMENT

Ministry of Foreign Affairs & TradeMinistry Natural Resources

BRITISH COLUMBIAGOVERNMENT

UNITED STATESGOVERNMENT

Department of StateDepartment of Army

Department of EnergyTREATY

PERMANENT ENGINEERING BOARD*

CANADIAN UNITED STATES

PEB ENGINEERING COMMITTEE***

CANADIAN UNITED STATES

CANADIANENTITY

*

CANADIANCOORDINATOR

&SECRETARY

**

United StatesENTITY

*

United StatesCOORDINATOR

&SECRETARY

**

OPERATING COMMITTEE**

CANADIAN UNITED STATES

HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL COMMITTEE**

CANADIAN UNITED STATES

*Established byTREATY

* * Established by ENTITIES

* * *Established by PEB

CANADIAN

ENTITYfor Art.XIV2j*

30 January 2013 12

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Agreed Design of Canadian Treaty Storage

By 1960, 13.0 million acre-feet (MAF) of storage was in place in the US. A further 15.5 MAF was needed to limit the flow at The Dalles to a tolerable limit of 600 kcfs. This established the volume requested by the US.

A multitude of potential project configurations were proposed: all included Duncan as built; high Arrow and low Arrow (Murphy) options were considered; and various Mica and East Kootenay options were considered.

The eventual design included 7.0 MAF at Mica, 1.4 MAF at Duncan and 7.1 MAF at Arrow (the high Arrow option).

The latter would raise the level of the Arrow Lakes by 40 feet above the natural high water line for a total rise and fall of 66 feet. It would flood 20,000 acres of arable land, inundate 50 miles of beaches and displace 2,000 residents.

30 January 2013 13

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

What does the Treaty Do?

The Treaty required Canada to construct and operate 15.5 Maf of storage on the Columbia River and Duncan River in Canada for optimum power generation and flood control downstream in Canada and the U.S.

U.S. must return to Canada one-half of the downstream power and flood control benefits this storage produces in the U.S.

The Treaty allowed the U.S. to construct and operate the Libby project with 5 Maf storage on the Kootenai River in Montana for flood control and other purposes.

30 January 2013 14

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Duncan (1968)Created the Duncan Reservoir

Keenleyside (1969)Created the Lower Arrow Reservoir

Mica (1973)Created the Kinbasket

Reservoir

30 January 2013 15

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Libby (1973)Created the

Koocanusa Reservoir

Revelstoke (1984)

30 January 2013 16

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Treaty priority for water use

1. Domestic & consumptive uses - drinking water, irrigation, etc.

2. Flood control - hard upper limit on reservoir levels … “trumps” all operations for energy production

3. Firm energy - must draft reservoirs as far as is necessary to meet the specified firm energy requirement

4. Reservoir refill - refill by 31 July to maximize firm energy capability for the following year

5. Secondary energy - “less useful” energy, since it is not guaranteed in all years

30 January 2013 17

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Treaty Provisions forFlood Control

8.45 million acre feet (Maf) of storage at Arrow, Duncan, and Mica is assured for flood control operation.

Additional 7 Maf of Treaty Storage and 5 Maf of Non-treaty storage available “on call” for large floods at cost of $1.875 million at each of the first four requests.

$64,400,000 cash payment made to Canada by U.S. Government at the completion of the three Canadian projects for one-half of the estimated present worth of future flood damages prevented in the U.S.

Corps or Engineers estimates that Treaty Storage prevented over $200 million ($1985) in 1972 and 1974.Treaty storage reduced 1997 peak flows at The

Dalles by 170,000 cfs , and prevented about $197 million in flood damages.

Portland levelsBank full = 16’, Major flood = 26’

UnReg. Reg.1997= 28.4’ 19’ 1996= 29’ 27.2’1974= 30.6’ 21.1’ 1972= 31.5’ 21.5‘1964= 32.5’ 27.7’ 1948= 31’ 31’ 1894= 35.6’ 35.6’

30 January 2013 18

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Runoff - Which Shape This Year?

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1954MAXIMUMSTORAGE REQUIREMENTS

574 KCFS

9.5 MAF

1 APR FCST = 103 MAF

1 9 5 4

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

29.4 MAF

1 APR FCST = 100 MAF

1005.6 KCFS

1 948 MAXIMUMSTORAGE REQUIREMENTS

1 9 4 8

30 January 2013 19

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Treaty Flood Control benefits in Canada

Note - Peak Kootenay Lake levels have been 5 to 8 ft lower since construction of the upstream Treaty dams (Libby and Duncan)

Kootenay Lake Levels (at Queens Bay)annual maximum & minimum

1761.951961

Duncan (1967) & Libby (1972) reservoirs reduce spring inflow to Kootenay

Lake

1737.411944

1735

1740

1745

1750

1755

1760

1765

1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Year

Lake

leve

l (fe

et)

Maximum Levels

Minimum Levels

30 January 2013 20

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Treaty Provisionsfor Hydropower

15 1/2 million acre feet of Canadian storage is operated for optimum power generation downstream in Canada and the US.

Canada has Entitlement right to receive 1/2 of increased power generated downstream in the U.S. due to operation of Canadian Treaty storage.

Power benefits from treaty storage are defined as dependable capacity and average annual usable energy.

Downstream power benefits (DPB) resulting from Libby storage operation belong to the country where they are generated, ie U.S. or Canada.

The hydroelectric operating plans provide a monthly reservoir balance relationship for the whole of Canadian storage, allowing Canada flexibility to operate individual projects for maximum Canadian benefit.

30 January 2013 21

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Types of Treaty studies

Assured Operating Plan (AOP)• done 6 years in advance (“planning” time horizon) …

allows time for construction of new resources• downstream benefits calculated from AOP

Detailed Operating Plan (DOP)• done just prior to the operating year … revises &/or

confirms the operating rules that were agreed on in the AOP … only by mutual agreement

Treaty Storage Regulation (TSR)• implements the DOP rules within the current operating

year based on the actual & forecast runoff for each Columbia River project

30 January 2013 22

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Assured Operating Plans

Treaty requires an Assured Operating Plan (AOP) forCanadian Treaty storage be developed annually for the sixthsucceeding operating year from a hydro-regulation studiesdesigned to achieve optimum power and flood controlbenefits in Canada and U.S.

Most modern nonpower requirements (e.g. fish andrecreation) CANNOT be included in the AOP.

Treaty allows the Entities to agree on a Detailed OperatingPlan (DOP) that may include fishery and other objectives,IF it provides mutual benefits.

30 January 2013 23

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Determination of Downstream Power Benefits

Determination of Downstream Power Benefits (DDPB) is based on the Assured Operating Plan, not the real storage operation.

The Canadian Entitlement, which is one-half of the power benefits produced in the U.S., is calculated annually from the difference in Dependable Capacity and Average Annual Usable Energy for the 1961 U.S. Base Hydroelectric System, with and without the addition of Canadian Treaty storage.

Using the 1961 U.S. Base System puts Canadian Treaty storage on a “first-added” basis ahead of coordination benefits from Libby and Dworshak dams and the PNW-California transmission intertie.

Canadian Entitlement deliveries are not affected or adjusted to reflect actual or real power benefits.

13

30 January 2013 24

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Detailed Operating Plan

•Treaty allows the Entities to prepare and implement Detailed Operating Plans (DOP) that may produce results more advantageous to both countries than from operation under the AOP.

•The Detailed Operating Plan is prepared each year immediately prior to the operating year and typically differs little from the Assured Operating Plan

•The DOP authorizes the Operating Committee to agree on mutually beneficial changes from the DOP operating data and procedures to meet current power and nonpower objectives

• The DOP also includes mutually beneficial water and power scheduling procedures not included in the AOP or defined in the Treaty.

30 January 2013 25

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Treaty Storage Regulation

Treaty storage operating obligations are determined at least twice monthly to establish end-of-month Canadian storage targets

The end-of-month Treaty storage obligations are determined by the DOP Treaty Storage Regulation (TSR) Study

The TSR is a monthly hydroregulation study based on the AOP operating criteria, loads, and resources, updated with DOP changes and the current forecasted streamflows and flood control and other planning curves for both Canadian and US projects.

TSR results are input to the Northwest Power Pool, BC Hydro, Corps of Engineers and BPA operations planning.

30 January 2013 26

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Return of theCanadian Entitlement

The Treaty provided for Entitlement delivery to Canada at the U.S.-Canada boundary at a point near Oliver, B.C. unless otherwise agreed.

Nov. 1996 Entity Agreement provides for delivery of the Entitlement to the Canadian border at existing points of inter-connection at Blaine and Selkirk and defines scheduling guide-lines.

March 1999 agreements and exchange of Diplomatic Notes allows delivery and sale of Entitlement power directly within the U.S. to decrease Canadian transmission losses and BPA transmission costs.

U.S. Entity is currently delivering 483 average MW of energy at maximum hourly rates of 1241 MW capacity at the Canada-U.S. border.

Transmission capacity for firm deliveries has occasionally been a problem in the past.

30 January 2013 27

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Canadian Entitlement from Annual Determination of Downstream Power Benefits (DDPB) vs. 1964 Canadian

Entitlement Exchange Agreement (CEEA)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009Note: 1999 through 2003 CSPE results adjusted to take out expire of 30yr sale.

MW

DDPB Capacity

CEEA Capacity

DDPB Energy

CEEA Energy

30 January 2013 28

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Canadian Power Benefits

CAN Entitlements c/w Trendlines

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,60073

-74

75-7

6

77-7

8

79-8

0

81-8

2

83-8

4

85-8

6

87-8

8

89-9

0

91-9

2

93-9

4

95-9

6

97-9

8

99-0

0

01-0

2

03-0

4

05-0

6

07-0

8

09-1

0

11-1

2

13-1

4

15-1

6

17-1

8

19-2

0

21-2

2

23-2

4

Treaty Operating Year (Aug - Jul)

Ener

gy in

aM

W; C

apac

ity in

MW

MW Returned to BC

aMW Returned to BC

Capacity Entitlement (MW)

Energy Entitlement (aMW)

CEPA fully expired; All entitlements returned to BC

30 January 2013 29

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Canadian Control / Flexibility

The Treaty does not turn over control of Canadian reservoirs and rivers to the U.S… instead, it agrees to specific operations under specific conditions.

Article 1 of the Protocol clarified that the on-going flood control obligations for Canadian projects after 2024 are subject to specific limits, and are only to be used after U.S. flood control abilities have been fully utilized.

Article 7 of the Protocol clarified that the Treaty requirement was effectively for a flow at the border, not a specific operation at each Treaty project (subject to maintaining Flood Control abilities at each project).

Flood Control plans are developed to minimize flooding in both countries; Power plans are developed to optimize generation in both countries.

The Mica project was built 5 MAF larger than required under the Treaty. This increased the ability to “flex” water within Canada to address domestic power, social and environmental needs.

30 January 2013 30

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Treaty Benefits to Canada

Payment of US$64.4 million (1968 - 1973$) for ½ of U.S. Flood Control Benefits (avoided damages) for 60 years.

50% of U.S. downstream power benefits (as agreed to 5 years in advance) = CAN Entitlement.

30-year sale of CAN Entitlement for $254.4 million (1964$) funded the majority of the Treaty projects.

Additional payments for early completion of projects (~$7M). Flood control protection in Canada / B.C. Stream flow regulation and developed head at Mica provided

low cost sources of electric power. Libby regulation increased electricity generation on the

Kootenay River. MacLean's Magazine (Canadian version of “Time”) named the

Columbia River Treaty 1 of the 25 greatest events to shape Canada in its first 100 years (i.e. to 1967).

30 January 2013 31

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Treaty Costs to Canada

2300 people along the Arrow Lakes, Koocanusa, Duncan and Kinbasket reservoirs were displaced (with market-based compensation).

600 square kilometres of high value valley bottom land was flooded beneath 412 km of new reservoirs.

Numerous First Nations archeological and burial sites were submerged and/or degraded by erosion.

Federal – Provincial relations were seriously strained by Treaty negotiations (now fully corrected).

On-going impacts from changing water levels, include:• Reduced recreation opportunities.• Loss of key wildlife habitat.• Loss of fish habitat; Trapping of nutrients behind dams.• Increased dust storms around reservoirs.• Increased transportation problems.• Reduced farming and forestry activities.

Political Tensions: Residents in the region felt they carried the bulk of the Treaty costs, but did not fairly share in the Treaty benefits.

30 January 2013 32

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Treaty Term

The Treaty has no end date. Either government has the option to cancel the Treaty after 60 years (2024) with10 years’ advance notice. With termination: Mica, Duncan, Arrow may continue to operate subject

to the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty Libby may continue to operate for the useful life of the

project Canada must provide some flood control operation for

the U.S. as long as the need exists and projects exist, but U.S. must pay Canada’s operating costs and power losses Canada may continue any Kootenay Diversions

30 January 2013 33

ColumbiaRiverTreaty

Reasons for Treaty Success

Natural Synergies / Geography: The U.S. system included large generating projects, but relatively poor or expensive storage projects. The Canadian part of the basin presented a number of very attractive storage sites in the narrow and deep valleys. Win – win arrangements were therefore available.

Technical Input: Engineers were brought into the issue very early on. Technical principles agreed to by IJC engineers helped to drive the political process (not the other way around).

Mandated Agencies: Organizations were in place on both sides of the border that cut through political divisions: BC Province on the Canadian side; Corps (for basin-wide FC) and BPA (for basin-wide power) on the U.S. side; the IJC on both sides.

Historical Relationship: The U.S. and Canada have a long history of addressing issues in a peaceful and constructive manner.

30 January 2013 34

ColumbiaRiverTreaty Future of the Treaty

Either the U.S. or Canada has the option of terminating many aspects of the Treaty as early as Sep 2024, with a minimum of 10 years notice. Called Upon FC continues for life of projects.

Many societal values have changed since the Treaty was finalized in 1964:• Fisheries interests and legal support is greatly increased.• Certain fish stocks have dropped dramatically since 1960’s.• First Nations / Aboriginal issues are much more visible.• Many more people live on or near the Columbia River.• Environmental issues are much more prominent.

Power and Flood Control remain very important to modern society, however, and the Treaty has successful delivered these while also addressing other issues.

Personal belief that the coordinated win-win approach will continue over the long term.