In mid-July, the U.S. and Canada announced a draft Agreement in Principle to update the 1961 Columbia River Treaty. The new agreement attempts to address old injustices. The results are mixed, and here’s why.
The treaty required construction of three storage dams in southeast B.C., to hold back 15.5 million acre-feet (MAF) of water. For 60 years, the dams have protected U.S. communities from flooding, and offered them steady release of stored water.
B.C. has been compensated with the Canadian Entitlement (a 50 per cent share in the increased hydro-power Canadian storage facilitates). This entitlement vexes the U.S. public utilities, who pay a chunk of it from their profits.
Yet, the reliable flows have at the same time earned the Pacific Northwest many accolades for its efficient production of 40 per cent of all U.S. hydro-power.
Wow.
On the Canadian side, the same treaty dams formed a foundation for more dams, and a system that now makes half of all the hydro-power consumed in B.C.
More wow.
Except: all that stored water destroyed 90 per cent of the archaeological record of the Sinixt, the Aboriginal people of the main stem of the Columbia in B.C. It swept away Canadian agricultural communities in the Arrow Lakes and Kootenay River valleys. It holds the river and tributaries in a cruel ecological vice-grip, silencing waterfowl, imperilling fish and drowning ungulate habitat.
That’s a bathtub full of injustice. How does the agreement measure up?
First, traditional economics.
The draft agreement requires the U.S. to pay annually for flood control, to replace the modest CDN$500 million (in today’s currency) paid once in 1964. It reduces storage requirements in Canada, liberating between four and five MAF of water. It shrinks Canada’s entitlement, but promises B.C. access to the lucrative U.S. transmission system. Sounds pretty good.
A full quarter of the treaty-allocated water may flow for other values: recreation; restoration of shoreline ecology; support of ocean salmon. But who will hold B.C.’s hydroelectric river barons in check? The agreement is silent about that. Ongoing public monitoring and engagement will be crucial.
Second, local consultation. The agreement proposes a working group to address losses in the transboundary Kootenay/Kootenai River region — from Rexford, Mont., north to Wardner, B.C. Residents around Libby Dam’s “Lake” Koocanusa receive no compensation from revenues generated by this American dam flooding Canadian land.
The agreement makes no specific reference to mitigating the losses to dry-land farmers, nor does it lay out exactly how locals will influence operations.
Nonetheless, an ethical step forward.
Third, Indigenous People. The agreement calls for the formation of an international Indigenous Advisory Board of representatives from Tribes and First Nations, those not consulted in any way during the first Treaty negotiations (or any time prior).
This might have been another positive step, except that it is undercut by a profound ethical error. Since 1961 (and most recently since 2018) the Canadian government has perpetuated the greatest CRT injustice of them all — you could call it the elephant in the room — the entire exclusion of the proven Aboriginal rights holders of the main stem of the Columbia River in Canada.
Some residents of the upper Columbia region may have assumed that the Sinixt had a voice in the process. Isn’t that what Canada’s cultural reconciliation was supposed to be about?
Ah, the government has carefully explained, the Sinixt are “American.” They have a voice on that side.
A clever workaround. No tribe or representative was invited to sit at the U.S. table as sovereign. Their interests were grouped as one of others, such as hydro-power and irrigation. The three First Nations in Canada had actual political leverage, and we have a more equitable agreement as a result.
So does it matter that the Sinixt weren’t at the Canadian table?
Let’s tease apart the ethical strands. Canadian First Nations helped bring about the liberated flows — good for the river. Something still isn’t right, however. Aboriginal rights to consultation are court-proven to belong to the Sinixt on the main stem of the Columbia. The heavily dammed and profitable Treaty landscape comprises 80 per cent of their territory. Who made the decision to exclude them, and why?
The Canadian government has continued to offer excuses and rationalizations. None of these pass the ethical smell test. Several months ago, the B.C. government announced with great fanfare that it was sharing a portion of the Canadian Entitlement with the First Nations they had invited to sit as negotiators.
All well and good. Except that — once again — the Sinixt received nothing.
It’s a truism that with any effective compromise between two parties, neither leaves completely satisfied. Everyone gets something, and everyone gives something up. The draft agreement rebalances the needs of the two colonial nations. The Americans no longer have their sweetheart deal. Canadians have more control over their water, but less guaranteed money in their pockets. All of that seems like progress.
What if there is a third party, one entirely excluded? I won’t rest until the Canadian government has addressed the core injustice embedded in the treaty. The Sinixt are due respect, entitlement and a voice in water governance in their territory.
How about a permanent seat on the new Advisory Board? Hurry up, Mr. Trudeau. It’s been a hot, smokey summer full of losses. Let’s put a stop to at least one.
Eileen Delehanty Pearkes is the author of A River Captured: the Columbia River Treaty and Catastrophic Change, now out in a new edition; and a recent co-author with David Moscowitz of The Big River: Resilience and Renewal in the Columbia River Basin (2024). She has travelled extensively in the international basin and is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada.
