Pacific Northwest stakeholders have been holding meetings preparing for a modernized version of the Columbia River Treaty since 2011.

Thirteen years later, with the July 10 announcement of an agreement-in-principle between the U.S. and Canada, those stakeholders are taking a “wait and see” approach, calling it an “important first step.”

“While I am pleased that an agreement in-principle regarding the Canadian Columbia River Treaty modernization has been reached, until details emerge regarding the specific provisions of that agreement, the positive or negative impacts on the Columbia River system operations cannot be assessed,” said Derek Sandison, director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture.

“The Columbia River is critical for the agriculture industry, especially Washington wheat farmers who rely on the transportation and irrigation benefits of the river,” said Michelle Hennings, executive director of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers. “Thriving family-owned farms are the lynchpin of rural economies, and while we appreciate this important first step, we encourage swift, thoughtful, and science-based negotiations moving forward to ensure an agreement that reflects a modernized system and serves stakeholders across the board, including farmers.”

“This has been a long haul to get to an agreement in principle from Canada,” said Rob Rich, vice president of marine services for Shaver Transportation, a tug and barge company. “We are very appreciative of our State Department and stakeholder efforts to help craft an agreement that protects navigation. There is still a long way to go with many details to be answered before it receives Senate ratification. We will continue to be closely engaged as this agreement moves through the approval process to ensure our system is able to perform safely and efficiently.”

Neil Maunu, executive director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, remains “cautiously optimistic” that a fully-ratified treaty will meet stakeholder needs.

“There will be many long days ahead to ensure the details of a modernized treaty and operations plan meet the requirements of our industry,” Maunu said. “We are excited that safe river navigation, transportation, flood control, and hydropower will remain an efficient and reliable centerpiece to our region and its economy.”

“We welcome the news that there seems to be progress regarding Treaty negotiations, but it will be critical for us to understand all the details that have been negotiated between the two countries,” said Scott Simms, co-chair of the Columbia River Treaty Power Group and CEO and executive director of the Public Power Council. “The ‘devil is in the details’ cliché is certainly appropriate for this transboundary issue.

“However, one thing is for certain, we wouldn’t have made any progress if it wasn’t for the unwavering dedication over the past decade from our congressional delegation on both sides of the aisle,” Simms added.

Environmental groups frustrated

Northwest environmental groups expressed “frustration and disappointment” in the agreement-in-principle, saying it does not adequately address the “crisis” facing the Columbia River ecosystem and “dwindling” salmon and steelhead runs.

“The agreement continues to maintain the primacy of hydropower and flood control over the needs of struggling anadromous fish populations,” stated a joint press release from the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, Sierra Club, Earth Ministry/Washington Interfaith Power and Light and WaterWatch of Oregon. “It leaves critical, unresolved questions regarding health of the river and uncertainty and risk for fish populations facing extinction today.”

“The health of the Columbia River must become an explicit purpose and priority in a new, modernized treaty,” stated Joseph Bogaard, executive director of the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition. “The Columbia Basin is out of balance today. A modernized treaty must become a tool for restoring balance. Salmon advocates have serious concerns with this Agreement in Principle. In its current form, it means continued risk and uncertainty for this historic river, its native fish populations and the many benefits they bring to our communities.”

“Northwest people and salmon need a modern Treaty that is a strong asset for, not an impediment to, a healthier and more resilient Columbia River,” stated Bill Arthur, chair of the Sierra Club’s Snake/Columbia River Salmon Campaign. “Support for including Ecosystem Function as a new pillar to the treaty was included in the Regional Recommendation, and broadly supported by the public. It is hugely disappointing that it is absent from the agreement in principle. The agreement focuses on revenue for BPA and customers while the salmon and Columbia River are left with a status quo that was already inadequate.”

PUD lawsuit over delays now ‘in question’

Public utility districts in Washington’s Chelan, Douglas and Grant counties in June sued the Bonneville Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the delay in ratifying the existing treaty, set to expire Sept. 15.

The lawsuit was filed June 17 in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Washington.

“The U.S. Entity has been aware of the September 15, 2024, date for decades and has spent the past six years attempting to negotiate new arrangements with Canada,” the lawsuit states. “Unfortunately, these efforts have yielded no substantive agreements and do not appear to be close to any conclusion despite more than half a decade of effort and 15 rounds of negotiations.”

During negotiations, the districts “assiduously” pushed BPA to provide guidelines of what power arrangements would be after Sept. 15, consistently reminding BPA of the need for clarity to plan how to operate their utilities and know what, if any, power BPA would look to them to provide.

The three districts are referred to as “the Mid-Cs” in the lawsuit.

“Unfortunately, BPA has taken no action vis-à-vis the Mid-Cs to address what happens after that date other than to suggest that the Mid-Cs agree to extend the soon-to-expire (Canadian Entitlement Allocation Extension Agreements), an option the Mid-Cs first told BPA more than seven years ago was (and remains) a nonstarter because the amount of electricity they currently supply is vastly more than the downstream power benefits they actually receive,” the lawsuit states. “This lawsuit is premised on BPA’s failure to deal realistically with the Mid-Cs about what happens after September 15, 2024, despite the assiduous and repeated urging by the Mid-Cs that BPA do so.”

The modernized treaty announcement puts the lawsuit in question, said Christine Pratt, public information officer for Grant County PUD.

“It’s a general agreement to update the treaty, which is huge, but there’s still a lot of details that have to be analyzed and worked out on both sides, it sounds like,” Pratt said. “It’ll probably be a while before we really know where the three utilities are all going to go with that lawsuit.”