Dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries contribute greatly to the way of life here in Eastern Washington. So, when the federal government says it has reached an agreement on proposed revisions to the Columbia River Treaty with Canada, rural residents should say not so fast.
On the surface, the “in principle” agreement announced last week looks good for Americans.
Under the proposed changes, the U.S. will get to keep more of the power generated on our side of the border. The proposed agreement says the U.S. will reduced the power allocation to Canada by 37% when a new treaty is ratified and will further reduce the allocation up to 50% by 2033.
Administrator John Hairston estimates the move will save Bonneville Power Administration about $1.2 billion over two decades.
Here’s the rub: He has not said it will save ratepayers money or reduce electricity rates for those who live and work in the Columbia River basin. Nor has he said it will decrease the chance for any brownouts or blackouts here.
Utilities across the state have been asking for rate increases, not offering decreases. And many have implemented new policies to shut off power for extended periods during peak use and other times.
If we’re not going to see a substantial rate cut or funding to end these new shutdown policies, my guess is the additional power will likely be sold “down the river” — potentially to California or other places that have implemented excessive regulations restricting power generation.
Selling the power downstream doesn’t help those of us who live and work along the river, where the power is generated.
Then there’s the flood fee.
The proposed treaty revisions call for the U.S. to pay Canada to hold water in reservoirs to prevent flooding on our side of the border. The initial cost would be $37.6 million per year; it would increase annually with inflation.
So, Bonneville Power Administration will be paying for Canadians to create and/or maintain reservoirs for boating, fishing and other uses at a time when extremists on our side of the border want dams breached and reservoirs drawn down.
Then there’s the unnecessary creep of identity politics and environmental activism into the treaty proposal.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the “in principle” treaty is a prime example of his “Roadmap for a Renewed U.S.-Canada Partnership.” Research his “roadmap” and you find climate activism, a push for diversity and inclusion, and expansion of globalism.
So, the proposed Columbia River Treaty would inject net-zero emission criteria in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement (a treaty in which the U.S. is not a party). It would also call for a reduction of gasoline and methane emissions, development of “sustainable, resilient, and clean energy,” and more.
For the record, under the Gov. Jay Inslee Administration, Washington state doesn’t consider dams as “green” or “clean” energy producers. So “development” here would refer to more commercial solar and wind turbine developments, neither of which is popular in Eastern Washington.
As for identity politics, the proposed treaty injects diversity and inclusion-based principles into management of the Columbia River.
“In modernizing this treaty, we will elevate U.S. Tribes’ and Canadian Indigenous Nations’ voices,” Trudeau wrote in a statement on the treaty.
In other words, Trudeau and President Joe Biden want to give the tribes some authority over stream flow and river management.
Sounds similar to the hand off of authority over the Snake River and power generation brokered in a backroom deal last fall. If you don’t remember, the Inslee Administration, state of Oregon, environmental groups and four tribes met secretly to broker a deal giving some authority over future power generation and management of the Snake River to four tribes, none of which have reservations adjacent to that river.
That agreement was a blatant attempt at circumventing courts and U.S. law in regard to breaching Snake River dams. So, is the proposed new Columbia River Treaty also a step in the attempt to breach our dams?
I’m sure as the final written treaty is hammered out in the coming months, there will be many more concerns and questions that need to be addressed before its handed off to the U.S. Senate for ratification. And I’m sure Eastern Washington residents will need time to read and understand the final “fine print.”
With the U.S. looking like there will be a major overhaul in national leadership come November, the treaty can wait after the general election.
Maybe then it can be drafted with pragmatism, instead of activism.
— Roger Harnack is the owner/publisher of Free Press Publishing. Email him at [email protected].
Roger Harnack is the owner/publisher of Free Press Publishing. Having grown up Benton City, Roger is an award-winning journalist, columnist, photographer, editor and publisher. He's one of only two editorial/commentary writers from Washington state to ever receive the international Golden Quill. Roger is dedicated to the preservation of local media, and the voice it retains for Eastern Washington.
Reader Comments(0)