[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF THE U.S.-CANADA COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY, BUILDING ON 60
YEARS OF COORDINATED POWER GENERATION AND FLOOD CONTROL
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Monday, December 9, 2013, in Pasco, Washington
__________
Serial No. 113-54
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-957 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Cardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Raul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Mark E. Amodei, NV Joe Garcia, FL
Markwayne Mullin, OK Matt Cartwright, PA
Chris Stewart, UT Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 9, 2013................................. 1
Statement of Members:
DeFazio, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 3
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Amos, Paul, President, Columbia River Pilots, Portland,
Oregon..................................................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Brigham, Kathryn, Secretary Treasurer, Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission, Pendleton, Oregon.................. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Corwin, Scott, Executive Director, Public Power Council,
Portland, Oregon........................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Crinklaw, Rick, General Manager, Lane Electric Cooperative,
Eugene, Oregon............................................. 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Eichenberger, Kathy, Executive Director, Columbia River
Treaty Review Team, BC Ministry of Energy and Mines,
Victoria, B.C.............................................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Haller, Greg, Conservation Director, Pacific Rivers Council,
Portland, Oregon........................................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Kem, John, Brigadier General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Northwest Division, Portland, Oregon....................... 8
Joint prepared statement of Elliott Mainzer and John Kem. 9
Mainzer, Elliot, Acting Administrator, Bonneville Power
Administration, Portland, Oregon........................... 6
Joint prepared statement of Elliott Mainzer and John Kem. 9
McCart, Wes, Commissioner, Stevens County, Washington........ 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Reimann, Ron, President, Columbia-Snake River Irrigators
Association; Commissioner, Port of Pasco, Kennewick,
Washington................................................. 41
Webb, Tony, General Manager, Grant County Public Utility
District, Ephrata, Washington.............................. 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Larsen, Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, Prepared statement of.......................... 5
McMorris Rodgers, Cathy, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, Prepared statement of............. 4
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON THE FUTURE OF THE U.S.-CANADA COLUMBIA RIVER
TREATY, BUILDING ON 60 YEARS OF COORDINATED POWER GENERATION AND FLOOD
CONTROL
----------
Monday, December 9, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Pasco, Washington
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Pasco
City Council Chambers, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, Washington,
Hon. Doc Hastings [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings and DeFazio.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come
to order, and the Chair notes the presence of a quorum, which
under our rules are two members, and, as you'll notice, there
are two members sitting here, so that satisfies our rule.
The Committee on Natural Resources today needs to hear
testimony on the future of the U.S.-Canada Columbia River
Treaty, building on 60 years of coordinated power generation
and flood control. And the way the process will work is Mr.
DeFazio and I will each make an opening statement. We have two
panels in front of us. The first panel is sitting to my right,
and then we'll hear from them, then there will be an exchange,
and then we'll hear from the second panel that is seated in
front of you.
I wanted to just make a note here on a personal level. The
building that you're in used to be Pasco High School. It was
Pasco High School, I think, from 1922 to 1953. And then after
that, it was a junior high for another some 30 years. The
reason I bring that up, because this is where I went to junior
high, here in this building.
And if I'm not mistaken, now, this looks nothing at all
like what I remember, but I think that my seventh grade class
was in this proximity. Now, I could be mistaken because there
were a lot of changes, but I just wanted to make that note.
This is kind of a historical area.
I will now start with my opening statement. The field
hearing on the Columbia River Treaty was purposely set here in
the Tri-Cities because it is in the heart of the Columbia River
Basin. The Columbia River has always been essential to our
economy and our way of life, generating clean, renewable power
to light our homes and businesses, providing fish and
recreation opportunities, and providing irrigation for our
crops and serving as a waterway to move goods from the interior
of the Northwest to our markets overseas.
The river also reminds us of its destructive powers. Sixty-
five years ago, 1948, devastating floods along the Columbia
River wiped out the city of Vanport in Oregon and displaced
thousands of people here in the Tri-Cities. And I do remember
the flood of '48. That type of catastrophic flood is much less
likely today in large part due to the Columbia River Treaty
agreement with Canada and subsequent investments made in new
dams by both countries.
The 1964 Columbia River Treaty provided the framework for
coordinated power generation and flood control between our two
nations. Starting next year, either party can terminate the
treaty with 10-year notice, and both countries are re-assessing
the treaty to consider changes and develop recommendations for
potential bilateral negotiations. We are pleased to have
representatives of both the U.S. Entity, as well as the
Canadian Entity, here to testify and to explain their views.
This is timely, considering a final recommendation from the
U.S. Entity to the State Department is anticipated later this
month. In my view, it is essential that the final
recommendation to the State Department focus on the two core
functions of the treaty; power generation and flood control.
The United States' power generation and operations have
changed dramatically in recent decades, in large part to
address fish concerns, leaving the formula for compensatory
energy liberties to Canada under the entitlement outdated and
in need of rebalancing. BPA estimates that the actual U.S.
power benefit in coordination with Canada may be a tenth of
what we deliver today under the current treaty terms.
Adjusting the entitlement could save Northwest ratepayers
millions of dollars annually and should be at the top priority
for the State Department. It is obviously imperative that we
reach an agreement on how flood control operations should work
post-2024. As is the case elsewhere in the United States, and
as was done historically in this case, compensation to Canada
for this function is appropriately the responsibility of the
Federal Government and not Northwest ratepayers.
Some have advocated for adding ecosystem issues into the
treaty as a third primary purpose. Negotiations with Canadians
over the entitlement and flood control will be challenging
enough as it is, without injecting vaguely-worded and
contentious items, many of which can or already are being
addressed appropriately through domestic processes.
The Northwest Endangered Species Program for Columbia River
salmon already costs several hundreds of millions of dollars
each year, mainly out of the pockets of our region's
ratepayers. Further, we should be encouraged that these efforts
have contributed to near record returns this year, for example,
for nearly one million fall Chinook salmon have returned this
year.
Ultimately, a collaborative biological opinion process,
rather than ongoing litigation, is the appropriate way to
address many of the ecosystem issues being proposed by some in
the treaty context.
While modest improvements have been witnessed in the U.S.
Entity's draft recommendations, I continue to remain concerned
that ecosystem issues continue to be overemphasized over the
core treaty functions that plainly need to be addressed one way
or another in bilateral discussions with Canada.
It is my hope and expectation that the final recommendation
from the U.S. Entity will make clear to the State Department
that the priorities we need to address are, in fact, the
entitlement and flood control.
I have been working very closely with my colleague, Mr.
DeFazio, on this issue. I will note that we do not always agree
on every issue that comes before our committee, but on this
issue we do share many of the same concerns. And I am committed
to working with him on a bipartisan fashion so we can move
forward with our oversight in this area.
Some may say that because there is cooperation, especially
in this political environment, that Mr. DeFazio and I have,
that hell has frozen over. Maybe that explains the cold
temperatures here today.
So with that, let me welcome Mr. DeFazio, the Ranking
Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, to my
hometown. And I recognize him for 5 minutes for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for holding this extraordinarily important hearing,
essentially on the eve of the submission of the stakeholders'
views to the State Department. Obviously the Columbia River is
an extraordinary resource which we all love, although in many
different ways. And it is a limited resource, despite when you
look at it sometimes, particularly at spring flows, and you
think this is an extraordinary and virtually unlimited resource
and it can yet withstand many more demands. It's not, for the
most part, true.
It is very, very balanced at this point in time, and
changes to that balance on either side of the border could have
extraordinary ramifications, obviously, the worst of which
would be floods, the others of which are economic, and then the
third of which are those that relate to a continuing recovery
of salmon and other benefits to the environment.
It also is an extraordinary carbon-free source of
electricity, again, running at many times on the margin as
we're using BPA to balance winds, when wind is intermittent and
today is nonexistent. We are benefiting from the hydro system
and, you know, we need to keep all of that in mind as we move
forward.
Now, we have three options, as the Chairman mentioned. We
could terminate the treaty. I hope it doesn't come to that, but
if we can't resolve some critical issues, it may. In my
opinion, Canada is pretty much running the system, except for
some more long-term scheduling, to optimize their own benefits
because their system has been built out since the original
treaty was negotiated, which means that, I believe, as do many
on our side of the border, that the entitlement is overly
generous.
I think we'll hear from their representative that they
believe the entitlement is not adequate. But that's going to be
a key point.
You know, the affordability of electricity is a key issue
in our region for our continued economic growth and prosperity.
Then, second, of course, we have the issue of, which Doc
mentioned, of floods. You know, there's a provision of going
to, you know, call for--you know, called upon for flood
control.
Again, there are a lot of issues relating to the
optimization of the Canadian system, which really have
superseded some of our past concerns about floods, but there
are times at which we will still need, certainly need their
cooperation in times of potential for devastating downstream
floods, the question is how should we pay for that.
Do we pay on an annual basis, or do we pay at time of
called upon, or do we have some combination of those two.
That's something that will be resolved through what I think
will be some difficult negotiations.
And then, finally, as the Chairman mentioned, there's a
question of ecosystem function. We are operating the system at
this point for ecosystem function. We have dramatically
modified the regime of the operation of our hydroelectric
system. We are having excellent returns of salmon, and the
trend line has been good for some time.
That doesn't mean we can't further improve upon that, but
these issues for the most part relate to our domestic laws, our
Endangered Species Act, you know, and other laws of the United
States of America.
As I often reflect and say to my colleagues in Washington,
who sometimes have BPA envy, particularly the Northeast,
Midwest caucus, and others who are suffering under higher
electric rates, when they launch their attacks on us as being a
subsidized system that should pay more and give money to the
treasury, which has happened almost under every administration
I have served under, is, you know, the fact that this system is
really being operated in a way that we are carrying, unlike any
other region of the United States of America, our own--our own
costs for regional endangered species recovery.
There's no other place in the country where a State or a
region is paying for it. The Federal Government's paying for
it, for the most part. So that is something we need to keep in
mind as we move forward, is, you know, the break point on how
much of that we carry versus what is the Federal obligation
here, if there are to be further demands on us for Endangered
Species Act recovery. I look forward to hearing about those
issues, and any others that the two panels will bring before us
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for your statement. I
have two letters here, one from our colleague Cathy McMorris
Rodgers in the district next door and another from our
colleague Rick Larsen from the northwestern part of the State.
They have statements that they wanted to be part of the record.
Without objection, they will be part of the record.
[The prepared statements submitted for the record by the
Chairman follow:]
Prepared Statement of Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers
I appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement before the House
Natural Resources Committee regarding the importance of the United
States-Canada Columbia River Treaty and its effect on Eastern
Washington.
Eastern Washington and the Pacific Northwest depend on a healthy
Columbia River system to provide national energy independence, promote
public safety, and protect infrastructure. In addition, the Columbia
River plays a vital role in the economy of the Pacific Northwest,
promoting increased economic growth and development by providing low-
cost energy, specifically hydropower, and dependable irrigation and
navigation channels.
For the last 60 years, the Columbia River Treaty has provided a
framework for the United States and Canada to promote the production of
clean, renewable, and affordable hydropower. Hydropower is not only
vital to Eastern Washington but Washington State gets over 75 percent
of its power from this clean and renewable source of energy. In Central
and Eastern Washington, the Columbia and Snake River system through
irrigation, transformed a dry, barren desert with sagebrush to one of
the most productive agriculture regions in the world. The low price of
hydropower brought high tech companies like Google and Yahoo to
relocate their servers here and brought manufacturing facilities like
the BMW plant in Moses Lake. In addition, the Columbia River Treaty has
provided greater protection for the Pacific Northwest against severe
flooding.
For the past few years, Bonneville Power Administration and the
U.S. Corps of Engineers, along with key stakeholders including
representatives from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana,
representatives from 10 Federal agencies and 15 Native American Tribes
have been reviewing the provisions contained in the Columbia River
Treaty. I applaud the time and effort they have given to this process.
As the United States continues to work through the future of the
Columbia River Treaty with Canada, I want to ensure that the treaty
reflects the true needs of the Pacific Northwest and Eastern
Washington.
Specifically, as we consider updating the Columbia River Treaty, we
need to modernize the original goals to make power generation, flood
control, and overall water management more efficient. It is important
that neither the United States nor Canada insert additional domestic
goals independent of the original purpose of the Treaty. Moving
forward, it is also important that the Columbia River Treaty addresses
the need to rebalance the payments to Canada for downstream power
generation benefits and long-term flood control operations. With
assured flood control set to expire in 2024, it is important that the
United States and Canada agree to a framework for how future flood
control needs will be addressed.
Eastern Washington depends on a healthy Columbia River system to
provide low-cost energy, irrigation, and navigation. As such, I want to
ensure that as we consider modernizing the Columbia River Treaty, it
promotes a more cost-effective, sustainable hydropower system, in
addition to providing reliable flood risk management plan.
______
Prepared Statement of Congressman Rick Larsen
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement for the House
Natural Resources Committee's field hearing on the Columbia River
Treaty (CRT). While I could not be with the Committee today, renewal of
the CRT is very important to many groups in my district and I
appreciate the Committee's attention to this issue.
The Columbia River does not reach my district, but it has far-
reaching effects on my constituents. It provides affordable, clean
hydropower to ratepayers in Everett, it provides salmon for fishers in
Anacortes, and it provides the power that supports aluminum
manufacturing jobs in Whatcom County. For all these reasons, it is
critical to continue mutually beneficial management with Canada of the
Columbia River.
I appreciate the work the U.S. Entity has done in creating a public
process to make a consensus recommendation to the Department of State
regarding the CRT. The Entity's draft recommendation makes it clear
that there are improvements that can be made, most importantly noting
that U.S. ratepayers are paying more than their fair share for the
incremental power benefit from the coordinated U.S.-Canada management
of the river. Any changes to the Treaty should benefit these ratepayers
and should not increase their costs.
I am hopeful that in their final recommendation, the U.S. Entity
fully reflects the diverse interests and priorities of rights holders,
as well as other beneficiaries and users of the Columbia River--
including Native American tribes, ratepayers, businesses, water users,
ports, recreational users, navigation interests and downriver
residents. It is vital that future management decisions surrounding the
Columbia River are made in a consensus way by the communities in the
Pacific Northwest, not by officials 3,000 miles away in Washington, DC.
The Northwest delegation has repeatedly made it clear that the
complicated issues around the Columbia River are best settled by our
constituents who live and work here. I believe the administration
understands this, and I know this emphasis will remain a key priority
for both the Chairman and Ranking Member.
Considering the Columbia River Treaty was written at a time when
color TV was a thing of the future, it certainly can be modernized. The
addition of ecosystem benefits as a key part of the treaty has
potential to provide new benefits for fish habitats and meeting tribal
treaty responsibilities. However, we should not overlook the decades of
effort and billions of dollars that have already been invested in
salmon restoration. That money comes from folks who pay their
electricity bill every month and have a number of other bills to pay
for. As a result, this year's salmon returns to the Columbia River are
at record levels. Any new ecosystem improvements being suggested should
be clearly defined, and the costs and funding sources for any of these
improvements should be closely detailed.
We should also know who is paying for those improvements. I do not
believe that we should pass additional costs for ecosystem benefits on
to everyday folks who are already paying $700 million each year through
BPA for similar efforts. We should not offer a blank check to ill-
defined ``ecosystem'' measures without being completely clear about the
specific goals, legal responsibilities and scientific backing for such
measures.
Thank you again for your leadership on this issue. I look forward
to working with you to ensure a regional approach to ensure the
Columbia River Treaty is a continued success.
______
The Chairman. I now want to welcome our first panel seated
here immediately to my right. Mr. Elliot Mainzer is the Acting
Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration out of
Portland, Oregon. Brigadier General John Kem is a Commander of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Division, also out
of Portland, Oregon. We're very pleased to have Kathy
Eichenberger, Executive Director of the Columbia River Treaty
Review Team, BC Ministry of Energy & Mines out of Victoria,
British Columbia.
Let me explain how these timing lights work. Both of you--
in fact, I'll say this for all of the panel. You've all
submitted a statement for the record, and your entire statement
will be part of the record. So what I'd like to ask you to do
is to keep your oral remarks within 5 minutes.
And the way that timing light works, it's very similar to a
traffic light. When the green light is on, that means you're
just going very, very well, but when the yellow light goes on,
it means you've got to speed up before you get to the red
light. If you can keep your remarks within that timeframe, that
would be very, very helpful.
So with that, Mr. Mainzer, I recognize you for 5 minutes
for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ELLIOT MAINZER, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, BONNEVILLE
POWER ADMINISTRATION, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Mainzer. Thank you very much, Chairman Hastings and
Ranking Member DeFazio.
It is a pleasure to be here this morning. Thanks for the
opportunity to discuss the Columbia River Treaty review. I am
Elliot Mainzer, the Acting Administrator of the Bonneville
Power Administration and the chair of the U.S. Entity. I am
very pleased to be joined here also this morning by Brigadier
General Kem and nice to see Kathy Eichenberger. Both of them
are going to be very important partners as we work through
these very complex issues in the months ahead.
Since the Columbia River Treaty was ratified in 1964, it
has provided significant benefits for both Canada and the
United States. It has helped provide assured stream flows that
support the region's hydropower system, which is clearly a
central underpinning of the region's economy, and the treaty
has assisted in effectively managing flood risk to ensure
public safety and to facilitate regional development.
Over the past 20 to 30 years, we've also used the
operational flexibilities within the treaty to implement
operations designed to specifically address--to specifically
benefit the Columbia Basin ecosystem in both countries. These
actions include an annual agreement to move one million acre
feet of water releases from the winter to the spring and early
summer period.
In addition, through non-treaty storage agreements, we've
designed mutually beneficial operations that better support
ecosystem function and power production in dry years. We are
now presented with an opportunity to do even better. In 2024,
even though the treaty continues, certain aspects will change.
This gives us the chance to have a conversation with Canada
on how we might want to modify treaty operations after 2024 to
improve the benefits to the region in a way that reflects
today's conditions and today's values and better prepares us
for the future. To that end, we've been administering the
treaty review process to collect regional perspectives to
assist us in developing a consensus recommendation that will
advise the U.S. State Department on potential concepts to
consider negotiating with Canada and to modernize the treaty.
After considering an extremely wide range of regional
perspectives and working through many challenging issues, we
believe it is possible to develop a win-win-win approach in
which power, flood risk management, and ecosystem interests all
benefit from a modernized and rebalanced Columbia River Treaty.
Let me briefly describe how.
First, the methodology originally included in the treaty
for calculating Canada's share of power benefits is now
outdated and we do not believe it is any longer equitable,
resulting in excessive power costs to U.S. ratepayers. The
methodology is outdated, it used assumptions which were based
off 1960 projections of load growth and resource development,
and we clearly believe that this imbalance needs to be re-
addressed.
Second of all, while it appears that regional interests are
coalescing around the objective of including ecosystem-based
operations as a primary purpose in the post-2024 treaty, we
understand that there have been significant concerns regarding
this potential change and whether such inclusion would create
additional cost for Pacific Northwest ratepayers. We've been
acutely sensitive to these concerns in our work with regional
interests.
At heart, the Columbia River Treaty is an agreement to
coordinate the storage and release of water from the treaty
reservoirs for the mutual benefit of the United States and
Canada. Initially, power and flood risk management were the
only two reasons we did this coordination; however, over the
past 20 years, we've worked with Canada under the treaty to
mutually agree on storing and releasing water for both Canadian
and U.S. ecosystem purposes.
The U.S. Entity's view is that it is appropriate and
helpful to formalize and gain more certainty for these
operations, as opposed to having to negotiate them on a one-
off, ad hoc basis. I do want to be clear, however, that while
we support the inclusion of ecosystem-based operations in the
treaty, the implementation of ecosystem-based functions should
be compatible with rebalancing the entitlement and reducing
U.S. power costs and maintaining an acceptable level of flood
risk in the basin. This notion of a win-win-win is essential to
our recommendation.
Third, I note that fundamentally we're dealing with a water
management and allocation issue. There is no new source of
water, just a debate about the timing and the storage and
release of water that will flow out of Canada. Although some
will argue for a dramatic shift in water flows back to a
natural hydrograph in support of ecosystem functions, we're not
supportive of such significant change because our analysis
demonstrates that it would result in very significant
hydropower losses and higher flood risk for the region.
That being said, we also believe that there are potential
ecosystem benefits of gaining assurance of the spring flow
augmentation and dry year strategies we've developed to date
and to development mechanisms to adapt in the face of potential
changes in the region's climate.
In conclusion, we believe it is possible to achieve a win-
win-win if we work together to rebalance and reduce the U.S.
power return obligation to Canada to find a rational,
collaborative program that maintains an acceptable level of
flood risk for the United States and formalize the ecosystem-
based function operations that have been occurring by mutual
agreement under the treaty.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
timeliness of that, too. That could be a template here for the
rest of the hearing.
General Kem, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
statement.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN KEM, COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NORTHWEST DIVISION, PORTLAND, OREGON
General Kem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
DeFazio. It's great to be here this morning. Good morning to
everyone.
I'm pleased to be before the committee to discuss the draft
regional recommendation regarding the future of the treaty
after 2024 in its still ongoing review process. We appreciate
the interest this community has shown toward this very
important matter. We've provided a written statement, so I'm
not going to repeat all of it, but I'd like to highlight a few
things and emphasize a few things that my partner, Elliot
Mainzer, just said.
The committee is already fully aware of the history of the
original treaty and the benefits it provides to both countries.
From the outset, the coordinated operations--and that's the key
word--the coordinated operations between both countries for the
storage and release of water has been a crucial backbone for
the Pacific Northwest and both countries, and for the United
States in particular in managing flood risk and supporting the
region's hydropower system.
For the past 50 years, this coordinated operation for the
storage and release of water has been essential in ensuring
public safety and continuing to facilitate regional development
in the overall regional economy. The message that we have heard
the most during this multiyear, really about a 3-year regional
review process, is that there is a strong regional interest to
modernize the treaty and to bring about a better, more balanced
benefit to the region.
Like almost any issue, there's an eclectic mix of interests
and different viewpoints on how to achieve them. I have to say
the Entity is not advocating some interests ahead of others. We
are receiving a strong regional consensus, and have attempted
to recognize key interests of wide constituencies.
Probably the one area that is still most sensitive, and it
has already been mentioned, rests with the fact that we include
a recommendation to pursue the ecosystem function as a primary
purpose. From my perspective, I want to make it clear this was
done not to promote one set of interests over another, or by
adding it we seek to advantage or negatively impact any other
interests. Rather we added it in the draft to incorporate the
context of how we actually conduct coordinated operations
today.
The fact is we coordinate with Canada for the storage and
release of water for three purposes: flood control, hydropower,
and ecosystem functionality. That's what we do now. So it makes
sense from my view to formalize that and stop doing it on an
annual, less predictable basis, and under a process that leads
to significant transaction costs.
In conclusion, I think there's a strong regional consensus
to modernize and rebalance the Columbia River Treaty and
achieve a win-win-win to the Pacific Northwest region.
Thank you for the opportunity to highlight these few
topics. I'm happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Mainzer and General
Kem follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Elliot Mainzer, Acting Administrator,
Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon and Brigadier General
John Kem, Commander, United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Northwestern Division, Portland, Oregon
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Elliot Mainzer, and I am
Acting Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration. In that
capacity, I serve as the Chairman of the United States Entity for the
Columbia River Treaty (Treaty). Brigadier General John Kem, as the
Commander for the Northwestern Division of the United States Army Corps
of Engineers, is the Member of the United States Entity.
Together, we are pleased to be before the Committee to discuss the
Draft Regional Recommendation regarding the future of the Columbia
River Treaty after 2024 and the regional review process underway to
inform a final recommendation. We appreciate the interest this
Committee is showing toward this matter. We should note that our
testimony reflects the status of the process we are coordinating in the
region on this matter and does not represent any final Administration
recommendations.
The Columbia River Treaty is a successful example of a
transboundary water treaty and serves as a model for other
international water coordination agreements. Over the years since the
Columbia River Treaty entered into force in 1964, it has provided
benefits for the Pacific Northwest and both countries. It has enabled
us to coordinate streamflows, and thereby helped us manage flood risks
and generate hydropower. The U.S. Entity also uses the flexibilities
within the Treaty to work with our Canadian counterparts to implement
operations designed specifically to benefit the Columbia Basin
ecosystem in both countries. To ensure we can successfully convey the
interests of the region, the U.S. Entity, through the regional review
process known as the Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review, has
engaged throughout the region and is striving to garner support for a
regional recommendation.
The message we have most heard during the multi-year regional
review process is that it is in the best interest of the region to
modernize operations under the Treaty to bring about better and more
balanced benefits. As we are developing a regional recommendation, the
U.S. Entity has listened closely to the many diverse voices in the
region about how to reflect their respective interests in the
recommendation.
While many in the region appreciate the benefits that have flowed
from the Treaty, there is widespread concern in the U.S. that the
method included in the Treaty for calculating Canada's share of the
Treaty's power benefits is not equitable. There is interest in
providing flood risk reduction for public safety through agreement with
Canada on how we can implement continued, mutually agreeable,
coordinated flood risk management operations.
There is also a strong desire by many to more formally incorporate
ecosystem-based functions into the implementation of the Treaty and to
recognize evolving interests in other water management issues in the
Columbia River Basin. There is also growing interest in mechanisms that
are more adaptive, flexible, and resilient to successfully meet the
challenges presented by increased demand for water and the uncertainty
of climate change impacts on Columbia River flow volume, timing, and
variability in the next several decades.
We believe that through our extensive collaboration efforts we have
assisted the region to find a middle ground that attempts to recognize
and balance all of these viewpoints and interests in the region. We
believe that it is possible to simultaneously:
Reduce the U.S. obligation, paid by Northwest ratepayers,
to return power to Canada that reflects the actual value of
coordinated power operations with Canada.
Define a workable approach to flood risk management that
will continue to provide a similar level of flood risk
management to protect public safety and the region's
economy;
Contribute to a more comprehensive ecosystem-based
function approach throughout the Columbia River Basin
watershed by formalizing and providing greater certainty
for ecosystem actions already being undertaken so that they
complement the existing ecosystem investments in the
region; and
Pursue operational flexibility necessary to respond to
climate change, and other future potential changes in
system operations while continuing to meet authorized
project purposes such as irrigation and navigation.
In essence, the Draft Regional Recommendation seeks to further
improve on operations that are already in place, while also making them
more adaptable to address current and future needs of the region.
Through this approach, we hope to achieve a collective net ``win'' for
the Pacific Northwest on all fronts.
While we believe that regional interests are coalescing around this
approach, we understand that there have been some questions,
particularly regarding formalizing inclusion of ecosystem based
functions, and whether such inclusion will create an additional cost
for the U.S. and thus Pacific Northwest ratepayers. The Treaty provides
a process for the U.S. and Canadian Entities to coordinate the storage
and release of transboundary waters from the Treaty reservoirs for the
mutual benefit of both countries. Initially, power and flood risk
management were the basis for this coordination. However, over the past
20 years we also have worked with Canada to mutually agree on storing
and releasing water for both Canadian and U.S. ecosystem purposes.
The U.S. Entity's view is that it is appropriate to formalize and
gain more certainty for these operations. At the same time, we
recognize that over the past 20 years both the Canadian and U.S.
management and use of this mutual water resource has become more
focused over time on in-stream and out-of-stream uses, while fulfilling
our commitments for power production and flood risk management. The
U.S. Entity acknowledges the need for continued support for these
existing purposes and intends to ensure that the incorporation of
ecosystem-based functions would not prevent the region from achieving
its objective of rebalancing and reducing U.S. power costs and would
retain an acceptable level of flood risk.
Although we believe our draft recommendation will represent a
positive balance of regional interests, we recognize that it will still
concern certain stakeholders. To address those concerns, we recommend
including mechanisms to promote further dialog and minimize the risk of
unintended consequences. These mechanisms include proposing a number of
domestic processes through which U.S. interests can address complex
issues that are currently beyond the purview of the Treaty.
Throughout the Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review process, the
U.S. Entity has consulted extensively with regional sovereigns,
stakeholders, and the public. A key component of the review process has
been collaboration with the Sovereign Review Team (SRT), which
comprises designated representatives from the States of Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, Federal agencies, and Pacific Northwest
Tribal Governments. The Entity also conducted ongoing government-to-
government consultation meetings with the Pacific Northwest tribes
represented on the SRT, as well as with the Confederated Tribes of the
Grande Ronde. In addition, the U.S. Entity has heard from and
understands the perspectives of the regional stakeholders through
individual meetings, workshop sessions, panel discussions and
presentations, and public comment periods. Our goal throughout this
process has been to be inclusive and transparent with sovereigns, major
river interests, and the general public.
These regional discussions led to the U.S. Entity's release of an
initial working draft of a recommendation for regional interests to
review in June 2013. The U.S. Entity conducted 14 public listening
sessions around the Pacific Northwest to inform and collect public
comment on the working draft recommendation. The U.S. Entity also
worked closely with regional stakeholders and the SRT to hear
viewpoints and obtain specific input concerning the working draft
recommendation. On September 20, 2013, the U.S. Entity released the
Draft Regional Recommendation for additional review and comment. As
described earlier, the Draft Regional Recommendation reflects
sovereign, stakeholder, and public input and seeks a collective ``win''
for the region.
As part of the review of the Draft Regional Recommendation, we held
another five public meetings during October throughout the region. We
also continue to meet and work with numerous parties interested in the
Treaty's operation. The Administration has asked us to deliver the U.S.
Entity's recommendation by the end of this year. Accordingly, our goal
is to deliver to the U.S. Department of State a final Regional
Recommendation that enjoys broad regional support in December 2013. The
U.S. Entity recognizes the importance of continuing to engage all
interested regional parties as we work toward that goal.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared remarks. We would be
happy to respond to any questions from the Committee.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, General Kem. And last on
the first panel, Ms. Kathy Eichenberger, Executive Director of
the Columbia River Treaty Review Team in Canada. You're
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KATHY EICHENBERGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA
RIVER TREATY REVIEW TEAM, BC MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES,
VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ms. Eichenberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for inviting the province to share our perspectives with the
committee and with the audience. I hope that our views will be
helpful to everyone here.
My name is Kathy Eichenberger, and I'm the Executive
Director of the Columbia River Treaty review for the province.
We're leading the review in Canada because of the agreement
with Canada in '63 that transferred most of the obligations and
benefits of the treaty to the province.
The Columbia River Treaty is known worldwide as a model to
emulate of cooperation for public safety and energy, but also
has demonstrated, as we've heard, the flexibility to address
environmental and other interests. And as we look at the future
of the treaty and ponder the different choices that we have, we
need to understand what those choices are and what other
interests and benefits accrue from the treaty beyond flood
control and beyond power production.
It is also important to understand the ongoing
environmental, economic, and social impacts that occur in
Canada to meet the U.S. requirements under the treaty and also
what is the risk if the treaty is terminated.
We believe that the coordinated management of the river
flows and storage reservoirs has produced the intended
objectives. It has worked for preventing the damaging floods
and also for maximizing the potential to produce hydropower,
but it has also provided these extra benefits for ecosystems,
for navigation, for water supply, and for recreation. But not
many people understand those current benefits and how they can
be enhanced or how new benefits can be created between the two
countries.
Half of the available flood storage in the Columbia is in
Canada, and as a result, there were no major floods once these
storage operations became functional. In fact, in 1 year alone,
two billion dollars of flood damage was avoided as a result of
cooperation under the treaty.
In 2024, we've heard that the assured flood risk management
changes to a more ad hoc called upon flood control, which we
believe doesn't make the best use of existing facilities and
also increases flood risks throughout the system and also the
risk of reservoirs not achieving refill. Currently, the United
States and Canada don't agree on how called upon would be
implemented.
We believe that all of the reservoirs that can be used to
reduce flood risk in the U.S. need to be drafted deeper than is
currently before calling upon Canada. But we think that, and
we're open to discussing a better arrangement that makes better
use and that does provide that security and that certainty for
both countries.
We believe that the treaty has provided and has hydropower
production in the United States and in Canada and it provides
predictable and reliable flows that translates into firm energy
to meet customer needs and for all times of the year, including
cold weather like we are experiencing today or also--and often
not as recognized, during the hot, dry summers where flows are
reduced and where flow augmentation from Canada serves a
multitude of purposes.
Treaty operations are designed to maximize incremental
power in the United States, and so the province doesn't believe
that it should be negatively impacted for water allocations
that are made in the United States for other purposes.
We also believe that the flexibility within the treaty has
allowed change in operations for ecosystem values, including
U.S. salmon recovery, by remitting flows in the spring to try
and mimic the natural hydrograph, but also during late summer
and during dry years, when it's so critical for fish survival.
And as climate change predictions foresee hotter and dryer
conditions, this is only going to become more important.
But we do believe and we agree that we don't need to change
the treaty to do more for ecosystems on both sides of the
border.
Coordination under the treaty also benefits navigations by
reducing very high flows and by supplementing drafts during the
summer that reduces dredging costs and risks of grounding. We
also think that water supply interests are benefiting from how
the reservoirs and flows are managed, to ensure that reservoirs
aren't drafted too deep to not meet intake elevations, but also
reduce pumping costs, and also, again, during that dry period
where additional flow shaping is very beneficial to a suite of
U.S. interests, including water supply, which is going to
become more critical.
A climate change in the future predicts that in Canada, the
basin is going to have equal or greater inflow or
precipitation, but that's not the case in the United States.
It's predicted that 40 percent of flows might be reduced from
what is happening currently. And so we think that cooperation
and management of reservoirs and flows between the two
countries is going to be critical in managing and adapting to
climate change impacts.
So as we continue to review the treaty, we think it's
important that on both sides legislators understand how the
treaty is beneficial, how these benefits can be enhanced, how
new benefits can be created, and what's the risk if the treaty
is terminated.
We have a draft recommendation to continue the treaty and
to seek improvements supplemented by guiding principles that
have been endorsed by a majority of the stakeholders and
citizens in British Columbia, and we look forward to hearing
the outcome of the U.S. treaty review. And thank you for the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eichenberger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathy Eichenberger, Executive Director, Columbia
River Treaty Review, Ministry of Energy and Mines, Province of British
Columbia
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kathy Eichenberger and I
am the executive director of the Columbia River Treaty Review for the
Province of British Columbia's Ministry of Energy and Mines. I want to
thank you for inviting the Province of B.C. to share some of our
perspectives on the future of the Columbia River Treaty which we hope
your committee will find useful.
The Columbia River Treaty is known throughout the world as one of
the most successful models of transboundary water management, providing
a framework for cooperation on energy and public safety, while
demonstrating flexibility in addressing environmental interests. This
agreement is seen as a benchmark on cooperation to create and share
benefits that other jurisdictions wish to emulate.
The Treaty has made the Columbia River system into a North American
clean energy powerhouse. The 14 hydroelectric dams on the Columbia's
main stem and many more on its tributaries produce more hydroelectric
power than on any other North American river. The Treaty has also
prevented devastating floods in the United States which was the other
original impetus behind the Treaty. The Treaty has served both
countries well for almost 50 years and it's now an appropriate time for
it to be reviewed on both sides of the border, especially in light of
intensified concern about climate change and climate change impacts.
In Canada, like in the United States, the Federal Government is
responsible for international treaties. As such, the Columbia River
Treaty is an agreement between our two countries which was entered into
by our two federal governments of the time. In Canada, the provinces
have certain constitutional responsibilities, including in areas such
as natural resources, which includes hydropower development. Ninety-
four percent of the territory of British Columbia is public land, which
we call provincial Crown land. The Columbia River Basin in Canada falls
entirely within the territory of the Province of BC. Reflecting these
realities, in 1963 a Canada-British Columbia Agreement was put in place
that transferred most of the obligations and benefits of the Treaty to
the Province.
The Province of BC is therefore leading the Treaty Review on the
Canadian side. We are working closely with Canada to ensure a
coordinated approach to the Treaty Review. The Province is also
engaging First Nations, local governments and citizens throughout the
Canadian Columbia basin who have been and continue to endure
significant environmental, social and economic impacts from the Treaty.
The provincial Treaty Review Team expects to present options on the
future of the Treaty to our Provincial Cabinet in December.
As both Canada and the United States continue to review options
regarding the future of the Treaty, it is important to ensure that
citizens on both sides of the border have a full understanding of the
scope of the issues that need to be considered, balanced and managed.
The implementation of the Treaty, especially over the last 20 years,
has been a careful balancing act of many interests and issues crafted
by studies and negotiations between the U.S. and Canadian Entities.
It is important to understand how the Treaty helps and the benefits
it creates, and also how further cooperation can enhance or create new
benefits. It is also important to understand the ongoing cost to
environmental, social and economic interests in Canada to meet U.S.
requirements and what is at risk if the Treaty is terminated,
especially as we enter an era of intensified climate change impacts.
British Columbia believes that the coordinated management of river
flows and storage reservoirs has produced the intended objectives of
flood management and the opportunity to maximize hydro-electric power
production on both sides of the border. We have also identified a wide
range of additional benefits from Treaty operations to interests such
as ecosystems, navigation, water supply and recreation. Yet through our
consultations, we have also discovered that these existing and future
benefits under the Treaty are not well understood.
flood control benefits
Half of the available flood storage in the Columbia Basin is
located in British Columbia. Since the Treaty storage became
operational, there has never been a flood causing major damage along
the Columbia River. In fact, coordinated flood control avoided $2
billion in potential damage in the United States in one year alone
(2011).
In 2024, regardless of whether the Treaty continues or is
terminated, assured flood control operations change to a more ad hoc
``called upon'' flood control regime. This means that--if no other
arrangement is in place--all U.S. reservoirs that are able to reduce
damaging flood flows will need to be drafted deeper than is current
practice before Canada can be ``called upon'' to provide additional
assistance. British Columbia is open to discussing alternative
coordinated flood risk management arrangements that would make better
use of existing facilities, increasing certainty of operations and
avoiding negative impacts to U.S. interests.
At this time, the Canadian and U.S. Entities disagree on how called
upon flood control would be implemented, particularly with regard to
which U.S. reservoirs would be affected and when to call upon Canada.
Regardless of this disagreement, BC believes that called upon flood
control will increase the flood risk on the system and the risk of U.S.
reservoirs not being able to refill, with potential negative
consequences for a number of U.S. interests, such as fisheries,
ecosystems, power production and water supply.
power generation benefits
The Treaty has significantly enhanced hydropower production in the
U.S. and continues to provide predictable and reliable flows that
translate into firm energy so that utilities can meet their customer
loads during all periods of the year, including cold winter and dry hot
summers. Treaty operations are designed to maximize incremental power
production in the United States. British Columbia believes that it
should not be negatively impacted by water allocation choices made in
the United States for other interests that reduce power benefits in
your country.
ecosystem benefits
Flexibility within the Treaty has allowed changes in operations to
benefit ecosystem values, including U.S. salmon recovery, by augmenting
flows in the spring to better imitate the natural hydrograph, and by
augmenting flows during late summer and during dry years which are
particularly critical to fish survival. As climate change predictions
foresee hotter and drier conditions for the lower Columbia Basin, this
coordination will become only more valuable for the United States.
British Columbia believes that we don't need to change the Treaty to
work toward improving ecosystems even further.
navigation and recreation
Coordination under the Treaty also benefits navigation by limiting
higher flows that affect shipping times and docking operations, and
cause sedimentation leading to increased dredging costs. Treaty flow
augmentation from Canada during low flow periods also increases channel
draft and reduces the risk of grounding. Generally, because of the
Treaty, U.S. reservoirs can be also kept fuller with less fluctuation,
which supports a longer recreation season.
water supply
Currently, the implementation of the Treaty for both power
production and flood control also benefits water supply in the United
States. By using Canadian storage for flood control, U.S. reservoirs
are not drafted as deeply, thereby meeting minimum intake levels and
reducing pumping costs for irrigation, municipal and industrial water
supply. Assured flood control planning also provides more certainty of
annual refill of U.S. reservoirs which is critical to irrigators and
other water users. Flow augmentation in late summer and early fall,
supplemented by a dry-year strategy agreement between the Entities,
supports a wide range of interests, including water supply. This will
become increasingly important when considering climate change
predictions.
climate change benefits
Looking into the future--climate change studies predict that total
precipitation in the Canadian portion of the Columbia Basin will remain
the same or higher, while the U.S. basin will see a reduction by as
much as 40 percent. It is predicted that as much as 60 percent of the
Columbia River flows will come from Canada.
As climate change will increasingly alter the environment of the
Columbia Basin in the broadest sense, reservoir management and
coordination are seen as important tools in adapting to climate change
challenges that threaten salmon recovery, water supply and energy
reliability.
in conclusion
As both Canada and the United States continue to review options
regarding the future of the Treaty, it is important that legislators on
both sides of the border understand how the Treaty is beneficial, how
further cooperation can enhance or create new benefits, and what is at
risk of being lost if the Treaty is terminated.
British Columbia continues to be guided by the Treaty's fundamental
premise of collaboration between two countries to create benefits and
share them equitably. Our draft recommendation to continue the Columbia
River Treaty and seek improvements based on guiding principles has been
widely supported in our province. We are looking forward to hearing the
outcome of the U.S. Treaty review. Thank you for this opportunity to
offer comments.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statements.
We'll now begin the question period. And I'll start, I
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Let me ask both the U.S. and the Canadian entities, and I
don't know if it's General Kem or Mr. Mainzer, whoever wants
to, just so we understand what the process is, what is the next
step in the process after your draft recommendation?
Go ahead, Mr. Mainzer.
Mr. Mainzer. Our plan is to submit the recommendation with
a cover letter this Friday to the Department of State. And then
I think that we all should take a collective sigh of relief,
having gotten this far, and then I think the State Department
will then start going through its own evaluation process, quite
frankly, to determine whether they are interested in moving
forward with the negotiation.
We expect there to be some period of time where we might
not hear much back from them, quite frankly, and then we're
hoping within the next few months that we'll start getting some
initial signals from them that they are intending to move
forward with the discussion, at which point we will start
reorganizing ourselves as a region to serve in primarily an
advisory capacity to the State Department as they serve as the
principal negotiators with the Federal Government and Canada.
General Kem. Sir, I would just add one other thing to that.
The State Department made it clear that they would take the
information and start the interagency policy committee review
process that they said would lead to some core recommendation
to the Secretary of State and eventually the President on how
to proceed. So we don't own that process, but that's kind of
how they said that would lay out.
The Chairman. Ms. Eichenberger?
Ms. Eichenberger. We are going to be making a
recommendation to the provincial cabinet in December, and the
provincial cabinet will be making a decision, I expect,
sometime in January. But this might not need to have a Federal
decision. We will inform Canada of what the cabinet's position
is and work collaboratively with Canada if there are to be
negotiations in the future.
The Chairman. So as I understand what you said, then, the
province may be the final arbiter in Canada's case, which is
contrary--I mean, obviously, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
Montana will not be--ours will be a Federal issue.
Ms. Eichenberger. Canada retains its treaty-making powers
under the constitution, so if there are changes to be made or a
request from the province to terminate, Canada would have to
act; however, we are working collaboratively with them with
regards to any potential changes going forward. The primary
responsibility will be provincial, through the provinces of
British Columbia.
The Chairman. One of the issues that we seem to have here
in the United States, and it's not confined just to the
Northwest, is the issue of more water storage for a variety of
reasons. I'd like to ask you again, Ms. Eichenberger, what are
the prospects for more storage in Canada to supplement what
you've described as ensuring the flow? Could you give us an
idea of what you're thinking of there?
Ms. Eichenberger. Well, under our Clean Energy Act, it
identifies two rivers as working rivers for hydropower
production and other uses, and that is the Peace and the
Columbia River. And so currently we're undergoing a process to
add storage on the Peace River system. And so we believe that
hydropower production is clean energy that is a resourceful
source of energy, reliable and certain energy that we can
continue to rely on.
And currently we are in a surplus situation, but in the
future, should we require further sources of energy, certainly
the system, the two Peace and Columbia systems are the systems
we would look at.
The Chairman. OK. Final question that I have, I guess,
General Kem, since you brought it up and I alluded to it, the
ecosystem part in your discussions. The question I have, just
as kind of a pretty basic, what is the logic behind elevating
ecosystems, say, above irrigation or river navigation? Why
would that have a higher call?
I mean, the Columbia Basin project itself is over 500,000
acres. I mean, that's the most obvious one right here in
Central Washington. Why would ecosystem be elevated any higher
than, say, irrigation or navigation? What is the logic behind
that?
General Kem. Sir, I think the way I said that was, it
wasn't that any one part is more important than the other, but
the fact is at this point, when the Entity sits down with
Canada, B.C., to do the annual operating plans and to work
through the details of water flow, we do adjust the flow of
water based on ecosystem functions. We have not sat down and
adjusted the flow of water for irrigational purposes.
Those have been a byproduct of it, it happens, we get the
benefits of it, but we haven't physically sat down and said we
need water for irrigation today and so we've got to change the
flows.
The Chairman. OK. My time is about to expire, so I
recognize the Ranking Member Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I didn't quite understand, Ms. Eichenberger, what would
trigger your having to consult with or defer or engage the
Federal Government versus renegotiating or whatever--I'm not
quite sure. I mean, here there's a question on our side whether
what kind of changes would trigger a need for the Senate to re-
ratify, which is a horrifying prospect to many of us, since
they never ratify anything. So could you tell me? I don't quite
understand.
Ms. Eichenberger. Yes. I'll try to be a little clearer. If
we wish to make changes within the current framework of the
treaty, as we have in the past, we would not require the
assistance of Canada, and we could continue with entity
agreements. And we're exploring what are the boundaries of
flexibility that would allow us to do that.
If we wish to make changes in negotiation consultation with
the United States that requires something such as an exchange
of notes, we would make a request to Canada to collaborate with
us and to work with us to make change to any interests in the
national interest and the provincial interest, and they would
then work with the State Department on that.
Mr. DeFazio. So the trigger is national versus provincial
interest?
Ms. Eichenberger. The trigger is whether what we want, we
may wish to change, can be done within the flexibility of the
current treaty or whether we need to adjust the framework of
the treaty itself, which would then require Canada to
intervene.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So we already had mentioned adding a third
leg formally, as opposed to acknowledging that the system can
be operated for ecosystem benefits and trying to continue to
enhance those. But the formal addition of that, would that
trigger a consultation or something with the Federal
Government?
Ms. Eichenberger. Well, we don't believe that it's
necessary and, therefore, we wouldn't ask Canada to intervene
to make that particular aspect happen.
Mr. DeFazio. What do you mean? What isn't necessary?
Ms. Eichenberger. To make ecosystems a formal part of the
treaty, as we've demonstrated that the treaty has been able to
address ecosystem needs in the past and can continue to do so.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. That helps. That helps a bit.
So on our side, I think, either or both of you mentioned,
either General Kem or Acting Administrator Mainzer, you talked
about, actually, enhancements to the existing or original
agreement that would make for ecosystem management and somehow
memorializing those as we go forward in the treaty.
Could you be a little more specific? And then I want to ask
her if she thinks that crosses the threshold.
Mr. Mainzer. Yes. I think our perception is that generally
it would--we certainly have found some flexibilities within the
treaty to address ecosystem function issues, but we'd like to
formalize these mechanisms. We'd like to create adaptive
management mechanisms, a little bit more formalized, a little
bit more standardized, with formal mechanisms for addressing
potential changes, potential modifications if the science
materializes, and just providing greater certainty that those
types of mechanisms exist with the treaty context.
So it's not huge structural changes, but it's more a sense
of security of formalization.
General Kem. The only thing I would add is, not speaking
for the State Department, but when they were out in September,
as part of their visit, they made it clear that as part of the
IBC process, when they were looking at the scope of it, that's
when they were--the first time they were trying to figure out
whether that mix of things would require change of diplomatic
notes or could it be done in a way where it required full
Senate verification. They would only then, after we submitted
these recommendations, start to review where those kind of red
lines were.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So do you believe that that would trigger
a Federal consultation?
Ms. Eichenberger. We're still not exactly clear ourselves
what that would mean to elevate it as a third leg of the stool
concretely, and so we're not sure whether it would require
Federal intervention.
I just want to actually clarify that we are working closely
with Canada every step of the way during the review, and so we
are collaborating on what a process may look like going forward
if we do need to negotiate----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I don't think they said exactly the
third leg of the stool. They were saying recognizing,
formalizing agreements we already have about augmented flows
and maybe potentially some increments on that, I think is what
they're talking about, not adopting some huge broad new
category of obligation across the board.
I mean, I don't know the laws of Canada very well. I assume
you have some sort of equivalent to an Endangered Species Act,
some sort of an equivalent, hopefully not as labyrinthian, to
our national Environmental Policy Act and things like that,
so----
Ms. Eichenberger. Well, we don't know whether it would
require a formal intervention from Canada. We'd have to first
look at what elevating ecosystems would actually mean and
whether it could be accommodated within the framework of the
treaty. We would prefer to use the flexibility of the treaty
first, prior to asking the Parliament or the Prime Minister's
office to make a decision on it.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And then I think one of--I've identified,
and I think if the Chair would indulge me for just a minute, I
think we're going to have significant differences over the
entitlement. And I'm wondering if British Columbia has made
sort of an initial--you believe you're being under-recognized,
and if you've put a number on that over and above what we're
currently paying.
Ms. Eichenberger. What you're currently paying is even a
bit confusing because the way we receive the Canadian
entitlement in energy and capacity which we sell on the market,
currently it's valued at about $138 million, not the $250 to
$350 that's been talked about. It's gone as low as $98 million.
And that's the only benefit from the treaty that British
Columbia receives as a return of the Canadian entitlement.
So what we are doing is a full cost accounting of all the
benefits that I've touched upon this morning to be able to
determine what is the true value of the collaboration on
storage reservoirs and flows at the border and then to go back
to the original principle of the treaty to share those fairly.
And so we are doing that work right now.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And I'd like to ask the administrator or
chief just to comment on the number $138 to $98.
Mr. Mainzer. Well, certainly, you know, market variables
change, there are a number of issues that--our estimate,
certainly our base case analysis indicates that it is higher
than that. The, quote, providing a significant amount of
capacity, 1,400 megawatts of capacity from the system and over
500 average megawatts of energy, and it's just, given the
volatility of the markets, given the multipurposes of that
capacity, we believe that value is higher.
But we certainly--we will continue to have a conversation
with our Canadian counterparts to try to find a center.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. I just have a follow-up question in the
second round here, since Pete used his second round here
already. And it was brought up on the ecosystem, where I see a
bit of skepticism here on both sides on this.
So the question I have, then, is if you have the issue of
the ecosystem management, however defined, how would that
correlate, then, with U.S. laws like, for example, the BiOp
that we're waiting for here on the Columbia River or the FERC
licenses that goes into every energy project that we have and,
of course, the habitat conservation plans that are widespread
here in Washington, how--how would inserting something new into
a treaty correlate with those laws that are already on the
books here in the United States? So whoever wants to take that
one.
Mr. Mainzer. Well, certainly our intention is not to do
anything that would interfere or preempt any of the critical
Federal or State laws that are already in the books. They will
continue to dominate. And I think we know that we have a huge
infrastructure and paradigm of ecosystem protection already in
place in the lower 48, so it's--certainly in the Pacific
Northwest.
I think what we're trying to do, our fundamental intention
is it's really at two levels. First of all, it's just to honor
the regional value that I think is very important to many of
our regional interests around ecosystem protection. That is
something that is part of the Pacific Northwest way of life,
and we have wanted to honor that intrinsically. This is an
integrated river basin, we wanted to acknowledge that.
On the other hand, what we're really trying to do primarily
is to formalize specific mechanisms, which really get down to
day-to-day discussions between the U.S. Entity and the Canadian
Entity to make sure we have formalized processes for doing
things that we have already done in the past, but without
having to do it on an ad hoc, one-off basis and providing
greater long-term certainty for the region about how they might
operate.
General Kem. Sir, I'll just add to that, when the
Department of State was out, they emphasized that the
fundamentals of the treaty is about the flow of water. The
ecosystem function component, if incorporated, it is important
if that's what the region recommends, but they did not say
we're going to sit down with Canada and add U.S. domestic
components into a treaty.
We're not going to add our Endangered Species Act
requirements, per se, into a treaty with Canada. That's a U.S.
domestic issue. In the end, we sit down with Canada to
incorporate the flow, the pricing, and the concerns associated
with that. And the ecosystem part that already affects the
system and the fact that we do some ecosystem things for
Canadian fish, they do some things, water flow, that help fish
in the United States, which needs to be captured in some way.
The Chairman. Well, it just seems to me, 50 years of
experience where something like that is not written into the
treaty, and yet when there are issues that need to be
addressed, they've been addressed. And that's the concern. I'm
trying to make a treaty, at least from my perspective, you
know, by adding a new component that would--when 50 years of
practical experience that has shown that those things can be
addressed on a case-by-case basis. That's all I have.
Pete, do you have any second round?
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I mean, seeing--we heard earlier about adaptive management.
I mean, are there things about the current treaty that restrict
adaptive management that need to be changed? Or--I mean, it
seems to me it has evolved quite a bit since the original
treaty.
General Kem. I think--I'm not an expert on sitting down on
the annual operating plan, on the pricing mechanism, so I have
to defer to both of our staffs to get more details on that.
But I think what happens is we sit down very constructively
with Canada, as these adaptive managements have been tried over
time, and it has been off treaty in some regards; partially on
treaty, partially off treaty. And so you're always stuck with
the whims--I say that lightly, not necessarily the whims--but
the whims of the negotiating table. And, you know--and so if
their interests change, do you have a mechanism or do they want
to hold you, in a sense, hold you hostage for something you
want to do?
So the better you can price that and formalize that in the
treaty gives much better left-right limits, so you have
predictability. Because in the end, the predictability on the
flow of water is very important for everybody, and the pricing
of that.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And just one other quick thing, just back
to the entitlement, because I do see this as probably the
biggest disagreement we have ongoing with Canada. And the
values that Ms. Eichenberger put out, I'd offer that perhaps
what we could do then is take an average of that, which is $118
million a year, and write you a check and forget about the
exchange of power, since that causes us problems which aren't
being calculated in, in terms of congesting our system and a
whole bunch of problems over here by moving power north.
We're having what are called diseconomies because of that.
And I don't know that you've fully accounted for those things.
I don't know that we've even accounted for them as costs or
lost opportunities on our side of the border. So maybe we just
ought to go to a cash payment.
Ms. Eichenberger. I think that after 50 years, it is a good
time to look at all of the benefits and really understand what
the value of all of those benefits are and to find a way of
sharing them fairly, and it could be through a number of
different means. So we look forward to, if there are to be
negotiations, sit down and look at the full spectrum.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. This is going to be tough. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I want to thank the panel very
much. I understand you have to catch a plane, and so we will
try to accommodate you. And so with that, I'll excuse the
panel, and thank you very much for your statements.
Sometimes at these hearings, questions or afterthoughts
prompt new questions. So if you are--if you are asked later on,
we'd ask you to respond in a timely manner if you would. OK?
General Kem. OK.
Mr. Mainzer. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The first panel is
excused.
I now want to welcome the second panel, who is breathlessly
waiting here, and thank you very much for that.
We have Ms. Kathryn Brigham, Secretary Treasurer of the
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission out of Pendleton,
Oregon; Mr. Scott Corwin, Executive Director of the Public
Power Council, also out of Portland, Oregon; Mr. Tony Webb,
General Manager of the Grant County Public Utility District
just north of here in Ephrata, Washington; Mr. Rick Crinklaw,
General Manager of the Lane Electric Cooperative from Mr.
DeFazio's area; Mr. Ron Reimann, President of the Columbia-
Snake River Irrigators Association, also a Port Commissioner
here at the Port of Pasco; Mr. Greg Haller, Conservation
Director of the Pacific Rivers Council out of Portland; Mr.
Paul Amos, President of the Columbia River Pilots, also out of
Portland; and last, but not least, Mr. Wes McCart, who is
Commissioner of Stevens County, Washington.
And you've heard my explanation on how the timing light
works, and all of you have submitted a statement that will be
part of the permanent record, so if you could keep your oral
remarks to those 5 minutes, we'd very much appreciate it.
Ms. Brigham, we'll start with you and you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KATHRYN BRIGHAM, SECRETARY TREASURER, COLUMBIA
RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION, PENDLETON, OREGON
Ms. Brigham. OK. Is this on? OK, is that--is it on now?
The Chairman. I think it's on. Can you hear in back,
audience? Yes.
Ms. Brigham. All right. Good morning, Chairman Hastings and
Congressman DeFazio.
As you stated, you know who I am. I would just like to
thank you to allow me to be here today. I am very here--very
pleased here also to be today--why am I stuttering? I'm sorry.
I'm very pleased to be here today because I'm representing
15 Columbia River Basin tribes who have worked together to come
and develop a--what we call a common views document. And we
started this in 2008. And the reason we started this was
because we see this as an opportunity to correct some of the
things that the Columbia River Treaty has had negative impacts
to the tribes.
We have seen where flood control is being controlled
downriver, but it is impacting the rivers up above. We have
seen where we had clean water, clean air, clean land, and in
this time we had over 17 million fish come over to the Columbia
River. These have all changed. Yes, some of these are positive,
there are some positive things going on, but that is not
enough.
I think our biggest concern is we are asking to be
partners. We are not asking to control the Columbia River
Treaty. And we know that as partners, we can do a lot. We know
the Columbia Basin as a whole, when we get together, is a
powerful entity, and when we are divided, we are weak and
people are telling us what we should be doing. And, therefore,
it's important that the Columbia Basin look at the basin as a
whole, and recognize that there are ecosystem management things
that need to be done.
The current treaty, even though it is recognized that the
ecosystem can be done, we have learned that if you don't have
something in writing, sometimes when leaders change, things
change. And so this treaty is going to be in place for a number
of years, so it's important to have something written down that
ecosystem is going to be a partner within the Columbia River
Treaty.
And since, you know, the 1964 treaty has passed, there have
been a number of decisions that have--court, Federal Court
decisions and agreements that you are all aware of that have
taken place in the Columbia River. They have been positive
agreements. They have been positive decisions for the Columbia
River tribes, and we want to continue that tradition.
Right now, we are cleaning up after our grandparents and
our parents, and we don't want our children and our
grandchildren to be cleaning up after us, therefore, we are
asking that you support the U.S. Entity to develop and
modernize the treaty and to seek the high-level policy
recommendations that we are very close to. We've put a lot of
work in what's going to be presented, and there are a lot of
points in there that we agree to, but there are some points
that we are very concerned about, and ecosystem is one of them.
I mean, we have dams on the Columbia River that no longer
allow fish passage. We need to correct those. Those are treaty
rights above those dams, and we have one in court that those
treaty rights are something that's very important. So, you
know, we have a number of issues, but we also have a number of
areas in which we support modernizing that treaty.
But we think it's really important to develop that regional
consensus, a consensus that we can all support, a consensus
that makes the Columbia River a powerful entity, an entity that
we can all move forward on.
And I know, Congressman Hastings, you know what this is all
about, because you've taken the lead in the sea lion issue, and
because you have taken the lead, the co-managers in the basin
have stepped forward and found a solution. And I want to thank
you for your leadership on that issue, because it's been very
effective and very positive.
And that's what we're asking for in the Columbia River
Treaty. Let the co-managers work, let the co-managers find a
solution, and find out how we can develop a very powerful
Columbia River entity. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brigham follows:]
Prepared Statement of N. Kathryn ``Kat'' Brigham, Treasurer, Columbia
River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Pendleton, Oregon
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Kat Brigham, an enrolled member of
the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and
Secretary of the Board of Trustees, the Tribes' governing body. I am
testifying before you today in my capacity as the Treasurer of the
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and on behalf of the 15
tribes in the Coalition of Columbia Basin Tribes. These 15 Columbia
Basin Tribes have legally recognized natural resource management
authorities and responsibilities reserved under treaties or executive
orders or as federally recognized tribes that are affected by the
implementation of the Columbia River Treaty. There are five other
tribes that may assert interests in the basin that may be affected by
the Columbia River Treaty; the U.S. Entity is consulting with them
individually.
high level consensus-based policy recommendation
At the outset, I want to highlight the fact that the Columbia Basin
Tribes worked with the U.S. Entity, other regional sovereigns, and
Columbia River stakeholders, including the public utility districts, to
try and craft a consensus-based high level policy recommendation on the
future of the Columbia River Treaty. We understand that this high level
policy recommendation will be formally submitted to the U.S. Department
of State on or about December 13, 2013; a near final draft has been
released to Congress, regional sovereigns and stakeholders. There is no
technical analysis or recommendation to accompany this high level
policy recommendation.
need to continue collaboration of regional sovereigns
Over the last 3 years, the Columbia Basin Tribes have collaborated
with the U.S. Entity and the other regional sovereigns, and more
recently the stakeholders, to complete three iterations of modeling and
analysis of a wide range of river and reservoir operations. This
expansive modeling and analysis was conducted so that the region would
have a common understanding of the potential impacts from modified
Treaty operations. While the goal had been to fully integrate this
wealth of technical information into a document that would support the
regional recommendation, that final step was not taken at the request
of the State Department. Therefore, the region's work is not complete--
the regional sovereigns will need to continue their technical and
policy collaboration in order to support the next phase of the Treaty
review process--the State Department's consideration of the high level
policy recommendation developed by the region.
key elements of the draft high level recommendation
I believe the region was successful in crafting much of the
recommendation. That is to say, the Columbia Basin Tribes support the
major elements of the recommendation, but some elements require
additional background and clarification. Critical elements of the draft
regional recommendation for the Columbia Basin Tribes include:
modernizing the Columbia River Treaty by integrating
ecosystem-based function as a third primary purpose of the
Treaty, equal to the Treaty's current obligations for the
United States and Canada to coordinate hydropower
generation and flood risk management;
enhancing spring and summer flows while stabilizing
reservoir operations;
pursuing a bilateral international effort between the
United States and Canada with the shared goal of returning
salmon and steelhead to spawning and rearing habitat into
the Upper Columbia River above Grand Coulee dam;
ensuring that future treaty operations do not impact fish
passage efforts throughout the basin;
pursuing potential alternatives for post-2024 operations
to meet flood risk management objectives, including the
possibility of using planned or assured Canadian Storage,
consistent with ecosystem function, and completing an
infrastructure assessment and updating reservoir management
through a domestic process as necessary to accomplish this
objective;
securing a dry water year strategy; and,
reducing U.S. energy costs through rebalancing the
Canadian Entitlement.
It is also important to build sufficient flexibility into a
modernized Treaty so that operations can adapt to the impacts of
climate change and other factors. We believe that the regional
sovereigns and stakeholders have coalesced around most of these broad
policy goals, and we look forward to working with the U.S. Department
of State to advance these goals through discussions with Canada, the
province of British Columbia and the First Nations.
background on the treaty
As you know, the Columbia River Treaty was signed and ratified by
the United States in 1961 and, after the adoption of a protocol, was
ratified by Canada and implemented by the two countries in 1964. Under
the Treaty, Canada agreed to build three storage dams and coordinate
the operation of these new storage facilities with the U.S.
hydroelectric power supply system in order to optimize hydroelectric
power production and to provide coordinated flood control benefits. The
U.S. was allowed to build Libby Dam in Montana, creating Lake
Koocanusa, which backs 40 miles into Canada.
The U.S. Entity will tell you that the Treaty is a model of
international cooperation for the management of a transboundary river
system. But that international cooperation is limited in the purposes
it serves, optimizing hydropower generation and coordinated flood risk
management. The Treaty is not currently designed to provide for
ecosystem-based functions. Under the current Treaty, we can only modify
operations in very limited ways to benefit ecosystem-based function,
and only when both countries agree there are mutual benefits that flow
from those modified operations. I do want to point out that the Treaty
increased the impacts of hydropower to communities by moving the flood
upriver, these impacts began before the Treaty with the earlier
construction of dams on the mainstem in the United States that affected
the cultural and natural resources of the Columbia Basin Tribes, First
Nations and other communities all the way up to the Basin headwaters in
Montana, Idaho and British Columbia.
no prior and informed consent of tribes and first nations
In negotiating the Treaty and developing the Treaty's coordinated
system operation, the U.S. did not consult with the Columbia Basin
Tribes nor consider the effect of the Treaty on our cultural and
natural resources, yet the Treaty has had far reaching impacts on our
cultural and natural resources that continue to this day. Not only were
the Columbia Basin Tribes not consulted during the Treaty's
negotiation, the tribes were excluded from its governance and
implementation, as well as sharing in the benefits of the Treaty. The
Treaty does not include considerations of critical tribal cultural
resources. The coordinated power and flood control system created under
the Treaty degraded rivers, First Foods, natural resources, and tribal
customs and identities. The coordinated flood risk management plan,
while providing substantial protections for Portland and Vancouver,
permanently moved the floods upriver through the creation and
maintenance of large storage reservoirs. The Treaty currently limits
the ability of Treaty and non-Treaty water agreements to address these
issues and meet tribal resource priorities.
columbia river treaty 2014/2024 review and the sovereign participation
process
When the U.S. Entity initiated the Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024
Review, the 15 tribes recognized the opportunity to work with the U.S.
Entity to correct past mistakes and improve upon the Treaty. The
Columbia Basin Tribes began meeting in January 2008 to identify their
common issues and concerns with the Treaty and its implementation,
while also meeting on a government-to-government basis with the U.S.
Entity to develop a better understanding of the Treaty's
implementation. By February 2010, the tribes' several meetings and
workshops on the Treaty led to the development of the ``Columbia Basin
Tribes' Common Views on the Future of the Columbia River Treaty''--
known as the tribes' Common Views document. I have included a copy of
this document with my testimony. I have also provided you with a map of
the Basin that shows you the location of the 15 tribes, as well as that
of the First Nations in Canada that have asserted interests affected by
the Treaty's implementation in Canada.
developing the sovereign participation process for the treaty review
The Columbia Basin Tribes met with the U.S. Entity in July 2010 to
discuss their issues and concerns with the Treaty and how best they
could collaborate with the U.S. Entity to address these issues through
the Treaty Review. At that meeting, the U.S. Entity agreed to work with
the Columbia Basin Tribes, other Federal agencies and the States to
establish the Sovereign Participation Process for the Treaty Review.
The Sovereign Participation Process was three-tiered: the first tier
was government-to-government, where decisions were made regarding
policy issues; the second tier was the Sovereign Review Team, where the
regional sovereigns coordinated, discussed policy issues and provided
guidance to the Sovereign Technical Team; and finally, the Sovereign
Technical Team, which conducted the technical modeling and analysis.
The Sovereign Participation Process also provided for expert policy
and technical input from stakeholders, including presentations from
expert panels on power, water supply and irrigation. Building upon the
bilateral Phase I Report released by the U.S. and Canadian Entities in
August 2009, the sovereigns completed three more iterations of modeling
and analysis. As each of the three iterations of modeling and analysis
was, the U.S. Entity, with the support of the other regional
sovereigns, took the lead on reporting out the results to stakeholders
through a series of public meetings or ``listening sessions'' held
across the basin. These listening sessions provided cities, counties
and other public representatives and stakeholders to ask questions and
provide feedback.
additional detail on ecosystem function
One of the most significant, and appropriate, features of the high
level recommendation is the addition of ecosystem function as a third
primary purpose of the Treaty, along with flood control and
hydroelectric generation. During the course of the discussions at
government-to-government and Sovereign Review Team meetings, tribal
representatives and staff were often asked to describe ``ecosystem-
based function.'' Tribal leaders explained that since time immemorial,
the rivers of the Columbia Basin have been, and continue to be, the
life blood of the Columbia Basin Tribes. The ecosystem function of the
Columbia Basin watershed is measured as the Basin's ability to provide,
protect and nurture cultural resources, traditions, values and
landscapes throughout its length and breadth. The Columbia Basin Tribes
hold that clean and abundant water that is sufficient to sustain
healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plants is vital to holistic
concept of ecosystem-based function and life itself.
closing
The Columbia Basin Tribes would be happy to answer any additional
questions you might have about the tribes' views on the high level
regional recommendation, or the integration of ecosystem-based function
into a modernized Treaty, whether now or in the future. We look forward
to working with the Department of State, our elected representatives in
Washington, D.C., regional sovereigns and stakeholders and the U.S.
Entity in 2014 as the State Department considers the regional
recommendation.
______
Columbia Basin Tribes \1\ Common Views on the Future of the Columbia
River Treaty
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Burns Paiute Tribe, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and
Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation of Oregon, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Kalispel Tribe of
Indians, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Fort
McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the
Fort Hall Reservation, the Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley
Indian Reservation, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians, with support from
the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Upper Columbia United
Tribes, and the Upper Snake River Tribes tribal organizations have been
working together to consider the effects and alternatives related to
the Columbia River Treaty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 25, 2010
The present Columbia River power and flood control system
operations are negatively affecting tribal rights and cultural
interests throughout the Columbia Basin. The Columbia River Treaty is
foundational to these operations.
The Columbia River Treaty:
Was negotiated and continues to be implemented without
regard to the tribes' unique legal and political
relationship with the Federal Government.
Is narrowly designed for the benefit of power and flood
control.
Does not include ecological considerations for critical
tribal natural resources.
Does not include considerations of critical tribal
cultural resources.
Created a power and flood control system that degraded
rivers, First Foods, natural resources, and tribal customs
and identities.
Significantly affects tribal economies.
Excludes tribal participation in its governance and
implementation.
Limits what can be accomplished with non-Treaty agreements
to meet tribal resource priorities.
The Columbia River Treaty is under review by the U.S. and Canadian
governments for reconsideration in 2014. Reconsideration of the Treaty
provides an opportunity for the tribes to seek benefits not realized in
50 years of Treaty implementation.
The Columbia Basin tribes' interests must be represented in the
implementation and reconsideration of the Columbia River Treaty. The
Columbia River must be managed for multiple purposes, including:
--Respect for the sovereignty of each tribal government--each tribe
has a voice in governance and implementation of the
Columbia River Treaty.
--Tribal cultural and natural resources must be included in river
management to protect and promote ecological processes--
healthy and useable fish, wildlife, and plant communities.
--Integrate the tribes' expertise of cultural and natural resources
in river management.
--Equitable benefits to each Tribe in priority to other sovereign
parties in Columbia River management.
--Respecting and preserving the benefits of settlement agreements
with tribes.
--Recognize tribal flood control benefits.
--Protecting tribal reserved rights to current and future
beneficial uses, in a manner consistent with ecosystem-
based management.
In order to realize these principles, the tribes' collective voices
must be included in the implementation and reconsideration of the
Columbia River Treaty.
______
The Chairman. Ms. Brigham, I understand we're going to
deviate a bit from the schedule because you have a flight to
catch here.
Ms. Brigham. Yes.
The Chairman. So in order to accommodate you, we're going
to--we won't have the testimony right now, and I just have a
couple of questions and Mr. DeFazio has a couple of questions.
Ms. Brigham. OK.
The Chairman. Then we'll excuse you so you can catch your
flight.
Ms. Brigham. All right. Thank you.
The Chairman. First of all, thank you for the compliment in
regards to the legislation on the sea lions. But there's
another aspect because I know how important the salmon runs are
to you. And the concern I have, and this is kind of based on
the exchange I had here with the first panel, for 50 years we
have had a treaty in place where there has been flexibility to
address those issues.
One of the things that the tribes have done, and I
certainly am very much supportive of, is the fish hatcheries
that I think have contributed to the record runs coming back.
The question that I would have, and maybe something to
contemplate, if you don't have a direct response right now, but
by inserting another element, like ecosystem, into the treaty,
would that potentially or not potentially affect the fish
hatcheries? Because now you have an international, you know,
someone may have a problem with that, who knows.
As you know, there is a lot of discussion on hatcheries. I
happen to be one that thinks you're doing the right thing in
that regard. But if you add an international element; i.e., a
treaty, to fish hatcheries, I just wondered if you've given
some thought to that, recognizing what you said about some of
the dams that don't have fish hatcheries. Have you given any
thought to that?
Ms. Brigham. Yes, we have, a little bit. But I think I
agree with General Kem's presumption that, you know, we have
our own domestic process, and within our own domestic process,
we will go through that process. And as you already know, when
we want to build a hatchery on the Columbia River, we go
through a number of steps to get that concurrence.
And for the Umatilla tribe, we just received that
concurrence for the Walla Walla Basin. So we are going to be
constructing a Walla Walla hatchery, and we hope to complete it
by 2016.
And we also have on the Pacific Salmon Treaty, that already
looks at salmon populations and harvest. So we annually adopt
fishing regimes for how fish are going to be harvested, and
they already look at what's going on with fish production.
So it may not play a part in the Columbia River Treaty
being modernized, but it is going to play a part in the
Columbia Pacific Salmon Treaty, which has already been agreed
to and signed in 1985.
The Chairman. Well, it's just another element that,
obviously, that I had some concerns with because it's the
unknown. And if there's one thing that I have learned loud and
clear it's that environmental issues tend to be more litigious
than anything else.
Ms. Brigham. Yes.
The Chairman. And we have 50 years of having been able to
deal with that on a domestic level, so that's the caution that
I have, so----
Ms. Brigham. OK.
The Chairman. Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
testimony. And having to catch planes all my life here, I'll be
very quick.
You know, recognizing, I think, that the domestic process
is very important, but as you heard from my exchange with Ms.
Eichenberger, or my questions, it seems that they are, shall I
say, skeptical about incorporating this in a broader way into
the treaty, as looking at a treaty that's flexible enough to
accommodate us on either side of the border. I mean--and that
seems to be what you're saying here, is that correct?
Ms. Brigham. Yes, the ecosystem. But at the same time, I
know that, you know, the First Nations on the other side of the
border would like ecosystem. You know, so there are some people
on both sides who would like ecosystem considered in the
modernizing of the treaty.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Ms. Brigham. I know it's complicated, it's very
complicated.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, in particular, they were, in another
written document I saw from them, they were much more
definitive about the idea of--and this is where you come into a
very interesting sovereign versus sovereign versus sovereign
versus sovereign, perhaps, is that in fish above Grand Coulee,
that--I saw a very definitive statement from British Columbia
saying we don't want that.
Now, there may be First Nations up there that want it. I
don't know how they resolve those things in Canada. And we have
had a long series of litigation resolving--you know, tribal
rights and fisheries here in the United States.
Ms. Brigham. Right.
Mr. DeFazio. So I just wanted to point out that trying to
put something into the treaty that at least one of the
principal entities being, you know, the government, is
adamantly opposed to would seem to me to be very problematic in
terms of getting to a successful negotiation.
Ms. Brigham. I think it's important to also note that for a
number of reasons we didn't have sockeye salmon returning back
to the Columbia River, and then when the Canadian government
stepped up and the First Nations stepped up, we started
reproducing sockeye salmon. Now we have record sockeye runs
back into the Columbia River. We have the largest sockeye runs
that we've ever had in the Columbia River.
So it can be done. It's not easy and it's not very
complicated, but this is something that we are willing to work
together on to figure out how we can make it happen. We know
that during the negotiations, we can't all of us come back with
what we want, because that's part of negotiations. But we're
hoping that we do develop a win-win situation so that we can go
back and tell our children's children that, you know, things
are going to change.
Eventually we're going to be able to drink the water that
we are not being able to drink now without being treated. We
have people who can't breathe the air when they get allergies,
and we have land that we cannot go on because of contamination,
but we need to make those changes.
And the Columbia River Treaty and so many other things
because, you know--and I think that's been part of the problem
is that people say, this is my territory, this is mine, this is
mine, this is mine, and yet it's all linked together. Tribal
leaders have learned from a very long time ago that everything
goes in a circle and we have to plan for the next set of
generations because if we don't, our children are going to be
in a worse condition than we are.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and I think we will keep
you on time here.
Ms. Brigham. Thank you very much for accommodating me.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We'll now recognize Mr. Scott Corwin with the Public Power
Council, recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT CORWIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC POWER
COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Corwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
The Public Power Council represents electric utilities in
the Pacific Northwest that purchase power and transmission from
the Federal Columbia River power system. We are also a member
of the Columbia River Treaty Power Group, consisting of over 80
electric utilities, along with other regional industries.
Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, we really appreciate your
knowledge and leadership of these regional issues, and
especially your interest in the future of the treaty here. And
we appreciate the work of the U.S. Entity on this and their
willingness to listen to our concerns lately.
It's vital that members of the treaty power group and
electricity consumers, along with tribes, States, other
regional stakeholders, continue to be involved during the next
phase of the process. This hearing is an important step in
ensuring that involvement, and I'm honored to be here with two
of the managers of utilities in the region and also with Ms.
Brigham and the other witnesses.
As the treaty recommendation moves to the State Department,
it's critical that its review proceed expeditiously. Every
month that goes by is a substantial loss in value to U.S.
residents. The Columbia River Treaty has provided benefits to
both countries, certainly, since its inception, but the power
provisions are vastly out of sync with current conditions.
The U.S. obligation under the Canadian entitlement far
exceeds the actual power benefit we receive. If this inequity
is not addressed, there will be an enormous lost opportunity
and a disservice to citizens of the northwest United States.
Without correction, by 2025, the United States would be
returning to Canada about 450 average megawatts of clean
hydropower and over 1300 megawatts of capacity, valued at
approximately $250 to $300 million annually, not to mention the
value for system operations and reliability and integration of
variable resources like wind power.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Entity's own estimate of the actual
annual value received by the United States is in the range of
$25 to $30 million, about one-tenth of the obligation sent to
Canada. This inequity is unsustainable.
Power benefits sent north should not exceed one-half of the
actual incremental benefit achieved through a coordinated U.S.-
Canada operation, as the treaty intended. It should not be
based on inaccurate and outdated extrapolations of 1960's
forecasts of conditions pre and post dam construction.
The nature of the assumptions in the forecast, the 60-year
time period, and the provisions for a 10-year notice of intent
to terminate at the end of the initial treaty term all
demonstrate a clear intent that the two nations would need to
update these arrangements and re-evaluate the benefits and
obligations over time. Also, national clean energy policy
objectives argue for correcting the balance of benefits, rather
than over-exporting clean, renewable domestically produced
energy out of our country.
On flood control, the financial responsibility for funding
called upon or any other flood risk management strategy should
be the responsibility borne equitably by all taxpayers since
the benefit from those efforts accrue to the general public.
Electricity customers in the Northwest should not shoulder this
cost.
Regarding ecosystem issues, customers of electric utilities
in the Northwest have made significant investments totaling
tens of billions of dollars in the river ecosystem. We have a
large stake in seeing the success of these programs. There
needs to be an adequate recognition of and accounting for the
efforts already underway.
And it is key that any other proposals have a strong basis
in the best available science with known costs and benefits and
then they not adversely affect ongoing programs for aquatic
species and not negatively impact electric system reliability
or navigational needs.
Hydropower is one of our main economic drivers in our area
of the country. The Northwest residents depend on it for almost
60 percent of generating capacity. Industries rely upon the
economically priced power because they operate in highly
competitive global markets. A modernized treaty that is
sustainable must truly rebalance the sharing of power benefits,
and we will urge the State Department and other Federal
agencies to expeditiously move toward that end.
We thank you for your involvement and guidance on this
important topic to electricity customers, and I'm happy to
answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corwin follows:]
Prepared Statement of R. Scott Corwin, Executive Director, Public Power
Council, Portland, Oregon
Good morning, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, and
Members of the Committee. My name is Scott Corwin. I am the Executive
Director of the Public Power Council (PPC), an association representing
consumer-owned electric utilities of the Pacific Northwest that
purchase power and transmission marketed by the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA). Our member utilities have service territories
with consumers in portions of eight Western States.
PPC is also a member of the Columbia River Treaty Power Group,
consisting of over 80 electric utilities, industry associations and
other entities that depend on power produced by the Columbia River
hydropower generating plants. Together, we represent at least 6.4
million electric customers in the four Northwest States that are
directly impacted by this Treaty. More information can be found at the
group's website (www.crtpowergoup.org).
Our primary concern has been to ensure that the Treaty discussions
prioritize the fundamental need to reestablish an equitable
distribution of power benefits between the United States and Canada. If
this inequity is not addressed, it will be an enormous lost opportunity
and a disservice to the citizens of the Northwest United States. We
share the goal of building the broadest agreement possible to build a
base of better engagement with Canada next year. The Columbia River
Treaty has provided benefits to both countries since its inception. It
is our hope that a rebalancing of the Treaty in the future will ensure
mutual benefit for decades to come.
The U.S. Entity for the Treaty (BPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) is about to release a final recommendation to the Department
of State that will serve as a basis for possible negotiations with
Canada to improve and modernize the Treaty. As this process moves into
the hands of the Department of State in Washington, DC, it is very
important that the next phase of the review proceed expeditiously. As
described below, every month that goes by is a substantial loss in
value to U.S. residents.
We greatly appreciate the Committee's interest in the future of the
Columbia River Treaty. Recently, we have appreciated being able to work
with the U.S. Entity and others in the region regarding our strong
concerns with prior drafts of the U.S. Entity's recommendation. Going
forward, it is vital that members of the Treaty Power Group, along with
Tribes, States, and other regional stakeholders, continue to be
involved in the process. This hearing is an important step in ensuring
that involvement.
the canadian entitlement must be rebalanced in any treaty negotiation
with canada
The primary objective of engaging in any Treaty negotiations with
Canada must be focused on correcting the current inequity of the U.S.
obligation under the Canadian Entitlement, and providing a significant
net benefit to the region's consumers. Regional consensus on a path
forward hinges on this being the centerpiece issue in any Treaty
negotiations. Reducing the financial burden to Northwest electric
customers, caused by a Canadian Entitlement vastly out of sync with
current conditions, and returning the use of clean, renewable
hydroelectricity to the Northwest, is clearly in the best interest of
the United States. This is the cornerstone of any negotiation with
Canada, and should be openly recognized as such.
In sum, the U.S. obligation under the Entitlement far exceeds the
actual power benefit received. If the Treaty continued using the
current calculations for the Canadian Entitlement, by 2025 the United
States would be returning to Canada about 450 average megawatts of
clean hydropower and 1,300 megawatts of capacity each year, valued at
approximately $250 to $350 million annually (not to mention its value
for system operations and reliability). Northwest electric customers
are likely to provide well over $2 billion in benefits to Canada over
the next 10 years alone, despite the U.S. Entity's own estimate that
the actual annual value of this benefit to the United States is only in
the range of $25 to $30 million (i.e., only one-tenth of the current
Canadian Entitlement obligation).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See U.S. Entity Studies, Iteration #2 Alternatives &
Components: General Summary of Results at 34 (Apr. 10, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This inequity is unsustainable. The focus should be on analyzing
the problems in the current methodology for calculating the Canadian
Entitlement, identifying possible solutions for correcting these
problems, and implementing a recommendation for addressing these
matters with Canada at the earliest possible time. By 2024, 60 years
will have passed since the Treaty was ratified.
The U.S. has a duty on behalf of its citizens, and Northwest
electricity customers in particular, to rebalance the Canadian
Entitlement in a manner that ensures that the U.S. obligation under the
Treaty is commensurate with the power benefits actually received.
Amounts provided to Canada for downstream power benefits should not
exceed one-half of the actual, incremental power benefit achieved
through a coordinated U.S./Canada operation (as compared to the non-
coordinated operation).
From the perspective of those trying to make ends meet or create
jobs in the region, it is untenable that we would continue to shift
this level of generation and wealth to another country. The appropriate
level of value returning to Canada after the initial 60-year agreement
must be based on the benefits of ongoing coordinated operations between
the U.S. and Canada--not on an inaccurate and outdated comparison of
conditions pre- and post-dam construction.
Correcting the Canadian Entitlement also is consistent with the
Administration's clean energy policy objectives. From that perspective,
it is counterproductive to export between $2 billion and $3 billion in
clean, renewable, domestically produced energy over the next decade and
beyond. Correcting that inequity should be the highest priority of the
State Department when pursuing any Treaty negotiations with Canada.
Each year after 2024 in which the Canadian Entitlement remains
unchanged is a significant loss of resources and value for the United
States.
the inequity of the current treaty
The United States has compensated Canada for the construction of
Canadian storage projects that improved flood control and increased
hydropower generation in both countries. This compensation took the
form of lump sum payments and the provision of the Canadian
Entitlement, which represents Canada's share of the difference in
hydroelectric power capable of being generated in the United States
with and without the use of Canadian storage. Over the last 50 years of
implementing this arrangement, actual U.S. benefits of coordinated
operations with Canada have reduced precipitously while the Canadian
Entitlement calculations in the Treaty are tied to theoretical, 50-
year-old assumptions.
When the Treaty was ratified, both the U.S. and Canada anticipated
that the Treaty calculation of U.S. power benefits would result in a
much smaller energy benefit by 2024. The U.S. and Canada acknowledged
that the real power benefits could be much less than the Treaty
calculation due to additional U.S. storage reservoirs and transmission
interconnections that are not included in the Treaty calculation. These
assumptions and forecasts, together with the provisions for a 10-year
notice of intent to terminate at the end of the initial Treaty term,\2\
demonstrate an intention that the two nations would update these
assumptions and reevaluate the benefits and obligations over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Treaty, Art. XIX(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
History has shown that no matter how sincere the effort to
appropriately calculate the Canadian Entitlement might have been, a
static formula based upon extrapolations of then-current conditions
into the future was not an optimal approach to ensuring fair and
equitable outcomes. The original methodology was not developed to
capture the actual realized downstream power benefits created by the
Treaty so much as it was a compromise method that was based upon then-
current expectations about the future. It was focused on the outdated
attempt to estimate benefits of construction of the Canadian storage
projects compared to the operation of a U.S. power system, as it stood
prior to 1965.
During original Treaty negotiations, there clearly was an
expectation by both countries that the Canadian Entitlement would end
well before 2024. The current methodology was a choice, based upon
expert judgment in the early 1960s, that it would be a reasonable
approximation to the actual power benefits created by Canadian storage
based upon certain expectations as to how the future would unfold.
However, the future unfolded much differently than expected.
Several factors have greatly undermined the reasonableness of the
current Treaty methods as an approximation of the actual downstream
power benefits resulting from the original Treaty, and thus the
accuracy of the calculated Canadian Entitlement. These factors include
significantly lower than expected regional electric load growth,
greatly expanded opportunities to market non-firm hydropower outside
the region, a much wider slate of power supply resource types than
existed at the time of Treaty signing, and changing societal
preferences regarding environmental and cultural issues. The result is
the severe imbalance in benefits received relative to costs paid by
U.S. power consumers.
Now, as the 60th anniversary of ratification approaches, is the
time to reevaluate these benefits and begin steps to rebalance Treaty
obligations to match the actual benefits received.
flood risk management
It is critical that there be a common understanding between the
United States and Canada regarding the methods and procedures for post-
2024 ``called upon'' flood control. We believe that the financial
responsibility for funding ``called upon'' or any other flood risk
management strategy within the Columbia River Basin should be a
responsibility borne equitably by all taxpayers, since the benefit from
these efforts and investments accrue to the general public. Electricity
customers in the Northwest should not be required to shoulder
responsibilities that would otherwise be paid for from the general
Federal, State, and local funding base.
treaty scope and the ecosystem
As national leaders in both energy efficiency and fish and wildlife
mitigation, electric utilities in the Northwest are firmly committed to
environmental stewardship. It is notable that, under the existing
Treaty and non-Treaty agreements, electricity customers in the
Northwest have made significant investments, totaling tens of billions
of dollars, resulting in ecosystem improvements through Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
licenses, Bonneville Power Administration's fish and wildlife program,
and other investments associated with the FCRPS Biological Opinion and
Columbia Basin Fish Accords. We have a large stake in the seeing the
success of these programs.
PPC and other members of the Treaty Power Group have stated that,
to the extent a modernized Treaty is to address ecosystem matters,
adequate recognition of and accounting for efforts already underway is
critical. We have also noted the risk of lack of clarity and
specificity in Treaty recommendations. And, we have emphasized the
importance of ensuring that any provisions not adversely affect ongoing
programs for aquatic species, that they have a strong basis in the best
available science, and that the costs and benefits are clearly
established and compelling. In addition, provisions must not compromise
the integrity of electric system reliability, must not negatively
impact navigational needs, must not impede long-standing water supply
obligations, and must not interfere with ongoing ecosystem management
under existing Federal and State regulatory programs, including FERC
licenses.
power and jobs
The Federal Columbia River Power System creates clean electricity
for millions of residents. Its array of benefits reach all corners of
the Northwest in the form of economically priced emission-free power,
navigation, irrigation, recreation, and of course, fish and wildlife
habitat.
It is important to remember the foundations of this Treaty. From
the beginning, the focus of the Columbia River Treaty was upon power
production and flood control. In a message to the U.S. Senate
transmitting the Columbia River Basin Treaty with Canada on January 17,
1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
``The treaty is an important step toward achieving optimum
development of the water resources of the Columbia River basin
as a whole from which the United States and Canada will each
receive benefits materially larger than either could obtain
independently.
The United States will secure a large block of power at low
cost, substantial flood control benefits, and additional
incidental benefits for irrigation, navigation, pollution
abatement, and other uses resulting from controlled storage.
Canada will also receive a large block of power at a low cost,
as well as flood control and other benefits resulting from the
control of water flow.''
And, in his remarks with Prime Minister Pearson upon proclaiming
the ratified Treaty on September 16, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson
talked of the cooperation between the two countries. His only comment
on the substance of the Treaty is on the power provisions, noting among
other things that, ``It will supply new electric power to millions of
my countrymen.''
These leaders understood very well the critical role of hydropower
in the Northwest as one of the main economic drivers in an area that
has other geographic challenges to economic growth. Today, Northwest
residents depend on hydropower for almost 60 percent of the generating
capacity in the region. Industries rely on economically priced power
because they operate in highly competitive global markets. Any increase
in major cost inputs, especially energy costs, directly pressures the
sustainability of employment levels. In addition, increases to power
rates directly threaten the cost effectiveness of essential irrigation
services and many other power dependent sectors.
conclusion
The Columbia River is a magnificent asset that plays a central role
in the Northwest's economy and cultural identity. It generates clean
electricity to millions of people, avoids carbon emissions, provides
habitat for fish and wildlife, offers recreational opportunities,
provides water for navigation, and now also plays an important role in
integrating wind into the electric grid.
The Columbia River Treaty helped create mutual benefit from this
system for many years. A modernized approach that rebalances the
sharing of power benefits is crucial to having a sustainable Treaty
moving forward.
Thank you for holding this hearing today on an important topic to
electricity consumers. And, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
look forward to answering any questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Corwin, for your
testimony.
I'll now recognize Mr. Tony Webb, manager of the Grant
County PUD.
Mr. Webb, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TONY WEBB, GENERAL MANAGER, GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICT, EPHRATA, WASHINGTON
Mr. Webb. Good morning, Chairman Hastings and Ranking
Member DeFazio.
Grant County PUD is the consumer-owned utility that serves
90,000 residents within Grant County. This rural, predominantly
agricultural area borders on the west of the Columbia River.
Nationally, Grant County is an agricultural leader ranking 5th
in the United States for irrigated acreage and 11th for value
of crops produced.
Our major power consumers include food processors, frozen
food storage, data centers, silicon production, steel
fabrication, and auto carbon fiber manufacturing. Grant PUD
owns significant electric generation assets, all of which are
100 percent renewable, a vast majority of that generation
coming from our two hydro developments, Priest Rapids and
Wanapum Dams on the Columbia River.
These valuable renewable resources support reliable
electricity delivery, clean air, and significant economic
benefits for millions of families and businesses throughout the
Pacific Northwest. My message today is simple: Rebalancing the
Canadian entitlement should be the top priority of the U.S.
Entity's final recommendation.
What's at stake is lost opportunity for the United States,
specifically the potential that future jobs could be
transferred north. Grant PUD is one of three public utility
districts that own and operate non-Federal hydropower dams on
the mid-Columbia River. Together, the three mid-Columbia PUD's
pay 27\1/2\ percent of the Canadian entitlement.
As identified by BPA, the actual power benefit to the U.S.
on ongoing coordinated operations with Canada has greatly
reduced over the past 50 years, and is now worth a fraction of
the current Canadian entitlement. If the treaty continues post-
2024, we are concerned that the U.S. electric consumers will be
paying too much for diminishing downstream power benefits.
While the U.S. Entity acknowledges the need to rebalance
the Canadian entitlement, we believe this is the single most
important issue that must be addressed in the final
recommendation because of the potential and significant lost
economic opportunity to the United States and the region. I
will illustrate this point by using one of Grant PUD's newest
industrial customers as an example.
German automaker BMW, in a joint venture with SGL Group, a
major German carbon products company, conducted a worldwide
search to locate their new state-of-the-art auto carbon fibers
manufacturing plant. The new facility would produce lightweight
carbon fibers for the passenger compartment of BMW's new all-
electric vehicle, the i3.
A key factor in locating the new plant was availability of
a reliable, renewable, and affordable energy source. An
important selling point for BMW and its customers was the
vehicle had to have the minimal lifecycle emissions impact in
its development. BMW and SGL narrowed their search to sites
with hydropower.
Ultimately, BMW/SGL selected the U.S. site in Moses Lake,
Washington, for their new plant, which opened in 2011. The 60-
acre site brought in an initial investment of a hundred million
dollars and created 80 good manufacturing jobs, plus another
200 construction jobs. The plant has plans for potential
expansion.
The point is that more and more companies are moving their
operations, building new facilities, and creating jobs in areas
close to hydro resources. The reason for this trend is that
renewable hydropower provides its customers one of the most
affordable, reliable sources of electricity in America. Each
megawatt hour of clean, renewable hydropower exported from the
U.S. to Canada in excess of the fair value of the Canadian
entitlement reduces the potential for this type of beneficial
growth that we have seen with BMW/SGL. This lost opportunity
must be recognized.
In closing, Grant PUD wants to ensure a fair and equitable
outcome for the customers we serve. The primary benefit for
rebalancing the Canadian entitlement would be to preserve an
important renewable domestic energy for the entire western
United States. It's simply unacceptable to give away a
disproportionate amount of this clean, renewable domestic
resource and the opportunity to create U.S. jobs along with it.
Grant PUD appreciates the committee's interest in this
important matter and for convening today's field hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Webb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony Webb, General Manager, Grant County
Public Utility District, Ephrata, Washington
introduction
Good morning Chairman Hastings and members of the Committee, I am
Tony Webb, General Manager of Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant
County, Washington (Grant PUD) located in the central region of the
State of Washington.
Grant PUD is a consumer-owned utility that serves 90,000 residents
within 2,800 square miles of Grant County. This rural, predominantly
agricultural area is bordered on the west by the Columbia River.
Nationally, Grant County is an agricultural leader ranking 5th in the
United States for irrigated acreage and 11th for value of crops
produced.
Our local economy is based on diversified agriculture. Our major
power consumers include: food processors, frozen food storage, data
centers, silicon production, steel fabrication and auto carbon fiber
manufacturing.
Grant PUD owns significant electric generation assets, all of which
are 100 percent renewable. Hydropower, small irrigation-canal hydro and
wind power comprise our total combined generating capacity of over
2,000 megawatts, with a vast majority of that capacity coming from our
two hydropower developments, Priest Rapids and Wanapum Dams on the
Columbia River.
These valuable renewable resources support reliable electricity
delivery, clean air and significant economic benefits for millions of
families and businesses throughout the Pacific Northwest.
In addition, Grant PUD coordinates mid-Columbia River hydro
operations for the region to optimize power generation and river flows
among seven dams: Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph, Wells, Rocky Reach, Rock
Island, Wanapum and Priest Rapids.
Grant PUD is a member of the Columbia River Treaty Power Group, a
coalition of over 80 electric utilities, industry associations and
other members that depend on the renewable energy produced by the
Columbia River.
rebalance the canadian entitlement
My message today is simple: Rebalancing the Canadian Entitlement
should be a top priority in the U.S. Entity's final recommendation.
What's at stake is lost opportunity for the United States . . .
specifically, the potential that future jobs could be transferred
north.
Grant PUD is one of three public utility districts that own and
operate non-Federal hydropower dams on the Mid-Columbia River.
Together, the three Mid-Columbia PUDs pay 27.5 percent of the Canadian
Entitlement.
By 2024, it will be 60 years since the Columbia River Treaty was
ratified. Article VII of the Treaty defines downstream power benefits
as the ``difference in hydroelectric power capable of being generated
in the U.S. with and without the use of Canadian storage.'' However,
post-2024, this becomes the wrong baseline upon which to determine any
Canadian Entitlement. Payments returned to Canada after the initial 60-
year agreement should be based on the benefits of ongoing coordinated
operations today between the United States and Canada--not on a
comparison of conditions before and after construction of the storage
dams 60 years ago.
As identified by the Bonneville Power Administration, the actual
power benefit to the United States of ongoing coordinated operations
with Canada has reduced significantly over the past 50 years and is now
worth a fraction of the current Canadian Entitlement.
If the Treaty continues post-2024, we are concerned that U.S.
electric consumers, including our local customers, will be paying too
much for diminishing downstream power benefits. While the U.S. Entity
acknowledges the need to rebalance the Canadian Entitlement, we believe
this is the single most important issue that must be addressed in the
final recommendation because of the potential and significant lost
economic opportunity to the Unites States and the region.
hydropower--expanding u.s. manufacturing
I will illustrate this point using one of Grant PUD's newest
industrial customers as an example.
German automaker BMW, in a joint venture with SGL Group, a major
German carbon-products company, conducted a worldwide search to locate
their new state-of-the-art auto carbon fibers manufacturing plant. The
new facility would produce lightweight carbon fibers for the passenger
compartment of BMW's new all-electric vehicle, the i3.
A key factor for locating the new plant was the availability of a
reliable, renewable and affordable energy source. An important selling
point for BMW and its customers was a vehicle that had minimal life-
cycle emissions impact in its development. BMW/SGL narrowed their
search down to two locations--one site in the United States (served by
Grant PUD) and a site in eastern Canada. Both locations provided a
reliable, renewable energy source--hydropower.
Ultimately, BMW/SGL selected the U.S. site in Moses Lake,
Washington for their new auto carbon fibers plant, which opened in
2011, due to the affordability, availability and reliability of
renewable hydropower. The 60-acre site brought an initial investment of
$100 million and created 80 good manufacturing jobs, nearly all from
the region, plus another 200 construction jobs. The plant has plans for
potential expansion as well.
The point is that more and more companies are moving their
operations, building new facilities and creating jobs in areas close to
hydropower resources. The reason for this trend is that renewable
hydropower provides its customers one of the most affordable and
reliable sources of electricity in America, while boosting corporate
sustainability goals. Each megawatt hour of clean, renewable hydropower
exported from the United States to Canada, in excess of the fair value
of the Canadian Entitlement, reduces the potential for the type of
beneficial growth we have seen at BMW/SGL. This lost opportunity must
be recognized.
conclusion
In closing, Grant PUD wants to ensure a fair and equitable outcome
for the customers we serve. The primary benefit for rebalancing the
Canadian Entitlement would be to preserve an important renewable,
domestic energy resource for the entire western United States.
Hydropower is a beneficial and cherished resource developed by our
country for the reliability of our power system. It is simply
unacceptable to give away a disproportionate amount of this clean,
renewable, domestic resource and the opportunity to create future U.S.
jobs along with it.
Grant PUD appreciates the Committee's interest in this important
matter and for convening today's Field Hearing. I look forward to
answering any questions that Committee members may have.
Thank you.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Webb.
Now I'll recognize Mr. Rick Crinklaw, who is the general
manager of the Lane Electric Co-op in Eugene.
Mr. Crinklaw, I will recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICK CRINKLAW, GENERAL MANAGER, LANE ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, EUGENE, OREGON
Mr. Crinklaw. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
DeFazio.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the
member consumers of Lane Electric Co-op. Lane Electric is an
electric distribution utility headquartered in Eugene, Oregon,
and I'm very proud to say that we serve a large portion of
Congressman DeFazio's congressional district.
I also wanted to acknowledge Congressman DeFazio's years of
service and support for rural electric co-ops like Lane
Electric and Lane Electric's members who have benefited greatly
from his service and advocacy on their behalf. I'm grateful for
the committee's focus and attention on the future of the
Columbia River Treaty. Lane Electric's members in rural Lane
County are greatly impacted by the treaty today, and they have
a big stake in any future commitments made by the United
States.
Copies of my formal written testimony have been provided to
the committee, therefore, in respect for your time, I will
briefly emphasize a couple of areas: First, the need to
rebalance the Canadian entitlement; and, two, concerns
regarding ecosystem proposals.
Regarding the first issue, the need to rebalance the
Canadian entitlement, I feel this an absolute necessity. It
must reflect actual benefits based on today, not the '60s or
'70s. The treaty must recapture one of the original intents: to
share power benefits equitably.
As part of the U.S. Entity's review of the Columbia River
Treaty, BPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has studied
the Canadian entitlement and determined that Canada now
receives significantly more benefits under the treaty than does
the United States. The scale of that imbalance has been talked
about in previous testimony here today.
Now, the Columbia River Treaty cannot be changed until
2024, but electric consumers of the Pacific Northwest should
not be expected to continue sending billions of dollars in
clean and renewable hydropower to Canada for decades to come.
Using Lane Electric as an example, the following is the impacts
on my members.
The estimated annual cost of the Canadian entitlement for
Lane Electric is approximately $900,000 annually. For the
average Lane Electric member, that translates to $5.50 per
month or $66 a year. For 2014, Lane Electric will increase
rates by 5.4 percent, largely influenced by the recent increase
in Bonneville's wholesale power rates. Ironically, the revenue
derived by our 2014 rate increase is comparable to our cost on
the Canadian entitlement annually.
Though $5.50 per month may seem like a modest amount, it's
not for many Lane Electric members. Consider these statistics.
High unemployment is a persistent problem in rural Lane County.
Thirty-nine percent of Lane County residents are eligible for
food assistance, and 53 percent of children are eligible for
free or reduced lunch in schools. And these figures are even
higher in the rural portions of the county.
The median household income in Oakridge, Oregon, which is
served by Lane Electric, is about $25,000 a year. The median
household income for the State of Oregon is about $50,000 a
year.
Chairman Hastings, Congressman DeFazio, on behalf of the
families and the communities that Lane County serves,
rebalancing the Canadian entitlement is simply a question of
fairness and an opportunity to ease pressure on rates.
The second issue I want to address is the potential of an
ecosystem function being added to the treaty. I believe the
final recommendation must recognize and fully account for the
efforts already being undertaken to protect fish and wildlife
resources in the Columbia and contribute--and its tributaries,
and my members must get credit for what they have contributed
and are contributing.
Electric consumers have invested billions of dollars in
successful fish and wildlife programs, programs and
expenditures that I frequently explain to members what they
have actually paid for. Again, using Lane Electric as an
example, the following are pocketbook impacts.
Lane Electric contributes $2.9 million annually to
Bonneville fish and wildlife programs. This translates to $219
per member per year. Consequently, the average Lane Electric
customer pays a total of $285 annually to fund the Canadian
entitlement and support Bonneville's existing fish and wildlife
programs.
As mentioned previously, Lane Electric continues to
struggle economically. And another data point is the average
low-income heating assistance a member receives a year is $250,
just under what their obligation is for the entitlement and
fish and wildlife programs.
I hope I've illustrated for the committee that the Columbia
River Treaty is a big issue for my members, as it is for most
customers in the Pacific Northwest, and this is an issue that
goes to the family budget for every member we serve in rural
Lane County.
This concludes my testimony, and thank you for this
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crinklaw follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rick Crinklaw, General Manager, Lane Electric
Cooperative, Eugene, Oregon
Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio, to begin with, let me
thank you both for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Lane
Electric Cooperative. My name is Rick Crinklaw and I am the General
Manager of Lane Electric Cooperative, located in Eugene, Oregon. We are
proudly located in Congressman DeFazio's District.
Chairman Hastings, it is a pleasure to be in your District today.
We have worked with your constituents on issues of importance to rural
electric cooperatives and I join your constituents in thanking you for
your support. I do however want to specifically note Congressman
DeFazio's years of service and support for rural electrics like Lane
Electric Cooperative. We--and I mean Lane Electric's ratepayers--have
benefited greatly from your service and advocacy on behalf of your
constituents.
Lane Electric's service territory covers 2,600 square miles. The
cities and towns Lane Electric serves in or near include Blue River,
Cottage Grove, Creswell, Culp Creek, Dexter, Dorena, Eugene, Fall
Creek, Lorane, Oakridge, Pleasant Hill, Veneta, Vida and Westfir. As a
rural electric cooperative, Lane Electric is owned by our members. Our
47 employees serve more than 13,000 customers and manage almost 1,500
miles of power lines. I have spent my 38-year career working for
electric cooperatives--the last 18 as Lane Electric's general manager.
I currently serve on the Executive Committee of the Public Power
Council, and on the Board of Directors of PNGC Power. Lane Electric is
an active member of the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association. Last, and important to this hearing, Lane Electric is a
member of the Columbia River Treaty Power Group.
I am delighted to see this committee focus its attention on the
future of the Columbia River Treaty. It may come as a surprise to some
but our members in rural Lane County are greatly impacted by the
Columbia River Treaty today and we have a big stake in any future
commitments made by the United States.
I would like to use my time today to illustrate for the committee
the impact that the Columbia River Treaty has on one small rural
electric cooperative and our members in Oregon. To do this, I want to
address two key issues related to the Columbia River Treaty. The first
issue is the absolute necessity to rebalance the Canadian Entitlement
to reflect actual benefits to ratepayers like my members. The second
issue is the broad ill-defined ecosystem function proposal, which does
not appear to be coordinated with existing salmon recovery efforts
across the region. These efforts are also funded in part by Lane
Electric members and other customers of the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) from all across the Pacific Northwest.
We at Lane Electric fully appreciate that the Columbia River and
the 60-year treaty with our Canadian neighbors has been a significant
contributor to our region's economy, to our region's flood control
efforts and our region's efforts to restore and recover historic salmon
populations in the Columbia River Basin.
When the United States and Canada negotiated the Columbia River
Treaty in the 1960s, the two countries agreed on a mechanism to share
the benefits provided under the treaty. Unfortunately, the negotiators
used a set of assumptions that did not materialize to set the Canadian
Entitlement or payment delivered in power to Canada to represent its
share of the treaty benefits.
As part of the U.S. Entity's review of the Columbia River Treaty,
BPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have studied the Canadian
Entitlement and determined that Canada now receives significantly more
benefits under the treaty than does the United States and our electric
customers who ultimately fund the Canadian Entitlement. According to
the U.S. Entity, Canada may be receiving as much as 10 times the
benefit received by the United States.
The Canadian Entitlement is estimated to be worth between $250 and
$350 million per year in power generated by Bonneville and the non-
Federal projects along the Columbia River. A recent U.S. Entity study
estimates that the United States receives approximately $25 million in
benefits related to the treaty.
The Columbia River Treaty cannot be changed until 2024. What this
means is that electric customers in the Pacific Northwest are already
obligated to send between $2.5 and $3.5 billion in power benefits to
Canada over the next decade. As the U.S. Government reviews the future
of the treaty in 2014, we must make rebalancing the Canadian
Entitlement the highest priority to the United States. Electric
customers in the Northwest should not be expected to continue to send
billions of dollars in clean, renewable hydropower to Canada for
decades to come. My members expect their government to forcefully
address the Canadian Entitlement issue with Canada. The treaty's
hydropower benefits must be shared on an actual basis rather than a
series of antiquated flawed assumptions. Rebalancing the Canadian
Entitlement is simply a question of fairness for the communities and
families we serve.
Here are a few examples of how the Canadian Entitlement impacts
Lane Electric Cooperative.
The estimated annual cost of the Canadian Entitlement for
Lane Electric is $900K annually. For the average Lane
Electric member/consumer the cost is $5.50 per month, or
$66.00 per year.
For 2014, Lane Electric will increase rates by 5.4
percent. Ironically, the 2014 rate increase is comparable
to our portion of the Canadian Entitlement. Bonneville has
increased rates several times in recent years; these
increases are difficult to pass on in economically
challenged areas. I can tell you from daily experience,
electric rate increases are difficult for many families to
manage in our service territory.
Recall the U.S. Entity study that suggests Canada receives
a benefit that could be 10 times higher than enjoyed on the
U.S. side of the border. For us, that means we send $900K
to Canada in the form of the Canadian Entitlement and
receive $90,000 annually in coordinated hydropower
benefits. To us this is a significant sum of money that we
cannot invest in our system, our people and the communities
we serve.
High unemployment is a persistent problem in rural Lane
County. Thirty-nine percent of Lane County residents are
eligible for food assistance and 53 percent of children are
eligible for free and reduced meals at schools. These
figures are higher in the rural parts of Lane County where
we are located. The median household income of Oakridge,
Oregon, served by Lane Electric, is $25,000. The median
household income for the State of Oregon is $49,000, almost
twice that of Oakridge. Our members and consumers cannot
afford the Canadian Entitlement today. And we cannot make
an open ended commitment to continue the current
inequitable arrangement for decades to come.
Chairman Hastings and Congressman DeFazio, for the families in my
community, rebalancing the Canadian Entitlement is a very important
opportunity to ease pressure on rates. The only opportunity to seek
relief for Northwest electric customers to the Canadian Entitlement
inequity is through the Columbia River Treaty review and renegotiation.
Lane Electric Cooperative, and I think I can safely say all of the
Rural Electric Cooperatives in the Northwest, needs your continued
support to encourage the Administration to prioritize the Canadian
Entitlement issue in 2014.
The second issue I want to briefly address today is the potential
inclusion of an ecosystem function in the treaty going forward beyond
2024. At Lane Electric, we believe the Final Recommendation and the
upcoming Obama administration treaty review process must recognize and
fully account for efforts already being undertaken under existing
Federal and State programs to protect fish and wildlife resources in
the Columbia River and its tributaries. Any effort to expand the Treaty
to include ecosystem function must not interfere with or adversely
affect these ongoing programs, as they are publicly developed programs.
Northwest electric customers have invested billions of dollars already
and will continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in fish and
wildlife measures each year.
We appreciate that the U.S. Entity has taken steps to recognize the
existing ecosystem efforts and investments made by our ratepayers. We
do have ongoing concerns with the ecosystem function proposals. The
ecosystem function proposal, including programs under the Resource
Committee's jurisdiction, is vague and offers little certainty and
structure. These uncertainties could diminish, or threaten altogether,
ecological benefits achieved after years of detailed studies, tireless
investigations and negotiations, and at times, litigation. The
uncertainties associated with ecosystem function create significant
risk to environmental resources and electric customers in the
Northwest.
This issue is also a pocketbook issue to the members of Lane
Electric.
Lane Electric contributes $2.9 million annually to the
Bonneville Power Administration's fish and wildlife
programs. This translates into an average annual
contribution of $219 per Lane Electric ratepayer.
As stated above, rural Lane County continues to struggle
with higher unemployment rates and heavy reliance upon food
assistance program. Another data point to note, the average
LIHEAP payment in our service territory is $250.
The average Lane Electric consumer pays a total of $285
annually to fund the Canadian Entitlement and support the
BPA's fish and wildlife programs.
Our members are aware that we support Bonneville's fish and
wildlife programs with ratepayer dollars. As General Manager of an
electric cooperative, I am accountable to our members and consumers. I
ask the same of the U.S. Entity, the Congress, and the Obama
administration. Please be accountable in reviewing an enhanced
ecosystem function in the Columbia River Treaty. Please hold proponents
of an enhanced ecosystem function accountable to the public as well.
When I talk to Lane's members about the region's fish and wildlife
expenditures, they often respond with a sense of pride over our success
in recovering salmon. They seem to embrace that which they think is
reasonable, and fair. We may all disagree with some parts of our
massive regional investment in the ecosystem, the world's largest
Endangered Species recovery program, but this I know to be true: many
of our customers believe that our current investments represent a broad
consensus of scientific opinion. I can explain it to them, and they
understand it. However, this not the case with the new proposed Treaty
ecosystem function. When they ask me what is proposed, and why, I only
have one answer: more for ecosystem function, and you will be asked to
pay for it.
Our members, and many in the public power community, are concerned
that proposals to inject ecosystem functions at the Treaty level could
have unintended consequences for existing, publicly developed programs
in the United States that represent significant investments for
electric customers. Treaty-mandated changes in flow regimes, fish
passage operations, or similar requirements could conflict or interfere
with ongoing programs in the Columbia River Basin.
Mr. Chairman and Congressman DeFazio, again, on behalf of Lane
Electric and our members, we believe any further consideration of an
ecosystem function must be closely examined including by the Resource
Committee and Members of Congress from the Northwest who best know the
key issues impacting hydropower, rate increases, flood control,
navigation, and the many Federal and non-Federal fish and wildlife
enhancement initiatives.
I hope I have illustrated to the Committee today that the Columbia
River Treaty is a big issue to my members. This issue goes to the
family budget of every member we serve in rural Lane County. I
appreciate that you both understand this very real impact on your
constituents.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. Lane Electric and the public power community in the
Northwest will remain engaged in the future of the Columbia River
Treaty and I hope you will call upon us if we may be of assistance to
your work.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Crinklaw, for your
testimony.
Next I'll recognize Ron Reimann, who is president of the
Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association, he's also a
commissioner for the Port of Pasco here in Pasco.
Mr. Reimann, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF RON REIMANN, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA-SNAKE RIVER
IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION AND COMMISSIONER, PORT OF PASCO,
KENNEWICK, WASHINGTON
Mr. Reimann. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member.
On a personal note, Doc, is it just me, or am I the only
one up here with a suit and tie?
Mr. DeFazio. You're the only one who's comfortable.
The Chairman. I don't know where Rella messed up, but she
must have messed up.
Mr. Reimann. I get to wear three hats today, so I'll be
brief. I'm a Port of Pasco commissioner. The Port is an
economic engine for Pasco and Franklin County, you may have
flown into our airport and over the Port's processing center
development. I'm also president of the Columbia-Snake River
Irrigators Association. We represent approximately 250,000
acres of all types of irrigated crops.
I'm also secretary/treasurer and, I might add, one of the
better equipment operators of T & R Farms, Inc., a family owned
and operated irrigated farm. We are not a large operation
compared to many, but we produced enough potatoes on our farm
this fall to feed 640,000 people for a year.
All of these three hats I wear are dependent on the
reliable and economically practical water supply from the
Columbia River. I am at somewhat of a loss for the purpose of
this hearing. I understand public comment was to be submitted
by the end of October, and the regional recommendation by the
end of December. I have read the regional recommendation
briefing version. It sounds very good. Reads like a book, that
everybody ends up married, rich, or just plain happy.
This is not a story. This is about my son, my
granddaughter's future, and everybody else's future that lives
in the Pacific Northwest. And it seems like everybody else I
know no longer has faith that our legislators or agencies will
do the right thing. What's more disturbing is we don't have the
faith that they know how to do it anymore.
I read the disclaimer that this treaty was written back in
the '60s. My father-in-law entered into a potato seed contract
with a seed grower in the early '60s. We still operate on that
same contract three generations later. Maybe you need some old
farmers from Canada and the United States to write the next
treaty. Better yet, people who just care enough to protect and
use our river in the best interest of all.
What happened to a coalition of legislators from the
Northwest stepping forward to protect our rights? Sometimes it
takes common sense to make something work. I am afraid the
citizens of the Pacific Northwest are out of luck once again.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Reimann.
I'll recognize Mr. Greg Haller for the Pacific Rivers
Council, recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREG HALLER, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, PACIFIC RIVERS
COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Haller. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio,
thank you for the opportunity to testify in the hearing on the
future of the Columbia River Treaty. My name is Greg Haller,
I'm the conservation director for Pacific Rivers Council.
My testimony will focus on four or five issues regarding
the treaty and recommendations for modernizing it, for the
future of hydropower in the basin, congressional authorization
for review of flood risk management, and expanding the U.S.
Entity to include regional expertise on ecosystem function.
We strongly support the U.S. Entity for recommending
ecosystem function as the third primary purpose of the treaty.
Modernizing the treaty offers a unique opportunity to effect a
basis to get out of the long-term health of the Columbia River.
This effort will be critical for the sustainability of wild
salmon runs as the challenges of climate change take hold.
The elevation of the ecosystem function accurately reflects
the high value that citizens of the region place on the health
of the river and on salmon runs generally. It also reflects the
reality in today's Northwest that ecosystem health and economic
health are inextricable.
Because there is still no lawful Federal plan to restore
endangered Columbia-Snake salmon and steelhead and because all
but one of ESA's listed stocks are still far below the level
needed for recovery, there's still much work to be done,
particularly regarding flow management, improving river
temperatures which are dangerously high in both the Columbia
and Snake, restoring habitat, improving passage for lamprey,
reconnecting flood plains, and restoring salmon to areas now
blocked by dams.
Modernization of the treaty will allow the region to
address some of these issues by integrating strategies more
consistent with regional salmon recovery and health goals.
Regarding the future of hydropower in the basin, the region
and nation obviously have benefited greatly from the renewable
energy supply generated by the Columbia River. These benefits,
however, have come at the expense of salmon and people.
Importantly, the dynamics of a changing energy portfolio,
including the rapid development of wind power and the
increasing use of natural gas to meet peak power demands,
coupled with societal demands to restore salmon, point to a
future less dependent on hydropower for peaking power needs.
Further, climate change will likely decrease the overall
reliability of the hydro system. Therefore, power production
under a modernized treaty must account for and promote
development of non-carbon energy in the Northwest, consistent
with the Northwest Power and Conservation--I think it's the
Northwest Conservation Power Planning.
Modernizing flood risk management represents a rare
opportunity to positively affect the river ecosystem at the
basin scale through a comprehensive public planning process.
This effort should integrate new analysis of flood risks under
predicted climate change scenarios with an assessment of how
renewable and conventional energy sources will affect the
demand for power produced in the basin.
Further, it will involve a review of the adequacy of
existing flood control infrastructure and an assessment of
where flood plains can safely be reconnected to the river. This
review should also include funding for the integration of
modern precipitation and runoff forecasting techniques in the
seasonal planning processes. The potential benefits of a
modernized flood risk management extend to other treaty
purposes, as well. And I appreciate the comments of Mr. Mainzer
in finding win-win-win solutions.
Fuller reservoirs not only enhance reservoir productivity
and provide flexibility to provide additional summer flows,
they also enhance system hydropower capacity and recreational
opportunities. These types of scenarios should be fully
explored. I think this issue is particularly salient with
recent biological movements concerning Federal Emergency
Management Agency's national flood insurance program and how
that program affects salmon in Oregon and Washington.
Though we acknowledge concerns about the calculation of the
size of power deliveries made to Canada pursuant to the treaty,
we strongly believe that calls to terminate in order to reduce
the so-called entitlement are short-sighted. The United States
must be cautious in its approach to the suggestion of it
reducing or eliminating the entitlement to be a primary driver
in treaty negotiations or as a basis to terminate the treaty to
avoid power deliveries.
The significance of entitlement power deliveries as an
inducement to British Columbia and Canada to negotiate changes
should not be underestimated, particularly as Ms. Eichenberger
pointed out, that Canada can point to other benefits provided
to the United States from operating the treaty dams.
Finally, PRC believes that an ecosystem expert should be
added to the U.S. Entity to better prepare for negotiations
with Canada and to better implement this 50-year treaty for
today's Northwest. We suggest either the 15 Columbia Basin
tribes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries, or the
Environmental Protection Agency.
In closing, we believe the regional recommendation lays a
solid foundation to begin negotiations with Canada, and while
some differences may remain, these differences should not be
interpreted as reasons not to proceed with negotiations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Haller, Conservation Director, Pacific
Rivers Council, Portland, Oregon
Chairman Hastings, Congressman DeFazio, and members of House
Committee on Natural Resources, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on ``The Future of the U.S.-Canada Columbia River Treaty--
Building on 60 Years of Coordinated Power Generation and Flood
Control.'' The Pacific Rivers Council (PRC) is a regional river
conservation group, located in Portland, Oregon, which works throughout
the Columbia Basin and northern California to protect rivers, their
watersheds and the native aquatic species that depend on functioning,
high quality aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Due to our focus, we have
been actively involved in the Treaty review process, which we believe
offers a unique opportunity to positively affect the long-term health
of the Columbia River. We strongly support the U.S. Entity's conclusion
in its Regional Recommendation that modernizing the Treaty with Canada
is in the best interest of the United States and the river's ecosystem.
support for modernizing the treaty with ecosystem function as a primary
purpose
PRC commends the U.S. Entity for recommending ecosystem function as
a primary purpose of a modernized Treaty, along with flood risk
management and hydropower production. The elevation of ecosystem
function as a primary purpose accurately reflects the high value that
citizens of the Pacific Northwest place on the health of the river and
is consistent with nationally held opinions about how society should
manage its interaction with the environment, as evidenced by
environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the
Clean Water Act (CWA). It also reflects the reality in today's
Northwest that ecosystem health and economic health are inextricable.
Ecosystem function may generally be defined as the physical and
chemical interaction of living components (plants, animals and
microorganisms) with non-living components (air, water, rocks) which
produce and sustain an environmental community rich in abundance and
diversity, resilient to natural processes and disruptions so that it
may persist into the future. In the context of the Columbia River,
ecosystem function are those processes that create environmental
conditions, i.e., natural flow patterns, good water quality, cool river
temperatures, connected floodplains and a healthy estuary that support
and sustain, among other species, strong populations of wild salmon for
present and future generations. A vital corollary to any definition is
that, in the Northwest, ecosystem function underlies economic function.
The health of the river is the basis for every economic activity
undertaken in the basin.
As a result of dam building throughout the Basin, the Columbia
River is now a highly fragmented and mechanized system, with degraded
habitat, poor water quality and numerous ESA-listed salmon and
steelhead runs. Because there is still no lawful Federal plan to
restore endangered Columbia-Snake salmon and steelhead, and because all
but one of ESA-listed stocks are still far below levels needed for
recovery, there is still much work to be done, particularly regarding
flow management, improving river temperatures, reconnecting floodplains
and improving passage for salmon. Modernization of the Treaty will
allow the region to address some of these issues by integrating
strategies more consistent with regional salmon recovery and ecosystem
health goals.
A critical consideration for a modernized Treaty is climate change.
Climate change scenarios predicted for the region do not bode well for
the future of salmon and other cold-water species. Already, river
temperatures in the Columbia and Snake are dangerously high for
extended periods in the summer and early fall. Treaty negotiations
offer the region the chance to plan for operations that will address
the challenges of low flows and elevated temperature.
We believe the issue ecosystem function is particularly salient to
Treaty negotiations, given recent biological opinions concerning the
impact of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National
Flood Insurance Program on ESA-listed salmon in Oregon and Washington.
As such, FEMA requirements at the local level should be integrated into
the larger flood review process, described below.
Conversely, not modernizing the Treaty will increase the risk of
extinction for salmon. Absent a modernized Treaty, the Army Corps of
Engineers must demonstrate that is has ``effectively used'' all U.S.
storage capacity for system flood control before it can ``call upon''
Canadian reservoirs for additional storage. Proceeding with this type
of flood risk management may require larger and more frequent drawdowns
at Lake Roosevelt and perhaps at all U.S. storage reservoirs, including
non-treaty dams such as Dworshak and Brownlee. Such operations would
could limit system capability to provide needed spring and summer flows
for salmon.
the future of hydropower in the basin
The region and nation have benefited from the renewable energy
generated by the Columbia River. But these benefits have come at the
enormous cost of salmon and the river's ecosystem. Now, the people and
the courts demand a different and better future for clean water and
wild salmon runs. As climate change manifests as changed precipitation
and runoff patterns, the hydrosystem will be under increasing pressure
to reliably meet peak power needs and provide flows for fish.
Importantly, the dynamics of a changing energy portfolio, including the
rapid development of wind and solar power and the increasing use of
natural gas to meet peak power demands, point to a potentially
different future for hydropower operations on the Columbia, one
potentially much more compatible with salmon recovery. These changes
necessitate a forward thinking planning process that seeks to build a
future for hydropower and salmon that reflects the needs and challenges
of the 21st century. Treaty negotiations offer this opportunity.
Power production under a modernized Treaty must account for and
promote development of non-carbon energy sources in the Northwest,
including conservation and renewable resources, consistent with the
region's goals as stated in the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council's Sixth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan. Energy
efficiency and new renewables are the dominant growth areas in the
region's energy supplies. Based on expanded power production model, the
United States and Canada should re-evaluate the division of surplus
power generation between the two nations.
columbia river basin flood risk policy review--modernizing flood risk
management
Modernizing the Treaty represents an opportunity to positively
affect the river ecosystem at the Basin scale through a comprehensive,
public planning process that would seek to modernize flood risk
management. This effort should integrate new analysis of flood risk
under predicted climate change scenarios with an assessment of how
renewable and conventional energy sources will affect the demand for
hydropower produced in the Basin. Further, it will involve a review of
the adequacy of existing flood control infrastructure and an assessment
of where floodplains can safely be reconnected with the river. It
should also include funding for the integration of modern precipitation
and runoff forecasting techniques into seasonal planning processes.
Flood risk management based on monthly forecasts has often resulted in
unnecessarily large reservoir drawdowns, missed refill targets and
diminished flows and higher river temperatures. With improved
forecasting and modeling, reservoirs can safely be maintained at higher
levels to aid both anadromous and resident fish species.
The potential benefits of modernized flood risk management extend
to other Treaty purposes. Fuller reservoirs not only enhance reservoir
productivity and provide flexibility to provide additional summer
flows, they also enhance system hydropower capacity and recreational
opportunities. These types of win-win scenarios can be fully explored
in an expanded review process.
We believe the issue of flood risk review and ecosystem function is
particularly salient given recent biological opinions concerning the
impact of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National
Flood Insurance Program on ESA-listed salmon in Oregon and Washington.
Because the Army Corps' current position is that the agency will
not move forward with a basin-wide flood risk management review absent
congressional authorization, we strongly urge Congress, particularly
Northwest Members of Congress, to direct the Corps to perform this
review, using the best available science in a fully transparent and
public process.
the canadian entitlement
Though we acknowledge the concern about the calculation and size of
power deliveries made to Canada pursuant to the current Treaty, we
strongly believe that the United States must be cautious in its
approach to suggestions that reducing or eliminating the Canadian
Entitlement be a primary driver in Treaty negotiations, or as a basis
to terminate the Treaty to avoid power deliveries. The significance of
entitlement power deliveries as an inducement to British Columbia and
Canada to negotiate changes to the Treaty that the United States may
seek should not be underestimated, particularly when Canada can point
to other benefits provided to the United States from operations of
Canadian Treaty dams, including predictability of hydropower
forecasting, flood control, recreation, navigation, water supply and
ecosystem benefits.
The U.S. analysis that has been done to determine what the cost of
termination to the United States in reduced hydropower flexibility and
in resorting to ``called upon'' flood control, is based upon
assumptions of how Canada might operate in the absence of the Treaty.
Instead, this should be a bilateral analysis. Canada estimates the
benefits to the United States of flood control over the lifetime of the
current Treaty at $32 billion, and in 2012 alone at over $2 billion.\1\
Those numbers do not address the enormous economic benefit of
predictable hydropower, recreation, navigation, water supply and
ecosystem benefits. Some interests in the region have voiced concerns
regarding the cost of doing more for salmon and the health of the
river. We suggest that a cost-benefit analysis of the existing Treaty's
compared to a modernized Treaty would benefit the dialog between both
nations. Supporting the need for such an analysis are suggestions that
revaluation of the Entitlement calculation include ``credits'' for
actions currently implemented pursuant to court order or the ESA. We do
not see a legal, analytic or commonsense basis for creating ``credits''
for compliance with the Endangered Species Act (or any law). Such one-
sided analysis ignores the very large benefits accruing to Northwest
communities and people from compliance with such laws. We also note
that the Federal dam system on the Columbia and Snake Rivers is not in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act, and has not been since
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Province of British Columbia, ``U.S. Benefits from the Columbia
River Treaty--Past, Present, and Future: A Province of British Columbia
Perspective,'' June 25, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a representative for ecosystem function in the u.s. entity
An ecosystem-expert should be added to the U.S. Entity, to better
prepare for negotiations with Canada and to better implement this 50-
year Treaty for today's Northwest. The Treaty process should include a
third agency or sovereign in the U.S. Entity, co-equal to Bonneville
Power and the Army Corps of Engineers, for both negotiations and
implementation of the Treaty. We suggest that the 15 Columbia Basin
Tribes or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries or
Environmental Protection Agency represent ecosystem function.
water supply allocation
PRC is concerned about the Regional Recommendation's call for a
process to allocate additional water from Canada for out-of-stream
uses. Given existing streamflow deficits, allocating additional spring
and summer flows for out-of-stream uses would be inconsistent with the
elevation of ecosystem function as a primary purpose of a modernized
Treaty. Only after instream uses are fully supported should analysis of
consumptive and other uses be considered. Further, the Canadian
government has already signaled that water supply is one of the many
benefits it should be compensated for, and therefore, any additional
out-of-stream use could be viewed as an additional benefit requiring
additional compensation.
conclusion
In closing, PRC believes that modernizing the Treaty to include
ecosystem function as a primary purpose is in the best interest of the
United States and the Columbia River's ecosystem and the regional
economy. Treaty negotiations, changes in energy demand, new sources of
renewable power, and the challenges of climate change combine to create
a unique opportunity to improve the health of the river and to
modernize governance of the Columbia. And while some differences may
remain unresolved among the region's stakeholders, States, and Native
American Indian Tribes about the Recommendation, these differences
should not be interpreted as reason not to proceed with negotiations
with Canada. Rather, these differences merely highlight the importance
and complexity of the many values the Columbia provides to society.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Haller.
Now I'll recognize Mr. Paul Amos, who is the president of
the Columbia River Pilots out of Portland, Oregon.
Mr. Amos, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAUL AMOS, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA RIVER PILOTS,
PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Amos. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Representative
Ranking Member DeFazio. I am the president of Columbia River
Pilots. Our organization provides navigation expertise for the
ships transient in the Columbia River. We board in Astoria,
Oregon, and take the ships all the way to Portland, all the
points in between, and take them back out to the bar when it's
time for them to leave.
Before I became a river pilot, I spent 10 years in my
career as a towboat captain, operating over the system; grain
tow runs to Lewiston, Idaho, and back were my primary source of
employment in those days. I've been continuously employed on
the system since 1974. I appreciate the opportunity to provide
the perspective of the navigation community in the Northwest as
it relates to the Columbia River Treaty.
I'll briefly highlight the importance of the river system
for trade and transportation, and I'll relay our thoughts on
the treaty reviews. Our economy relies on a safe and efficient
transportation system, and that system includes roads, rail,
air, and water. Columbia-Snake River system is a critical part
of our Nation's water transportation portfolio, providing
benefits to the region and the Nation as a whole.
We are an export heavy system and play an important role in
balancing the Nation's trade deficit. We are top in the Nation
for the export of wheat and the second for soy. We also lead
the West Coast in wood exports and mineral exports.
This is a busy waterway. My colleagues and I bring in 1,400
to 1,500 ships per year with a total vessel movement of about
4,500 movements per year on the system. Over 42 million tons of
international trade moved on this waterway in 2010, valued at
over $20 billion.
A conservative estimate of the jobs directly tied to just
the deep draft navigation channel finds that 40,000 individuals
rely on this waterway for their livelihood. As you know,
substantial Federal investments have been made recently in the
river system, including the Columbia River channel deepening,
creating locked gates, and major jetty repairs. This waterway
is a significant Federal infrastructure asset and any potential
changes which may impact its safety and efficiency should be
evaluated thoroughly.
Regarding the Columbia River Treaty, we are most concerned
with the suggestion by some that the existing spring and summer
flow should be augmented through an expansion per the treaty
agreements. Increased flows in the spring and early summer will
increase shoaling, which will increase dredging costs and
impact navigation safety. I have personal experience with
increased sedimentation that occurred in the Columbia River as
a result of higher spring and summer flows.
The most recent example is 2011, when we had, just 6 months
after the channel deepening project was completed, due to high
river flows, we had that shoaling that we had to decrease the
amount of draft we could load the ships to. The high flows that
created the shoaling have--well, the shoaling from that one
episode has continued for the last 3 years.
When we can't fully load the ships, Northwest goods are
left on the docks, which means our farmers and other producers
are less competitive with overseas markets.
Some are further suggesting that increased spring and
summer flows would be accompanied by lower flows in the fall
and winter. Lower flows at that time of year would provide even
less water over which to navigate these increased shoals. The
combination of these two proposals would be a one-two punch for
the river system.
In addition to the deep draft channel, there are other ways
navigation would be impacted by changes to flows. The Columbia
River Pilot access to the Columbia River jetties are of
particular concern. We are also concerned about impacts to
bridges, port infrastructure, port lands behind levees, and
more. Finally, I need to note that higher flows also impact
safe maneuvering of vessels.
Again, from firsthand experience, I know that higher flows
reduce the number of barges that can be safely handled by a
towboat in swift currents. Higher flows for longer periods of
time will keep barge operators from moving full tows which will
impact shipments of Northwest agricultural products, petroleum,
and all other cargo handling on the inland system.
High flows also affect deep draft ships handling in the
lower Columbia River, the kind of vessels my colleagues and I
pilot. High flows mean more challenging ship handling, longer
transient times, and difficult anchorings.
We appreciate the work with the Corps the past 2 years to
analyze potential impacts on navigation which could result from
several of the flow regimens sought by some State and tribal
members of the Sovereign Review Team. My colleagues and I also
sincerely appreciate the efforts of the Corps and the BPA to
construct a review process to provide a reasonable
recommendation in the time available.
Moving forward, we would respectfully request increased
stakeholder involvement. It is critical that regional interests
that would be impacted by changes in the river system--
utilities, navigation, irrigators, and flood control
authorities--have the opportunity to participate. These
regional interests serve millions of Northwest residents
through power delivery, facilitating trade routes for regional
and national cargo, producing high-value crops, and protecting
lives and businesses from floods. Their expertise is critical
as proposed changes to the river operations are contemplated.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I welcome any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Amos follows:]
Prepared Statement of Capt. Paul D. Amos, President, Columbia River
Pilots, Portland, Oregon
Good morning. My name is Paul Amos, and I am the elected President
of the Columbia River Pilots. River pilots are licensed by the State of
Oregon to provide pilotage services for the maritime industry. Pilots
possess the extensive local knowledge and ship-handling skills
necessary for commercial and governmental vessels of all types and
sizes to safely transit roughly 350 nautical miles of the Columbia and
Willamette Rivers. These vessels are piloted in all kinds of weather,
at all hours of the day and night, 365 days a year. River pilots have
been engaging in this demanding profession for over 150 years, through
one of the most lengthy and demanding pilotage grounds in the world. I
spent 10 years of my career, before I was a River Pilot, as a towboat
captain on the inland system and have been continuously employed on the
system since 1974.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide the perspective of the
navigation community in the Northwest as it relates to the Columbia
River Treaty.
background on the columbia snake river system
Our Nation's economy relies on a safe, efficient and cost-effective
multi-modal transportation system. That system includes road, rail, air
and water.
The Columbia Snake River System is a critical piece of the nation's
water portfolio, providing benefits not just to the Pacific Northwest,
but far into the heartland of our country. We are an export heavy
system, and play an important role in balancing the Nation's trade
deficit. The Columbia River is the Nation's number one gateway for the
export of wheat, and second for soy exports. We also lead the West
Coast on wood exports and mineral bulk exports. My colleagues and I
pilot between 1,400 and 1,500 vessels each year with a total of
approximately 4,500 ship movements per year on this busy waterway.
The Columbia Snake River System is essentially a river highway. It
includes our 105-mile deep draft Columbia River channel from Astoria to
Portland, Oregon. From there, a 360-mile inland barging channel
stretches from Portland, Oregon to Lewiston, Idaho, with a series of
eight locks along the way. These are the highest lift locks in the
United States, and are among the highest in the world, with the John
Day lock topping out at 110 feet. There are also three large jetties at
the Mouth of the Columbia, hundreds of pile dikes, and many other
critical pieces of Federal and port-owned infrastructure which ensure
safe navigation and the free flow of trade.
Over 42 million tons of international trade moved on this waterway
in 2010, valued at over $20 billion. A conservative estimate of the
jobs directly tied to the deep draft navigation channel finds that
40,000 individuals rely on this waterway for their livelihood. This
economic benefit is expected to increase in the future, supporting even
more jobs as additional companies make use of the river system.
This waterway is a significant Federal navigation infrastructure
asset, and any potential changes which may impact its efficiency should
be evaluated thoroughly. Substantial Federal investments have been made
in both the deep draft Lower Columbia River as well as the inland
barging channel and locks. The entire region pulled together to support
the recently completed $200M Columbia River channel deepening project.
We also celebrated $60M for three new downstream lock gates on the
inland system, and significant Columbia River jetty repairs in the last
decade. A major rehabilitation of the Columbia River jetties is on the
horizon, along with additional lock investments and ongoing annual
maintenance dredging on the Lower Columbia and at the Mouth of the
Columbia.
columbia river treaty concerns
The Northwest navigation community sincerely appreciates the
efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), and the select representatives from the region
who have given many hours of their time on the Sovereign Review Team
(SRT). We recognize the efforts of the Corps and BPA to construct a
review process to provide a regional recommendation in the time
available.
Throughout the Columbia River Treaty review process, the navigation
community has called for recognition of the interconnected nature of
flood risk management, flows for ecosystem benefit, and the ability to
provide the federally authorized navigation channel and river
conditions which will allow for safe and reliable navigation.
Navigation stakeholders are most concerned with the assumption in
the Draft Recommendation that existing spring and summer flows should
be augmented through an expansion of present Treaty agreements. These
augmented flows will increase shoaling which will, in turn, increase
dredging costs and likely impact navigation safety. The document
further suggests that these increased flows would be accompanied by
lower flows in the fall and winter. This will provide even less water
over which to navigate these increased shoals. Navigation stakeholders
like me have repeatedly expressed our concern with higher flows in the
spring and summer, and lower flows in the fall and winter. I will
highlight a few reasons why these flow changes could present problems
for navigation.
potential impacts to federal navigation projects
I have personal experience with the increased sedimentation that
occurs on the Columbia River as a result of higher spring and summer
flows. The most recent example of the impact of high flows occurred in
2011. In November 2010, we celebrated the completion of the Columbia
River channel deepening project. Just 6 months later, high river flows
in 2011 resulted in severe shoaling that could not be adequately
addressed by the level of funding provided to the Corps of Engineers'
Federal dredging program. For several years, the Corps has worked to
address the shoals that developed in 2011. Unfortunately, this severe
shoaling meant that the Columbia River Pilots had to institute
restrictions on how deeply ships could safely draft in our river. When
ships can't be fully loaded, Northwest goods are left on the docks,
which impacts whether our farmers and other regional producers can
compete in overseas markets. I am very concerned about the ability of
the Federal Government to provide adequate funding to address similar
shoaling events resulting from any changes to river operations.
In addition to the Columbia River channel, there are additional
elements of Federal navigation infrastructure which may be impacted by
increased flows. The Columbia River pile dike system which helps guide
the Federal navigation channel and the movement of sediment is already
in serious disrepair. This system would likely be undermined by higher
flows that occur with greater frequency. We are also very concerned
about any potential weakening of the base of the Columbia River
jetties, the rubble-mound structures that protect the entrance to the
system from powerful Pacific storms. A 7-year, $257 million jetty rehab
project will hopefully begin in 2014. Any impact to the jetty
structures below the waterline would be devastating and costly to the
ports and communities along the 465-mile Columbia/Snake river channel,
and to a critical national transportation infrastructure investment.
ability to safely and efficiently navigate
Higher flows that occur more frequently will also hinder safe
navigation, as well as the efficiency of barging in the Federal
navigation channel. I know from first-hand experience that high flows
reduce the number of barges that can be safely handled by a towboat in
swift currents, including around the dams where spill operations may be
in effect. Higher flows for longer periods of time will undermine the
ability of barge operators to move full tows, which will impact
shipments of Northwest agricultural products, petroleum, and all other
cargo handled on the Columbia Snake River System.
We are also concerned about the impact flows may have on deep-draft
ship handling on the Lower Columbia River, the kinds of vessels my
colleagues and I pilot. Higher flows in spring/summer will impact
vessel handling, transit time, and the ability to safely anchor.
Additionally, lower flows in the fall/winter will further reduce the
available draft on the Lower Columbia River.
We appreciate the work of the Corps team over the past year to
analyze potential impacts to navigation which would result from
implementation of several of the flow regimes sought by some State and
tribal members of the Sovereign Review Team. The desire of some for
increased ``ecosystem flows'', and the reflection of this desire in
early drafts of the regional recommendation with no reference to
potential impacts to navigation and other authorized purposes, created
great concern among many river system users. The current draft of the
regional recommendation now notes that ``potential impacts to other
river uses and infrastructure such as navigation, bridges, and other
transportation features'' will be evaluated and addressed.
I also want to note that in the past few months we have been
provided additional opportunities to provide feedback to the U.S.
Entity. The latest version of the Draft Recommendation, circulated by
the U.S. Entity on November 26, 2013, represents an improvement from
earlier drafts in its inclusion of the importance of Columbia River
navigation to the region and the nation, and the concerns expressed by
navigation stakeholders.
Moving forward, we would strongly recommend increased stakeholder
involvement. It is critical that regional interests that would be
impacted by changes to the river system--utilities, navigation,
irrigators, and flood control authorities--have more opportunity to
participate. These regional interests serve millions of Northwest
residents through power delivery, facilitating trade routes for
regional and national cargo, producing high-value crops, and protecting
lives and businesses from floods. Their expertise is critical as
proposed changes to river operations are contemplated.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I welcome any questions
you may have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Amos. And as I
mentioned, last, but certainly not least, we have Mr. Wes
McCart, who is the commissioner of Stevens County in the north
part of the State.
Mr. McCart, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WES McCART, COMMISSIONER, STEVENS COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
Mr. McCart. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
DeFazio.
For the record, not only do I represent Stevens County as a
county commissioner, I also serve as vice-chair of Eastern
Washington Council of governments. It is made up of 10 counties
that have come together. It was formed originally over Lake
Roosevelt and the Teck Cominco studies that needed to be done
for clean water and the Columbia River system. We originally
had about 5 counties, we now have 10 and continue to grow,
mainly over the Wolf and the Columbia River issues.
We are opposed to adding ecosystem function as a primary
function of the treaty. Not only is it mentioned as the first
element in a revised treaty, it is mentioned throughout every
element of the treaty in the recommendation of the draft
recommendation that's out for comment now. We have all seen how
government tends to creep. We've seen how we've had to change
how we address salmon over time.
The fear that we have in adding this in the treaty is that
this will creep not only to the entire Columbia system as it
runs through the dams, but in all the tributaries that flow
into the system. In other words, the entire Columbia Basin.
It's also a domestic issue. How we handle the ecosystem on
this side of the border has been laid out in laws, lawsuits,
and several other instruments. We should not be adding any
domestic issues into an international treaty.
Also, I wanted to stress, in the water supply, in-stream
flows are listed first as the primary function for water
supply. I find this a little bit disingenuous on behalf of the
recommendations from the U.S. Entity, the State Department,
over the fact that they've added ecosystem functions first and
they've ignored irrigation.
There's been no consensus in our region on what the U.S.
Entity is trying to move forward to the State Department. The
Sovereign Review Team has not a single local-elected official
or State-elected official on that review team. I believe we are
considered, we should be considered stakeholders as local
electives. We have not only a duty, but a responsibility, to
represent all of our constituents and all of the different
interests in our area, in our local area.
There's also a requirement in both Federal law and several
Presidential orders for planning to be done by Federal agencies
to be coordinated with local governments at all levels so that
our concerns for economics, customs, and culture are all
recognized. This has not been done to date, even though we have
sent several requests to the U.S. Entity to do so.
Further, we see that the recommendation of the draft
recommendation that's out now seems to put the human element
below the environment and the salmon. This is also not
acceptable and against law.
Next, there is a lack of any mention of irrigation in the
recommendation. This has a huge impact. They do mention water
supply, but water supply mentions municipal water supply, it
does not mention the word irrigation, nor does it even lead one
to the conclusion that irrigation is in consideration in the
system. This has a huge impact on our local economies. As
county commissioners, we're charged to protect those economies,
so I'm very concerned that those are not included in the
recommendation of the State Department.
I also believe this is a national security issue. Our
ability to feed ourselves and our troops is what makes us a
great Nation, and we need to protect that at all levels. And as
a local-elected official, again, I believe that's important.
In regards to climate change that's mentioned in here, for
several years, since the beginning of the treaty, we've had the
flexibility in the treaty as it relates to this to deal with
how the climate will change. I don't believe we need to add it,
again, as an ecosystem mantra throughout the new treaty.
We suggest that you stay the course with the treaty, the
primary functions being flood control and hydropower. We
recognize that some changes do need to be made to the treaty,
especially in relationship to the Canadian entitlement and to
protect our irrigation and our economies. But before any
recommendation is made to the State Department, or before the
State Department moves on anything, I ask that you help us, as
local-elected officials, and at all levels of local-elected
officials, to get our voices heard as a stakeholder instead of
being relegated to a public comment.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wes McCart, Commissioner, Stevens County,
Washington
Honorable Chairman Doc Hastings and members of the Committee,
please accept the following testimony for the record on behalf of
myself and the 10 member counties of the Eastern Washington Council of
Governments.
Ecosystem-based function should not be an element of the U.S.
Entity recommendation to the Department of State. Currently ecosystem-
based function is listed as the first and primary element of a
renegotiated treaty. It is also present in every aspect of the draft
recommendation. The existing treaty does not include every dam on the
Columbia River system. If ecosystem function becomes the primary
function, and it is currently listed first before hydropower and flood
control without any mention that the order in which items are listed is
not pertinent, then the ability exists for a renewed treaty to include
all of the dams as well as all of the tributaries in the entire
Columbia Basin. We should not allow for this massive expansion of the
treaty as it would harm our citizens and our economy.
Ecosystem function has been a domestic issue, as has irrigation, in
regards to the current treaty. It is vital that it remains a domestic
issue. The ecosystem and salmon are important to all of us, but there
are domestic provisions already existing to address these issues and
they need not be elevated to an international agreement regarding some
of the dams on the Columbia River. The primary purpose for building
most of the dams included in the current treaty was for hydropower and
flood control and we owe it to all of our constituents to not expand
this meaningful purpose to include domestic special interests. The
current recommendation also recommends increased water supply, but
mentions instream uses first which are also ecosystem based, and leads
one to question whether humans will be considered or fall behind all
ecosystem and environmental needs.
The current draft recommendation from the U.S. Entity to the
Department of State has no consensus and lacks any meaningful
participation. The entire Sovereign Review Team (SRT) is made up of
tribal members and unelected bureaucrats, 15 tribal governments, 11
Federal agencies and 4 State members, and not a single elected
official. The Eastern Washington Council of Governments represents 10
counties with local-elected county commissioners making up the Council.
We, along with several other elected county commissioners from around
the State, have been trying to get our voices and the voices of the
people we represent heard throughout this process to no avail as of
yet. Federal agencies have a requirement by law and several
Presidential orders to coordinate their efforts with local-elected
officials to protect the local customs, culture, and economic stability
of the areas we represent. To date this has not occurred and the
current draft recommendation has the potential to create great harm to
our economies and to our local customs and culture. The recommendation
also places the human element below the environment and salmon. This is
unacceptable and against Federal statute. County Commissioners, State
Representatives, City Councils, and elected Public Utility District
Commissioners have all been relegated to non-stakeholder status. The
Eastern Washington Council of Governments was formed primarily to study
and address issues regarding Lake Roosevelt and the Columbia River. As
local electeds, we have the responsibility and duty to protect our
citizens from human health hazards and the duty to protect our local
economies, yet by being excluded from any meaningful input in the
recommendation, our duties have been rebuffed by the SRT and the U.S.
Entity. We believe that until the U.S. Entity has meaningful
coordination with Local County electeds that the recommendation not to
send to the Department of State, or if already forwarded to the
Department of State that the recommendation is returned back with
instructions to include coordination with local-elected officials.
The current draft recommendation makes no mention of the word
``irrigation.'' This was a primary purpose for the construction of
Grand Coulee Dam and much of the non-treaty infrastructure on the
Columbia River System. This is an important element that should be
considered in any future changes to the treaty. All of our local,
State, and regional economies depend upon irrigation, and the
electricity to run the irrigation systems, for food production. No
nation in world history has ever been defeated when it has kept its
ability to feed itself and its troops. Irrigation of the Columbia Basin
from both treaty and non-treaty dams allows us to feed ourselves and
the world. This is a national security issue, as well as a local
economic issue, that must not be forgotten or ignored.
Climate Change, i.e.--Man-made Global Warming, is another
recommendation made in the draft by the U.S. Entity. This is yet
another attempt to place ecosystems above our constituents in any new
treaty. The weather has changed constantly throughout the entire
history of the treaty and will continue to do so. Flexibility exists in
the current treaty to deal with changes in weather and we need not
change the status quo.
Obviously with flood control provisions changing in 2024 and the
Canadian entitlement payments putting a strain on our local economies,
there are some changes that will need to be considered in the treaty.
We, as local-elected officials, agree and understand the need for some
change, but we must continue to stay the course of the existing treaty
with hydropower and flood control as the only primary purposes of any
new or revised treaty; and any new or revised treaty must only include
the dams currently within the existing treaty. Further, local electeds,
and the interests of our constituents we have a duty to represent, must
be brought to the table for meaningful input before any recommendation
is made to the Department of State and/or any action is taken by the
Department of State to negotiate change to a new treaty.
Thank you for allowing me to be heard today.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. McCart, for your
comments and thank all of you for your statements. We begin now
with questions, we might have several rounds here.
I want to ask Mr. Webb the first question. You alluded to
the fact that Grant PUD, along with Chelan and Douglas, are
part of a mid-Columbia--mid-Columbia PUDs. I have had the
privilege of visiting every one of the dams at least once,
sometimes multiple times. And I'm always struck by what the
three PUDs have done with each of their facilities.
Now, for the record, there's not a one-size-fits-all fish
passage for all five dams, is there? Just for the record.
Mr. Webb. Yes.
The Chairman. One-size-fits-all? Or each dam has a unique
way of passing fish?
Mr. Webb. Each dam has a unique way of passing fish.
The Chairman. Right. In other words, the same fish passage
is not the same on all five dams?
Mr. Webb. Yes.
The Chairman. OK. What I, listening to the testimony here,
certainly hearing from my constituent staff as the draft came
out, there has been, and several of you mentioned, the concern
of adding the ecosystem in there.
Given what you have done, and I'll ask you to speak,
obviously, for Grant PUD, but if that's consistent, if you can
speak about Chelan and Douglas, adding an element like that and
the unknowns that may come from adding that element in there,
what do you think--how do you think that would affect your work
on fish passage at your respective dams?
Mr. Webb. I think from a physical standpoint, and I would
speak from Grant first, is I think physically, and we're just
completing our fish bypass system at the Priest Rapids Dam, and
we've already completed one of them, and it's been successful.
That was a couple of years ago. So, you know, from my point of
view, I would have concerns with what is that next step that we
want to take.
Because I think, from our point, and this is more from a
power group standpoint, is that I think our commitments in this
region, we've met those commitments, and I think our practice
has been reflected that it's been successful. So, physically, I
would be concerned with--I don't know what else we could do
physically.
You heard from General Kem that, you know, trying to manage
the water in a different way scientifically doesn't make sense,
so I think from that standpoint, we would say--we would have
some concerns if we change and try to manipulate the river to
meet other requirements of the ecosystem.
The Chairman. Do you think that there might be a
potential--I assume when you're going through the relicensing
of your dams that there was some sort of litigation involved
one way or the other, is that correct?
Mr. Webb. Yeah, I wouldn't say litigation, but we had
several commitments that we made through our relicensing. And
this is where I think it's been successful. Part of it is the
bypass physically from the hydro systems, but also a lot of
commitments with hatcheries. You know, the Chief Joe
partnership, up in Penticton, you know, our acclamation process
at Mason Creek, Carlton.
So we've made a lot of commitments through our relicensing
that now, what I'm seeing is really the positive steps of
actually seeing it happen and actually constructed, and next
year actually having production in those hatcheries and
acclamation sites.
The Chairman. I may want to come back to that in another
round, but I want to ask Mr. Reimann and Commissioner McCart,
we've had a treaty that's been in place for 50 years and it's
silent on irrigation and silent on navigation. You expressed
my--you've heard my concern about adding a new element in
there.
Just give me your thoughts of adding it. Would it be
logical to add an element of irrigation or should we be silent,
recognizing that for 50 years it's worked fairly well? I'll
start, Mr. Reimann, we'll start with you, and Mr. McCart.
Mr. Reimann. I guess we could--if we stay silent on it, the
problem is--you're from this area, and if you look at where we
farm out on the Snake River, there's nothing out there. It's
called Poverty Flats. It's called that for a reason. It raised
five bushel of wheat. We produce--and I--and that's a small
amount, 640,000 people just on our crop alone, and we're a
small potato grower.
You know, the term ``ecosystem,'' we've changed the
ecosystem. We've changed it for the better. If you take out the
dams, we can take it back to where it was before, but we've
improved it, and we need to learn to live with this new
ecosystem we've created.
And irrigation is food, it's life. I mean, let's face it,
we're not--none of us in any job we do, I don't care if you're
a farmer or a legislator, we need farms, we need water, we need
water for all of us to survive. It's a simple fact that a
person could live on two things, potatoes and milk. You could
live on that the rest of your life. And both of them require
lots of water.
The Chairman. Mr. McCart, I'd like you to briefly respond
to that.
Mr. McCart. I do believe it would be important to have
irrigation as an element of the treaty. I don't believe it
needs to be a primary element, as hydropower and flood control
need to be, but I think it does need to be an issue.
It is vital to our economy, it is part of our customs and
cultures and, like I alluded to in my testimony, I believe it
comes down to a national security issue. We have to be able to
produce food. And without the irrigation, this area would not
succeed in food production at the level we do now.
The Chairman. OK. My time has expired. Recognize the
Ranking Member.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, Mr. Chairman, just to kind of pursue
that part, I'm a little puzzled, actually, because, I mean, we
see a lot of these kind of resolutions in Congress where they
have a whole bunch of whereas's, which I always ignore, to tell
the truth, because they always sound high and mighty and
usually don't mean anything.
But then you get to the point of, you know, sort of getting
it resolved, and that's where you get the action items. And
just following up on this, because I certainly recognize the
importance of irrigation, you know, I was substantially
involved a number of years ago in dealing with the Federal
investment and partnering with irrigators in terms of trying to
limit the diversion of fish into irrigation activities, and I
felt that that was a good investment by BPA and the Federal
Government, and we have some obligation to do that.
But when I look at the general principles versus the
recommendation details, I do see under, you know, water supply,
which was referenced by one of the witnesses, that, I mean, the
second thing is talking about irrigation as a long and
important history for our production purposes. Need will only
increase as this region continues to grow and as food supply
and security continue to grow in importance. Operations under a
modernized treaty should recognize irrigation as an important
authorized purpose of the basin.
So I think, you know, we've got some--I mean, everybody's
going to read into this fairly vague document--which is what it
is, it's fairly vague--what they want. But I, for one, would
not want to ignore irrigation, but I think there is some
significant weight to put on it in there. I think, Mr. McCart,
were you the one who mentioned that there was water but didn't
feel it was adequate? Where they recognize that part?
Mr. McCart. Yes, sir. I was working off the draft document
that was out, since the final hasn't been released, to my
knowledge, yet.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, is that the December--or maybe, yeah,
what date is today? Oh, OK. Yeah, well, I guess this one maybe
hasn't been produced. This one is dated December 13th, so----
Mr. McCart. I haven't seen that document yet, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, to tell the truth, I hadn't, either.
So----
Mr. McCart. So if, in fact, they did add that item, I am
happy that it's there.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I think you have a legitimate concern. I
mean, this is a tough balancing act here. This river, like I
said at the beginning, we all love it.
Now, let me ask just sort of a general question for
everybody. Anybody think we need to terminate or it'd be
desirable to terminate?
[No response].
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Anybody--I think we've got at least one
outlier here--feel that we're not overpaying on the
entitlement? I think there's someone who kind of said that in
their testimony. Do you want to--Mr. Haller, do you--why do you
feel that?
Mr. Haller. Well, I'm not sure that overpaying is the
right--is the right word there. As I had mentioned, I do
acknowledge that there is legitimate concern over the
calculation of that entitlement benefit, but I do think that a
thorough cost-benefit analysis of all the benefits that the
treaty provides to both nations would benefit the dialog
between the countries, and I think that would reveal, you know,
what's really going on in terms of those costs and benefits and
where they're accruing.
Mr. DeFazio. Yeah, I'm not an expert on the issue, but I
did--when I did the tour 2 years ago this last spring, it was
the year that was specifically mentioned as having provided--I
can't remember how many billion dollars in flood control
benefits. But the folks I traveled with and the people we
talked to actually on both sides of the border said, actually,
they didn't operate the system any differently in that high
water year than they would have without the provisions in the
treaty.
I mean, they had built out their side so much and it's so
different now, that they are optimizing their returns over
there, and yet they are, you know, in another place saying,
we've got this $9 billion worth of flood problems. Yes, it's
true, but that's because of dams that they built which we
financed by overpaying initially so they would build those
dams, recognizing that, and they're built and now they're
optimizing their use, so----
OK. Well, anyhow, that's just sort of an editorial comment
on a question. And then let's--I just wanted to, if everyone
could sort of briefly say what they think is good or bad about
the discussion of ecosystem. Because I think, again, it's a
perception among people that it's something that we're not
doing now, you know, or that we won't continue to do in the
future or we're not going to want to enhance in the future.
So just start with Mr. Corwin, what's your comfort level
here with just--again, you, unfortunately, probably haven't
seen this either, and we're--the phraseology is considerably
different than the earlier draft. And I didn't know this wasn't
publicly available, I'm sorry.
Mr. Corwin. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
The U.S. Entity did release to at least some of the
regional parties, the Sovereign Review Team and others that are
on their distribution list, a draft from November, in mid-
November, that catches, I think, some of what you're referring
to in this draft that's expected later this week. And there
were some positive movements in there, including the language
on irrigation, more specifically, and others.
There's also, to get to your question, there's a re-
ordering that seems to emphasize needing to get the Canadian
entitlement rebalanced, as opposed to having this ecosystem
issue up-front which was a new piece added to the
recommendation.
The ecosystem, though, I think you alluded earlier to a
vision that I think the Entity's striving toward, of firming up
what's being done already and then what potential other
changes. The problem that comes up is that it does raise a lot
of questions. One was earlier raised, what's domestic versus
appropriately in an international treaty? Cross-border flows
are international, but other pieces may not be. Canada, then,
raises a question, so what's the real mechanical need, does it
need to be in this treaty? That's a good question.
Our concern, if there's going to be ecosystem pieces
included in the discussion, our concern is how do they
interplay with what's already being done? Are they--do they
have a scientific basis? Are they costed out? Do they overwhelm
the need to reduce power costs out of this discussion? And, as
you said, it's such a vague document and short, a lot of that's
pushed forward into an uncertain area moving forward.
So are there unintended consequences? It's just--it's
something that's going to need a lot more work, and that's why
we want to stay very involved in the process moving forward.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. I've exceeded my time. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I want to--Mr. Haller, you alluded to this, I
believe, in your testimony or in your written statement, about
the makeup of the Entity. And you've heard some of the other
panelists have some concerns about the Entity, Commissioner
McCart mentioned about the local involvement, for example.
Are you aware of any effort by agencies within the
administration to change the makeup of the entities as we move
forward?
Mr. Haller. No, I'm not aware. We have vocalized that
informally to some of the agencies, but, quite honestly, I
think their workloads, they would like to keep away from it for
as long as possible.
The Chairman. But you thought, at least you alluded to the
fact that you thought it should be expanded from your
perspective.
Mr. Haller. Yes, I do believe that we need the expertise of
those agencies or tribes to represent ecosystem function, yes,
in the treaty negotiations.
The Chairman. Specifically ecosystem functions?
Mr. Haller. Correct, yes.
The Chairman. OK. Now, would you share Commissioner
McCart's concern that local governments did not have a seat at
the table, at least in his view, as----
Mr. Haller. Well, I would be concerned if I truly felt
that--I think that the stakeholder process actually has been
run fairly well, fairly inclusively. Not everyone,
unfortunately, has been able to get the level of engagement
that the sovereigns have. That includes the NGOs, as well, so I
share some of those concerns.
The Chairman. Let me just kind of give you--I know that
that new draft, and I, too, just became aware of that, and I
know that that ecosystem language was--has been tapped down a
bit. But generally what concerns me, and I'll just speak of
where I--we've had 50 years of having this treaty in place. I
honestly cannot say in the time that I've had the privilege to
represent this area in Congress that there has been an
outpouring of people coming to me saying this treaty is
absolutely broken and we really need to change it.
In fact, moving into the 10-year window of renegotiation
has been somewhat seamless, until--until the first mention of
expanding from the two basic parts. And so--and that's why I
asked the question about irrigation and navigation. Probably a
good analogy is the U.S. Constitution is pretty short, and
that's the law of the land. Contrast that with our tax code.
So do you want to get to a point where you have a treaty,
then, adding a whole bunch of elements that can be interpreted
or misinterpreted in the future? That's the question that, you
know, from my perspective, as we move forward on this. So let
me ask that question, posit that question in a way for all of
you, if you would kind of respond to this.
Mr. Corwin, we'll start with you and just go down the line.
Mr. Corwin. Could you restate that question just briefly?
The Chairman. Well, the analogy that I used, and again,
was--you've heard my concern about the ecosystem being part of
the treaty. That has been toned down, and I recognize that, in
the latest draft that will be submitted to the State
Department. Nevertheless, I mentioned that in the time that
I've had the privilege of having this job, I don't recall a
whole lot of controversy about the treaty until the first draft
came up introducing the third element indication to hydropower.
So my question, and using the Constitution as an analogy,
which is a pretty short document compared to the tax code,
would it be better to have something that is more
constitutional-like than a tax code in a treaty? I guess that's
the way I would say it.
Mr. Corwin. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
I think it's a--it is a difficult question, but it raises the
right issue. The treaty itself isn't that long, the original
treaty isn't that long. It's only 20 pages, I think, and then
it has attachments. So the more you--the more you complicate
it, the more you may have disputes that arise.
And the other thing about adding new pieces is, remember,
part of our--part of the critique of the original treaty is it
wasn't able to evolve over time. It locked in these assumptions
which now don't make sense 50 years later. If you do that with
other things, especially on the ecosystem's side, there's a big
ethic of adaptive management. Things change over time. So that
is a good question that you raise.
The Chairman. Good. Real quickly, Mr. Webb, if you can----
Mr. Webb. Just, the only thing I would add is what the
General stated in the first panel, that I think part of it is
maybe the recognition of past practices that we've done, that
there may be some sense to that or science. But other than
that, I do agree with Scott that anything you put in writing,
after a day, it's history and more--you know, when you add
years to it, it can become a problem for the future if we have
another treaty past 2024.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Crinklaw?
Mr. Crinklaw. Yes, Chairman Hastings. I'd keep it as simple
as possible, do the original two purposes, which is power and
flood control. To add anything else to it, which is the third
leg, ecosystem functions, I think, just gets in the way of
reaching a conclusion with or without it.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Reimann?
Mr. Reimann. That's an excellent point, Doc. I'll tell you,
that's why I mentioned that one-page contract that we still
work on three generations later. The simpler, the better. If it
could be one page, we'd probably survive a lot better than
complicating it. So, good point.
The Chairman. Mr. Haller?
Mr. Haller. I think something as important as coordinating
the management of water and power production should not be open
to interpretation. And so ecosystem function should be well-
defined in what that means in the operations going forward.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Amos?
Mr. Amos. I guess my concern would be if you enter that in
the treaty, you could, perhaps, hamstring yourself in the
future by certain parameters that may not be met or may change.
I think as it is now, we've met--we've risen to the challenge
and met the ecosystem needs, and I think it provides more
flexibility without having it a substantial part of the treaty.
The Chairman. Thank you. Commissioner McCart?
Mr. McCart. I think one of the advantages of the treaty
that we have in place is the fact that it's been very short and
to the point, allows for a lot of flexibility as time has
changed. And where I would--I would like to see things that
we're commonly doing now mentioned, I'm not sure we have to
elaborate on any of them, and leave the treaty as short and
flexible as possible, much as the Constitution is.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I like those. It seems that we had some
consensus there, to a great extent, and I will say, you know, I
do fear, personally, and I'll express it here, because I think
it will be of great value in the future, that essentially we
are sending--my recommendation since the beginning has been
that what we send as regional recommendations should be as
succinct and as subject to as little interpretation as possible
by the State Department, since they will be the principle
entity negotiating with the Canadians.
And my fear is that the State Department and, say, the
Department of Commerce, you know, who no one has mentioned as a
party to this, have much bigger fish to fry than the interests
of the Pacific Northwest, whether they're environmental
interests or economic interests. And I worry about being traded
off for something to get the Canadians to go along with
something in the trade--Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership or some
other thing.
So I think we have to be very circumscribed in our
recommendations to the State, and we've got to keep them on
that circumscribed basis. And, you know, I think there is
consensus, even with Mr. Haller, that we really need to
scrutinize what the value of benefits is on both sides of the
border. Everyone here has agreed we don't want to terminate, we
want to renegotiate, and we want to look toward the future.
But there's also the whole reality of the economic impact
and there are competing demands here because some of what
advocates for fish would like to have would, say, increased
spill, has a cost. And the question is, who bears the cost? And
thus far, all the costs of the system have only been borne by
Northwest ratepayers, which isn't true in any other attempt by
the government of the United States to recover a species.
You know, all of the others have the Federal Government
carrying most of, if not all, of the burden. No other region
has been called upon for this. And so, you know, I--that's
another concern I have as we go forward.
But I think we can accommodate with this, the idea about
adaptive management, I mean, I don't look at these as, you
know, the treaty as fixed. And it hasn't been. I mean, it has--
it has changed and now we're looking at taking some of the
changes that have been in place for a number of years and
giving them the certainty, as BPA and the Corps talked about,
in recognition of the treaty.
But I don't think we should try to set flow numbers or
anything specific in the stone of a treaty, that that is
potentially disastrous, particularly the climate change and
other conditions that we can't even anticipate.
And so I don't really have any other questions, Mr.
Chairman. I think we've covered some good ground here, you
know, and it's the beginning of a process that hopefully will
come out well and hopefully won't have to be christened by our
Senate.
The Chairman. We can hope that, but we know it will.
I want to also mention that outside the door, there are
comment sheets so anybody in the audience that wants to comment
on this, feel free to do so. I think it is self-explanatory
what they say.
I don't have any other questions, but I will associate
myself with my Ranking Member's comments. This is going to be a
work in progress, and I, too, am concerned because on a regular
basis, as Mr. DeFazio said in his opening statement, regardless
of administration, people look to what we have here in the
Northwest with our power generation very enviously, not
recognizing the fact that, of course, we take care of our
region.
And so with that uniqueness that we have and a treaty
that's going to be negotiated from Washington, DC, to someplace
else is fraught for some potential problems. So I think one of
the reasons why I wanted to have this hearing earlier on, even
though we still have 10 years before the consummation of this
treaty, I think it's important to start that dialog as soon as
we possibly can. That was the reason why we wanted to have this
hearing here.
So I want to thank, again, all of you for your testimony
and for your input. Many times there are questions that come up
after a hearing has been adjourned. If that happens and you're
contacted, we'd certainly ask you to elaborate on whatever
question we have and that, too, will be part of the record.
So if there's no further business to come before the
committee, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]