U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

85–957 PDF 2014

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 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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. 

2 

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 

3 

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, 

4 

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. 

5 

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 lowcost 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 

6 

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. 

7 

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 

8 

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-winwin 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 

9 

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 winwin-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 GEN- ERAL 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. 

10 

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 ecosystembased 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 

11 

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. 

12 

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. 

13 

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. Ninetyfour 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. 

14 

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. 

15 

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 sigVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:44 Nov 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00DE09 1ST SESS. PRINT\85957.TXT DARLEN
16 

nals 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? 

17 

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. 

18 

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 

19 

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 

20 

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. BeVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:44 Nov 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00DE09 1ST SESS. PRINT\85957.TXT DARLEN
21 

cause 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. 

22 

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 

23 

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. 

24 

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 

25 

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. 

26 

1The 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. 

COLUMBIA BASIN TRIBES 1 COMMON VIEWS ON THE FUTURE OF 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. 

27 

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, 

28 

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. 

29 

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 arrangeVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:44 Nov 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00DE09 1ST SESS. PRINT\85957.TXT DARLEN
30 

ments 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. 

31 

1See U.S. Entity Studies, Iteration #2 Alternatives & Components: General Summary of Results at 34 (Apr. 10, 2013). 

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 onetenth of the current Canadian Entitlement obligation).1

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 

32 

2Treaty, Art. XIX(2). 

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. 

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 

33 

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. 

34 

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 271⁄2 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 

35 

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. 

36 

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 stateof-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. 

37 

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. 

38 

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 

39 

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. Thirtynine 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, 

40 

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 inVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:44 Nov 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00DE09 1ST SESS. PRINT\85957.TXT DARLEN
41 

creases, 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, COLUMBIASNAKE 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 conVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:44 Nov 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00DE09 1ST SESS. PRINT\85957.TXT DARLEN
42 

tract 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 reVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:44 Nov 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00DE09 1ST SESS. PRINT\85957.TXT DARLEN
43 

store 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 socalled 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. 

44 

[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 longterm 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 ESAlisted 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 

45 

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 ESAlisted 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 

46 

1Province of British Columbia, ‘‘U.S. Benefits from the Columbia River Treaty—Past, Present, 

and Future: A Province of British Columbia Perspective,’’ June 25, 2013. 

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. 

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. 

47 

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. 

48 

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 

49 

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, val- ued 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 celeVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:44 Nov 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00DE09 1ST SESS. PRINT\85957.TXT DARLEN
50 

brated 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 firsthand 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 

51 

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. 

52 

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 

53 

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. 

54 

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 

55 

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 

56 

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 

57 

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. 

58 

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 

59 

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 recVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:44 Nov 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00DE09 1ST SESS. PRINT\85957.TXT DARLEN
60 

ommendation 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. 

61 

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.] 

Æ