The Columbia River Treaty is an internationally respected water management agreement between Canada and the United States. The Columbia River Treaty is unique – it is a treaty to manage cross-boundary river flows where both signatory countries to the treaty share in the benefits resulting from the treaty.
The Columbia River Treaty has no end date. However, after September 16, 2024, either Canada or the United States can terminate the Columbia River Treaty if either country has provided at least 10 years notice of their intention to terminate. Government agencies in both Canada and the United States are reviewing the benefits and future options of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024
Help inform the future of The Columbia River Treaty. Join the Discussion!
Show me the money!!
The Koocanusa reservoir is one of 4 created by the CRT, but while the other 3 have a Water Use Plan and associated water license, the Koocanusa reservoir doesn’t have the same status. The water license provided for fish and wildlife compensation funding for 3 reservoirs, but is the Koocanusa area also granted similar funding? This reservoir was created by the CRT, and has the same impact on the area as the other 3, but is it being treated fairly with compensation?
What’s with the dust bowl?
In the fall, Lake Koocanusa is drained and almost all of the lake bed is exposed.
The obvious negative impacts include aesthetics (not nice to look at!) and health (dust storms affect air quality).
It seems the dry bed could also affect aquatic plant and fish life in Lake Koocanusa.
I have couple questions:
1) What are the reasons for not leaving a minimal level of water coverage on the lake during the fall/winter/early spring timeframe?
2) Could aquatic plant and fish life be improved if at least a minimal level of water was left in the Koocanusa reservoir year round?
Thanks for considering my questions.
Hi Karen,
Thanks for providing your observations and comments about Lake Koocanusa. We spoke to some experts about your questions and give their responses below.
1.The Libby Dam is owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and was authorized under the Columbia River Treaty between Canada and the U.S. The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the operation of Libby Dam and the Koocanusa Reservoir, as part of the Columbia River Treaty and U.S. law. The Treaty requires that the two countries coordinate the operation of Libby with the operations of hydroelectric projects on the Kootenay River and elsewhere in Canada. However, the Treaty refers only to flood control, energy production and domestic water uses (consumption, irrigation, etc). All other uses of the reservoir and river, such as for recreation, fisheries, wildlife, and industry, would typically be conditions of a BC water license. However, the Libby project and Koocanusa Reservoir are not governed by a BC water license. Although BC Hydro derives some benefits from Libby operations, Koocanusa Reservoir does not receive the same active management attention and/or benefits as other reservoirs that are licensed to BC Hydro.
2.Typical lakes have small annual fluctuations in water levels, allowing the shallow “littoral” habitat to remain wetted for most of the year, but also remain shallow enough to get light penetration needed for plant growth. These areas are typically good for fish as well. The highest elevation parts of the reservoir are wetted only some years, and the deepest parts, although usually wetted, are so deep enough light doesn’t penetrate. These conditions do not allow for development of plants and other parts of littoral areas. In addition, if the maximum drawdown level was increased enough to simulate a natural lake environment, there could be consequences for flood control.
However you raise an important issue and we will look into what opportunities there may be for enhancing environmental values in the Koocanusa reservoir.
We welcome further comments or questions on this issue.
Will
Moderator
I was alarmed that with the statement that “refers only to flood control, energy production and domestic water uses (consumption, irrigation, etc).” All other documentation states that the current treaty is restricted to flood and energy production (exclusive of domestic water uses), and that these interests are to be included in the US and Canadian review. Please clarify.
Hi Glen,
Thank you for your question regarding the Columbia River Treaty. You are correct in pointing out that the Columbia River Treaty was designed to optimize flood control and power benefits on the entire system and does not impact how either country allocates water domestically.
All water in British Columbia is managed by the Province on behalf of residents. Authority to divert and use surface water is obtained by a licence or approval in accordance with the requirements under the Water Act and the Water Protection Act.
The Columbia River Treaty recognizes the consumptive use of water (for domestic, municipal, stock-water, irrigation, mining and industrial purposes) and prohibits diversions except for consumptive use and Kootenay River diversion rights. Part 6(1) of the Treaty Protocol reaffirms for both parties the Treaty right to divert water for a consumptive use.
As part of the Treaty Review, we are looking at the full suite of benefits arising from cooperative management of the Columbia River.
Please let us know if this helped to clarify the statement.
Will
Moderator
My personal bent is that we continue down the policy path that allows for the greatest generation of clean renewable energy for the greatest number of users, irrespective of which side of the border they reside.
Climate Change mitigation must necessarily be an international effort.
The other thing to keep in mind will be the hydrological changes we can expect the river to experience as climate changes, and how to apply adaptation strategies (as, for example, the reservoirs are diminished as glaciers deplete, or how more extreme precipitation events are handled, etc).
The Libby Dam in Montana was a late addition to the Columbia River Treaty which created a reservoir (Lake Koocanusa)49.5 km long in BC. The impacts of the reservoir on the fish, wildlife and habitat values in BC have never been compensated for, in spite of a considerable amount of effort to document those impacts. This should be a strong consideration during the upcoming treaty review and negotiations.
The Kettle River is a major contributor to the Columbia River below the 49th. Please explain if the Kettle River falls under the CRT influence or control in any manner whatsoever and if so, why the residents of the Kettle watershed are not included within the Treaty. The downstream damming of the Columbia and Kettle, one of the unhealthiest systems in B.C. , have detrimentally impacted the Kettle’s biodiversity irrevocably with consequences to the southernmost Grizzly population in the Province.
Thank you for your question. We can report that while the Kettle River does enter Lake Roosevelt behind Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State at some distance below the Canadian border, the Kettle River in B.C. is not affected in any way by the Columbia River Treaty.