Basin Residents’ Key Areas of Interest/Concern
4. Basin Residents’ Key Areas of Interest/Concern
The term “Basin residents” and “residents” is used throughout the following sections that summarize the views shared with the Treaty Review team. These perspectives do not necessarily reflect the views of the entire Columbia River Basin population.
The following is a compilation, roughly in order of priority, of the key issues and concerns Basin residents shared with the Treaty Review Team during the community evening sessions and workshops, technical conference, Sounding Board meetings, website blog posts, emails and Canada Post mail, and private conversations.
Of the interests and concerns shared by Basin residents with the Treaty Review Team, some were related to operations under the Treaty while many of the issues could have solutions that do not involve the Treaty. A more detailed list of Basin residents’ issues and concerns and how the Province has responded can be found in Appendix 5.
The issues raised can be generally organized under the following categories:
- Ecosystems including salmon restoration
- Flood control and Libby Coordination Agreement/Koocanusa
- Power generation and the Canadian Entitlement
- Socioeconomic issues: community health, recreation, economic development, agriculture, transportation, distribution of benefits, climate change adaptation
- Governance
4.1 Ecosystems
Most Basin residents believe recommendations for the future of the Treaty need to address ecosystems. Many residents feel ecosystems, flood control and power generation (and return of downstream benefits) should be equally important, while other residents strongly believe that ecosystems deserve the very highest priority in the implementation of the Treaty going forward. Other residents, particularly those that may be at risk of flooding, maintained that while ecosystem health was an important objective, flood control is paramount.
During Columbia River Treaty Review public consultation events, discussions on ecosystems focussed on wildlife and vegetation, fish and aquatic resources and sustainability – including food security. Some Basin residents felt that the ecosystem focus in BC should be terrestrial in nature rather than aquatic (as it appears to be the focus in the U.S.) and identified a need to regain significant portions of wildlife habitat and agricultural land. Some questioned whether the value of improved ecosystems and concurrent improvements in agricultural opportunities would compensate for power generation losses that may occur if operations changed to benefit these values.
Wildlife and vegetation interests encompass floodplain ecology, grasslands, protected areas, riparian zones, floating islands, river valley habitat, wetlands, shorelines, wildlife forage, and wildlife and bird nesting habitat. Suggested wildlife and vegetation objectives were maximizing vegetative growth in the drawdown zone (river valley habitat), and maximizing wildlife and nesting habitat. Maximizing abundance and diversity of wildlife populations for hunting interests and viewing was also noted as an objective by many Basin residents.
Many Basin residents felt there should be more focus on wetland protection and enhancement, although the opinion that wetlands were not needed around Arrow Lakes Reservoir was also voiced. Several Basin residents felt that higher water levels inundate wetlands, reducing nesting and water fowl habitat while at the same time increasing mosquito habitat and the cost of mosquito control. The negative impact of early springtime high water levels on nesting was voiced by many at community workshops.
A number of residents felt water levels should also be managed to minimize the flooding impacts on protected areas like the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area (CVWMA), although others pointed out that water level impacts on CVWMA were caused by tributaries rather than by Libby Dam operations impacting Kootenay River water levels.
Many residents, particular around the Koocanusa and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs, were interested in having low water levels in reservoirs in order to maximize vegetation and floodplain ecology and support commercial ranching and dairy, grain, fruit and vegetable production. Other residents wanted high water levels in the reservoirs to support local recreation and to grow the tourism industry as well as to increase reservoir productivity and reduce health issues due to blowing dust. A mid-level constant pool was suggested by some residents as a way to meet many ecosystem needs as well as provide power generation and some flood control (further discussion on the mid-level constant pool can be found in the Flood Control section).
Some residents noted wildlife had been pushed out of the river valleys and were now in conflict with wildlife higher up mountainsides. They suggested that wildlife was also in conflict with forestry operations which were also being managed on a smaller land base.
In addition to salmon, discussed in the following section, fish and aquatic ecosystem interests include rainbow trout, white sturgeon, cutthroat trout, bull trout (Dolly Varden), kokanee, whitefish, and burbot populations as well as the habitats to sustain them. Many Basin residents would like to see more initiatives undertaken that maximize the abundance, diversity and condition/size of priority species, and that mitigate the negative effects of hydro operations on fish and their habitats. Some Basin residents questioned reservoir productivity, including phytoplankton growth and pelagic zone health, and the effectiveness of current fertilization programs and hatcheries to mitigate the impact of reservoir operations. Other residents wanted fertilization programs put in place in other locations, such as Koocanusa Reservoir and Kootenay River.
Access to tributaries and shorelines for spawning when reservoir levels were low was identified as a barrier to achieving sustainable fish populations. Entrapment of fish and habitat impacts due to fluctuating water levels was also identified as a problem, as was fish passage past dams to and from spawning areas. A number of people expressed concern that nutrients collect in the sediment behind dams causing negative impacts on aquatic ecosystem productivity downstream. Inadequate water flows for spawning fish in the lower Columbia River was identified as an issue by some residents, while others were concerned that too strong winter flows reduced habitat availability.
Many Basin residents feel that the apparent conflict between high water levels for fish access to tributaries for spawning and low water levels to benefit wetlands, riparian areas and grazing habitat could be resolved with infrastructure solutions to create tributary access. Reducing fluctuating water levels or approximating normative flows was seen by many residents as key to achieving environmental goals as well as minimizing bank erosion leading to property damage.
Most Basin residents believe that there is a deficit in restoring ecosystems that were and are impacted both historically and by ongoing operations. Some residents felt there should be compensation for historical fish and wildlife losses while others acknowledged that no environmental assessments had been done at the time of dam construction and that it was difficult to clearly distinguish between foot print and operational impacts on the environment. Some residents feel the cumulative effects of the impacts should be considered and that mitigation needed to be followed by restoration.
Many Basin residents were not aware of programs in place to compensate for dam and reservoir footprint impacts, such as the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) (see: http://www.bchydro.com/about/sustainability/environmental_responsibility/compensation_programs/columbia_region.html)
For measures being undertaken to address ongoing operating issues through monitoring, research, flow regulation and physical works under the Columbia Water Use Plan implementation program see http://www.bchydro.com/search.html?site=bchydro-com&client=bchydro-com&proxystylesheet=bchydro-com&output=xml_no_dtd&q=Water+Use+Plan+Columbia
Even for those familiar with the program, most Basin residents are not aware of the work completed, underway or planned under the FWCP and are not aware of the level of funding available to the Program and to communities. Of those Basin residents who are familiar with these initiatives, most feel more funding is needed for the FWCP overall although many residents wanted to know what programs and projects were already in place or planned. Many felt Kinbasket Reservoir in particular was underfunded and that some efforts, such as re-vegetation and bird nesting, have not been pursued with sufficient tenacity. Many people felt strongly that a fish and wildlife compensation-type program is needed for Koocanusa Reservoir and the Kootenay River above Libby Dam [It should be noted that in March 2013 a Kootenay-Koocanusa Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program was announced]. Some people wanted to see a Basin-wide fisheries management plan created although a concern was expressed that biologists were singularly focused on increasing populations and that too much was being spent to achieve this goal. A number of residents feel current programs, particularly for fish enhancement under the FWCP, have not been successful.
Many Basin residents feel FWCP’s funds are not fairly distributed amongst the reservoirs and that project funding is too small and projects are not strategically located. Many residents around Kinbasket and Koocanusa Reservoirs feel the reservoirs are the most impacted yet a disproportionate amount of funds go towards other reservoirs (for recreation and restoration), while other residents feel funding reflects the fact that many more people access Arrow Lakes Reservoir and Kootenay Lake than Kinbasket and Koocanusa Reservoirs. Some residents also feel that the FWCP uses their limited funds for projects they hope will provide a higher return, such as the Arrow Lakes Reservoir fertilization project, rather than where there is the most need, such as the Kinbasket Reservoir re-vegetation project. Many feel the Arrow Lakes Reservoir fertilization project has met its objectives.
Full implementation of existing water use plans was identified by many Basin residents as an important step in addressing ecosystem impacts. A number of Basin residents also felt a water use plan-like process was needed for Koocanusa Reservoir and for the Kootenay River, including Kootenay Lake. Some Basin residents were interested in how the storage covered under the Non-Treaty Storage Agreement could be used to further enhance Basin ecosystems and other values.
While there was a lot of discussion at community consultation events around a watershed-wide ecosystem approach to ensure that Canada and the U.S. do not undermine each other’s initiatives but rather create transboundary synergies, many Basin residents feel a Basin-wide watershed based ecosystem approach may not be realistic, particularly as many believe that opportunities for ecosystem benefits in B.C. are terrestrial based rather than aquatic as is perceived in the U.S. Many residents question the value for B.C. in contributing to ecosystem enhancement downstream in the US. One issue many felt would benefit from a broader ecosystem approach was the management and eradication of invasive species in waterways.
Some residents expressed concern that jointly managing the Columbia system for endangered species in the US could potentially negatively impact environmental priorities in B.C. The U.S. Entity representatives presenting at the technical conference in Castlegar noted they were not aware of ecosystem issues in Canada and therefore these issues had not been considered in U.S. Entity draft recommendations regarding ecosystems.
There were discussions during a Sounding Board meeting on whether a monetary value should be calculated for fish and wildlife habitat and ecosystems. Some members were of the opinion that putting a dollar value on habitat and ecosystems would mean that they would lose when compared to power generation, while others believed that if a dollar value wasn’t specifically assigned, the default would be zero, which could impair any potential future negotiations on changes to the Treaty. The use of assigning historical dollar values versus projected values was also discussed. Some Sounding Board members anticipate that if carbon pricing becomes the norm, green energy will increase in value and that, in the future, as supply and availability decreased, agricultural land and ecosystems would also increase in value.
The impact of climate change on the ecosystem is a concern to most Basin residents. Climate change will accelerate glacier recession which many believe will in turn exacerbate the warming of water in rivers in lakes. Many residents feel this phenomenon will negatively impact fisheries, in particular future salmon viability, although some feel that the ability to adaptively manage reservoirs and modify stream flows could compensate for some of the anticipated climate change impacts to the ecosystems. Others suggested that climate change and increased temperatures will increase ecosystem productivity. Regardless of future projections, most Basin residents want to ensure that climate change considerations are explicitly included in any future implementation of the Treaty.
4.1.2 Salmon
The issue of restoring salmon to the Canadian Columbia River system was raised at almost every community workshop. The issue was posted to the Treaty review blog and at the March 2013 technical conference there was a well attended workshop on salmon restoration, where a proposal for an initial study into the feasibility of returning salmon was discussed. Restoration of salmon runs in the Upper Columbia was also discussed at Sounding Board meetings where some felt that while this outcome would be desirable, the return of salmon was a lower priority compared to other ecosystem issues.
Many who attended community consultation workshops thought recommendations for the future of the Treaty should include salmon restoration and that these recommendations should apply to both sides of the border as the feasibility of returning salmon to the upper reaches of the Columbia River would require a joint Canada-US investigation into habitat and fish passage all along the river. Many people cautioned that each country should be responsible for their own costs to restore habitat and passage, warning that Canada should not be responsible for paying to address barriers, such as Grand Coulee dam, which stopped salmon passage to the upper Columbia River many years before the Treaty was signed.
Some people think it is impractical to expend resources on salmon restoration unless salmon “… were knocking at the Hugh Keenleyside dam.” Others suggest efforts to restore salmon passage would likely only benefit the Okanagan River system and not the Canadian Columbia River system, while a few people note that Mica Dam was a significant, if not insurmountable, barrier. Some people believe that there are too many biological challenges to make the return of salmon feasible, noting that there were barely enough nutrients in Arrow Lakes Reservoir to support a healthy kokanee population. Other residents express concern about the biological feasibility because of changing water temperatures, receding glaciers and climate change that could lead to inhospitable habitats for salmon and other fish. Some people believe that while fish passage and other transport mechanism could result in salmon in the Upper Columbia, the greater challenge would be for salmon smolts to migrate back to the ocean through a gauntlet of reservoirs and dams with slow moving water rather than river flows. Many Basin residents acknowledge the understandable desire by Basin residents, and in particular First Nations, to have return to the Canadian Columbia River ecosystem, however they question whether this was realistic or whether this should occur at any cost.
4.2 Flood Control
A flood can be defined as high water flows causing material damage and risk to safety. Flood control is one of the two drivers that lead to the creation of the Treaty. Half of the water storage along the entire length of the Columbia River is in B.C., providing significant flood risk management in B.C. and south of the border.
Many Basin residents believe flood control should be equal in priority to ecosystem health and power generation in any discussions concerning the future of the Treaty. Many other Basin residents feel flood control should be the highest priority, noting costs associated with flooding private property and municipal property and infrastructure, especially around vulnerable areas such as Kootenay Lake, the Lower Columbia River (from Castlegar to the border), Creston dikes area, and to some extent around Arrow Lakes and Koocanusa Reservoirs. Many residents appreciate that the incidence and severity of flooding has been greatly reduced as a result of the implementation of the Treaty. Reflecting on the successful management of the extreme high water levels in 2012, they want coordination and communication between BC Hydro, local governments, community members and the U.S. Entity to continue, including notifying residents in high hazard zones of potential flooding.
Other Basin residents feel flood control should be a low priority in B.C., arguing that rivers naturally have high flow periods and that high damage is due to lack of planning. Noting increasing property development on floodplains since the Treaty was implemented, in particular in the U.S. and around Kootenay Lake, and the trade-off between protecting floodplain infrastructure and ecosystems, they question whether ecosystems should suffer due to inappropriate zoning and whether enabling development and prosperity in the U.S. comes at the expense of prosperity and healthy ecosystems in B.C. Many people argue for a long term plan for building smarter and/or moving infrastructure off floodplains, an issue within the purview of local, regional and provincial governments. Some Basin residents also expressed an interest in maintaining available flood plain land for agricultural products such as dairy, grains, fruit and vegetables.
Basin residents’ views on flood control seem, to some extent, to be a reflection of where they live. Property owners around Arrow Lakes Reservoir and Kootenay Lake feel they shouldn’t have to bear the expense of property damaged because of reservoir operations to minimize high water impacts elsewhere in the system. If damage occurs (from flooding and debris impacts), they feel affected communities and property owners should be directly compensated and that performance measures for economic damage, and not just water levels, should be included in any Kootenay system water use plan. Many local residents want the impact and frequency of flooding reduced on Kootenay Lake and Arrow Lakes Reservoir, and feel that Koocanusa and Kinbasket Reservoirs should be managed to reduce flooding and water level fluctuations around the more populated Kootenay Lake and Arrow Lakes Reservoir areas, for which impacted residents around Koocanusa and Kinbasket Reservoirs should be compensated. Many residents also feel that dredging Grohman Narrows near Nelson would help reduce flood risk along Kootenay Lake.
Many residents around Koocanusa and Kinbasket Reservoirs, on the other hand, want flood control impacts on those reservoirs reduced. Operating reservoirs to provide downstream flood control impacts recreation opportunities as well as ecosystems. Deeper reservoir draw downs to manage spring freshet inflows can result in slower re-fill times and the potential for June water levels to be too low for swimming and boating access. Resulting low water levels can also lead to unaesthetic foreshores, dust storms, erosion and overexposed archaeological sites, and reduced shoreline spawning and tributary access for fish. Maintaining higher water levels at certain times of the year to ensure recreation opportunities, on the other hand, can increase flood risk downstream, can result in more water being spilled over the dams which can impact fisheries, and on occasion lead to surcharging the reservoirs with the resulting erosion and impacts to archaeological sites and properties.
Downstream from Koocanusa Reservoir, most Basin residents feel erosion, due to high water levels and water level fluctuations, will continue to weaken the Creston dikes, increasing the risk of flooding and loss of land and crops. A high water table results in flows under the dikes and into farmers’ fields. Many residents in the area feel that they should be compensated for impacts from Koocanusa flood control and fisheries operations.
Some residents feel Duncan Dam should be managed to minimize flooding around Kootenay Lake and downstream Kootenay River noting that while Libby Dam has a bigger role in flood control for this area and that the frequency and scale of flood damage has decreased since Libby Dam was built, Duncan Dam provides significant flood control support, especially when Koocanusa Reservoir is full. Many residents wanted to see hydroelectric generation facilities added to the dam while other residents felt Duncan Dam should be decommissioned for ecosystem benefits.
Most Basin residents feel the negative impacts to Arrow Lakes Reservoir are due to fluctuating water levels, duration and timing. Some residents feel that if Arrow Lakes Reservoir was operated at a constant mid-level pool, and Kinbasket Reservoir took over more flood control, downstream flooding would be prevented and there would be considerable ecosystem benefits in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Some residents believe higher water levels during freshet and periodic flooding due to extreme water conditions such as occurred in 2012 is acceptable and that cottonwoods growing in the flood plain could survive an occasional couple of weeks of flooding. Other residents stated that they were in favour of operating Arrow Lakes Reservoir at a constant full pool but noted that the reservoir would then be unable to provide flood control downstream in Trail and in the US. Some residents argue that if the Treaty is terminated there would be more flexibility for having a stable Arrow Lakes Reservoir without having to use Kinbasket Reservoir to compensate for loss of flood storage
Many Basin residents advocate for a better flood management plan than the Called Upon Flood Control regime post-2024, even if the Treaty is terminated. They feel there is a need for Columbia River-Kootenay River system-wide flood control planning, especially during high water years, when flood risk management requires cooperation between the BC and US Entities to minimize flood damage on both sides of the border. Basin residents believe that this will become even more important in order to adapt to climate change predictions of more frequent extreme events. As a result, many residents want more involvement in discussions around reservoir management and dam operations in BC and also with their counterparts in the US.
4.2.1 Libby Coordination/Koocanusa
Many Basin residents are unhappy that the U.S. unilaterally change operations at Libby dam without BC’s consent. Even though Basin residents are impacted by the flood control and power generation its operations provide to US citizens, they feel they have no say in Libby Dam operations. Many Basin residents want to have better communication and cooperation between residents, local governments and B.C, and the U,S, Entity around Libby Dam operations.
Most residents feel the Libby Coordination Agreement is insufficient and that Libby Dam operations and Koocanusa need to be managed within the Treaty in the same manner as the other Treaty dams. They feel the Kootenay System is capable of being operated in a manner to address Koocanusa Reservoir and Kootenay Lake issues and Canadian interests but that this does not occur under the current Treaty. They are concerned that the Libby Coordination Agreement, even though it is not working well, will not work at all without the Treaty.
A number of Basin residents identified four key concerns relating to current operations downstream from Libby Dam to Kootenay Lake that could benefit from better communication and cooperation: flood risk to infrastructure in floodplains; impacts from river level fluctuations on diking infrastructure; impacts/benefits of the U.S. fertilization program; and management of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area and surrounding wetlands.
Future flooding around the Kootenay River system and Koocanusa Reservoir is also a concern of many Basin residents who would like to see Libby Dam operations included in any future Columbia River Treaty arrangement. They are concerned that the post-2024 Called Upon Flood Control regime may result in changes to Libby Dam operations that will lead to greater drawdowns in Koocanusa Reservoir. Residents are also concerned that Called Upon Flood Control may result in more extreme fluctuations in water levels and more erosion to downstream dikes, noting that there is no source of funding available to maintain and repair this infrastructure.
4.3 Power Generation
Many Basin residents want to see measures that will result in less power generation to benefit ecosystems. They feel many of the negative impacts to ecosystems around the reservoirs are caused by fluctuating water levels to meet Treaty flow requirements for power. They feel that in the future the value of water management for power will decrease as the value of water management for ecosystems and agriculture increase. Some residents feel reservoirs should be operated so there are fewer and smaller fluctuations in water levels while some residents feel that decommissioning dams should be the long term goal, in particular Duncan and Hugh Keenleyside Dams, as this would provide the greatest environmental benefit. However many residents, particularly property owners downstream of Duncan, Hugh Keenleyside and Libby Dams, do not want the dams decommissioned. They feel the dams play a critical role for flood control and they want flood risk decreased, not increased. Duncan and Libby Dams also provide the water flow management for power generation on the Kootenay River system. People have commented that, in addition to BC Hydro, FortisBC and Columbia Power Corporation, a significant portion CBT’s income that is shared across the Basin is dependent on the power that can be generated as a result of operations of dams.
Some residents feel operating Arrow Lakes Reservoir/Hugh Keenleyside Dam as a mid- water level, constant pool, run of river type operation is an option that would allow some power generation and would have significant ecosystem benefits around Arrow Lakes Reservoir. This option could, however, increase impacts to the ecosystem around Kinbasket Reservoir. Many residents from areas around Kinbasket Reservoir also want less frequent and smaller water level fluctuations and suggest weirs near Valemount and Golden could help maintain stable levels and provide better water access. These residents do not want to see more and deeper fluctuations and the further impacts to the area’s ecosystems which are feared if this reservoir had to compensate for changes to Arrow Lakes Reservoir operations. A number of residents feel that if changes to Kinbasket Reservoir operations to improve ecosystems are not feasible due to the contribution of the Reservoir to the Province’s electrical generation, then increased compensation to residents and ecosystems around Kinbasket Reservoir is needed. Some residents feel the U.S. should adapt their operations to compensate for less fluctuation at Arrow Lakes Reservoir, although other residents noted this would impact the amount of the Canadian Entitlement received.
Many Basin residents feel maximizing power generation should be a high priority, noting that British Columbians had been promised power as an outcome of the Treaty. Some residents observe that the power generation will continue whether the Treaty is terminated or not.
Many other residents believe that existing dams and reservoirs should be better utilized to increase electricity generation, with many residents in favour of adding power generation to Duncan Dam and at Surprise Rapids in Kinbasket Reservoir, and with Mica and Revelstoke expansions. Some residents urged an analysis of the Kootenay Diversion provisions of the Treaty.
Many residents question where the new electricity would come from if power generation in the Columbia Basin was decreased. They do not want to see negative environmental impacts elsewhere in the Province as a result of creating new generation to replace lost generation in the Columbia Basin. While alternative power sources such as wind, solar, bio-energy, conservation and geothermal were identified, it was acknowledged by many that some of these sources require back up power generation. Many residents identified hydroelectricity as a green energy source and noted the environmental/greenhouse gas reduction and revenue benefits of this renewable energy to the Province. Some Basin residents estimate that the value of green energy will increase in future due to climate change, particularly if carbon pricing is implemented throughout North America.
Some Basin residents note that power generated because of the Treaty dams benefit the majority of electricity customers in the Province, that the damage has already been done to the Columbia Basin, and that stakeholders and the Province are finding ways to mitigate these impacts. Many residents believe that the water use planning process is a significant factor in changing BC Hydro operations to consider other values than just power. They feel that the 2020 formal review of the Columbia Water Use Plan and a suggested new Kootenay Water Use Plan-like process could address many issues that the Treaty Review was not designed to do. A number of residents feel that initiatives like the FWCP need to benefit more from the distribution of wealth generated by all of the Canadian power generation, including by industrial power companies.
Many Basin residents appreciate that the construction and operation of Treaty dams and power generation facilities, and of the other dams and facilities that Treaty projects have made possible, have provided jobs and economic growth to many communities. It was suggested that local governments could benefit further through the taxation of reservoirs and transmission lines.
Most Basin residents feel that because they live with the impacts of the Province’s hydroelectric generation, they should pay less, not more, for the electricity they use. Residents around Kinbasket Reservoir would like to see improved connection to the electric grid to reduce the need for diesel generated electricity.
Many Basin residents are concerned about the North America Free Trade Agreement and how this may impact future flexibility to generate or not generate power on the Columbia River system.
4.3.1 Canadian Entitlement
Most Basin residents strongly believe that the Canadian Entitlement is the only benefit Canada receives as a result of the Columbia River Treaty. Some Basin residents identify a trade-off between the Canadian Entitlement and ecosystem gains. They feel that if water flows at the border were altered to benefit ecosystems, less power would be generated both in Canada and in the United States and, since the Canadian Entitlement is calculated based on the incremental power generation potential in the United States, the amount of the Entitlement would decrease. Many residents question whether the Province could afford the loss of Canadian Entitlement power or the approximately $100 -300 million value it generates if the Treaty is terminated.
Many Basin residents feel that the Canadian Entitlement should reflect the environmental and economic losses that resulted and continue to result from Treaty operations. Some residents want to see BC maximize the dollar value of the Entitlement and feel it should also reflect non-power benefits to the U.S. such as irrigation, recreation, navigation and endangered species. Many residents suggest that the Non-Treaty Storage Agreement should be included in future options for the Treaty.
A number of residents question whether the Basin receives a fair share of revenues from power generation[1], downstream benefits (Canadian Entitlement) and Non Treaty Storage Agreement revenues. They feel that a lesser portion of these revenues should be retained by the Province and more funding should go to communities, the FWCP, research on climate change and ecosystem improvements, building fish passage for salmon, and be used generally used to mitigate local issues that arise due to operations such as dike maintenance. Many residents believe that the benefits from revenue shares should be linked to the region that was impacted.
4.4 Socio-Economic
Socio-economic concerns for Basin residents include historical and current direct and indirect impacts to people and communities from the construction of the Treaty dams and reservoirs and from their ongoing operation. Many Basin residents feel the level of compensation received does not adequately match the level of impact, there are insufficient measures in place to mitigate the effects, and the distribution of benefits within the Basin does not adequately compensate directly affected areas.
Many Basin residents feel that the hardships to residents and communities that were impacted by the implementation of the Treaty have not been adequately acknowledged. Some residents feel that the compensation to residents that were bought-out or relocated due to the reservoirs was insufficient. Some residents would like to be given an opportunity to buy back expropriated land that was not used, while other residents would like to see more evidence of environmental stewardship on the lands held by BC Hydro.
Agriculture and food sustainability is an important issue to many Basin residents. Some Basin residents are of the opinion that the agriculture industry was significantly impacted when fertile farmland in valley bottoms were inundated by the creation of the reservoirs. Other Basin residents feel that, in the past, available agricultural land in the region was not overly utilized, and the agriculture industry was in decline, but that in the future, as food security becomes more urgent, the loss of the inundated lands will become more important. Some Basin residents believe that reservoir water levels should be kept lower so that more agricultural and ranching land is available for use while other residents feel that in some areas the inundated organic soil is eroded or stripped of nutrients and no longer valuable for agriculture, although re-vegetation could increase availability of land for grazing and wildlife use over the longer term.
Some Basin residents estimate that the flood control provided by the Treaty dams has increased the value and availability of agricultural land although many Basin residents are concerned that fluctuating water levels due to reservoir operations are impacting the dikes that protect farmland and feel that, in addition to programs and projects carried out by the diking districts, measures should be in place to ensure the security of this infrastructure. Some Basin residents are of the view that there should be more financial and marketing support for regional agriculture from the Province and CBT, including more support for opportunities to enhance local farming. Some Basin residents note the trade off between land for agriculture and land for terrestrial ecosystems.
Most Basin residents around Kinbasket Reservoir and many residents around Koocanusa and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs think that the forestry industry was severely impacted by the implementation of the Treaty. Basin residents believe that the negative impact was not only due to the loss of easily accessible quality timber in the valley bottoms, but that the inundation also disrupted transportation links causing many forest resource roads as well as public roads utilized by the forest industry to be lost. Basin residents estimate that this had the effect of driving harvest costs significantly upward, reducing the competiveness of local companies. Basin residents consider the resulting loss of a large number of well paying forestry jobs as a great negative impact on the small communities that depended on forestry for their economic base, and that many of those communities have never fully recovered. Many Basin residents believe that there was not sufficient compensation to communities for these loses.
A number of Basin residents feel reservoir operations and, in particular the debris in the reservoirs, are compromising current efforts to use water ways as an economical means of transporting timber and for other commercial uses. Many residents feel that forestry infrastructure should be supported by the Province as this will stimulate economic growth in the area. Without this, they believe that current harvest decisions made by local forest companies will lead to no forestry industry in the area in the next decade or two.
Numerous Basin residents consider that the loss of transportation infrastructure also reduced the opportunity for economic development more broadly. Many residents feel that quality of life and economic growth, including business and property development, would be facilitated by the Province’s support for infrastructure such as a fixed link at the northern end of Arrow Lakes Reservoir, secure highway between Burton and Fauquier, transport corridors and ferry between Revelstoke, Valemount and Golden, connection to the electrical grid around parts of Kinbasket Reservoir, and road access to the southeast portion of Koocanusa Reservoir. Many residents believe that more Crown land around reservoirs should be made available for recreational properties. On the other hand, some Basin residents do not want increased development, as they feel this will negatively impact the quality of life that draws many people to settle in the region, and will result in more ecological damage.
Water and shore-based recreation is important to almost all Basin residents, both from a quality of life perspective and to counter economic decline through tourism growth. Most Basin residents feel more measures are needed to increase the usability of beaches and access to water. Some residents believe reservoir water levels should be lower in the summer months to increase the amount of beach accessible. Conversely, other residents argue that at lower water levels beaches are muddy and unsightly and result in dust storms that affect health and property. Many residents are concerned that low reservoir water levels encourage ATV use which creates negative impacts such as noise and dust, however other residents feel that ATV use on reservoir draw down areas should be encouraged as negative aspects can be managed and the activity provides tourism dollars and prevents ATV use in more environmentally sensitive areas. Some residents are concerned that in certain areas low reservoir water levels results in water currents too fast for swimming safety.
Many Basin residents prefer higher water levels to allow better access for boats, houseboats and waterfront businesses although too high levels eliminate beaches decreasing shore based recreation opportunities and impacting private property. Some Basin residents predict that recreational fishing would benefit from higher water levels. Many residents feel that reservoir operations have resulted in fewer and smaller fish, and that more measures should be put in place to support fisheries in the reservoirs and Columbia and Kootenay Rivers, both to increase the quality of life for residents and to provide opportunities for tourism. Many feel the loss of salmon to the system was a big economic and cultural loss, although the blockage of salmon migration was due to Grand Coulee Dam and not the Treaty.
Some residents believe that higher reservoir levels create a warmer microclimate that brings rain and not the snow needed for ski tourism. Many other residents feel that lower reservoir levels would increase habitat for birds, waterfowl and wildlife and that this would provide tourism opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting.
Most Basin residents say that more stable reservoir water levels would greatly improve recreational and environmental opportunities and that there is a need for an increased commitment by the Province to improving recreational opportunities and infrastructure, compatible with ecosystems, at all reservoirs. Many Basin residents around Valemount and Golden think some dredging is needed in Kinbasket Reservoir and weirs/dams built to provide stable water levels near their communities. Other residents note that small changes in water fluctuations might be possible in the future but that Basin residents need to accept that water levels in reservoirs go up and down. Some Basin residents feel there should be local government involvement in changes in provincial legislation that could make more property available around Kootenay Lake.
Many Basin residents are concerned that reservoir draw downs are required to provide room to store spring freshet flows and that earlier high water levels for recreation could increase flood risk downstream of the reservoirs.
Basin residents north of Duncan Dam believe that too high water levels increase mosquito breeding in the wetlands and results in higher costs to the region for mosquito control. Many residents feel that too high water levels also interfere with ferry docking on Kootenay Lake, while too low levels prevent navigation. There is too much debris in the reservoirs according to most Basin residents. They consider this an extreme safety hazard for all boating and cause of damage to property, particularly during storms. Floating debris, together with changing water levels, is blamed for damage to water intake pipes and water sewage infrastructure for both private property owners and municipalities. Basin residents feel that more resources need to be put towards debris removal, particularly during years when reservoir water levels are unusually high.
Many Basin residents feel that during initial discussions regarding the Treaty, they were promised lakes and facilities for recreation. However deep reservoir draw downs prevent water access for portions of the year and the recreation infrastructure such as boat ramps, docks, breakwaters, recreational sites and campgrounds never materialized or are inadequate to deal with the low water levels or the demand in some locations. Most Basin residents note that if these infrastructure deficits and maintenance of infrastructure were addressed, there would be more tourism activity that would provide jobs and economic sustainability to communities.
Most Basin residents say that the region as a whole is looking for opportunities to promote commercial opportunities and further investments that will create sustainable employment. Some residents believe more should be done to mitigate the decline in the local economies that resulted from the implementation of the Treaty, while others feel that their communities have benefitted economically from the Treaty projects and the further hydroelectric developments that were made possible.
A number of Basin residents have concerns around dam maintenance and safety and the lifespan of dams. Certain residents wonder whether there is significant siltation behind the dams, particularly those on the Columbia River and ask that more information be made public. Some Basin residents argue that not enough has been done to protect dams from potential seismic events or to put in place emergency plans for residents and communities downstream of the dams.
Many Basin residents maintain that more benefits due to Treaty dam operations, such as the Canadian Entitlement and the Non-Treaty Storage Agreement, should come to the region because they have been impacted by these operations. Others state that living near power production facilities impacts residents and therefore they should not have to pay more for their electricity than people living further away.
A number of residents consider grants in lieu of taxes paid by BC Hydro inadequate given the impact of reservoirs on communities. A large number of Basin residents also question the amount and distribution of the BC Hydro grants in lieu of taxes. Some local government officials note the loss of taxation revenue due to inundation of property and businesses and believe taxes should be available from reservoirs and transmission lines, even though they are on Crown land. Many Basin residents feel that the grant distribution does not reflect the impact of BC Hydro operations on specific communities. Some residents note the financial “windfall” that has accrued to some towns while other communities deal with the impact of reservoir fluctuations on their doorstep but without adequate funds to mitigate the impacts. Many Basin residents feel that the grants and other financial benefits should be aligned with severity of the negative impacts and not population size.
Many Basin residents have questions around the allocation of CBT funding. While there are some social and economic development funds available to compensate for impacts from the implementation of the Treaty, some residents maintain that they are invested elsewhere in the Columbia Basin rather than in the areas where actual Treaty-related impacts occurred. Others residents suggest that compensation as a result of the Treaty has been a boon for some communities outside the immediately impacted areas. They find that communities with the greatest impacts tend to be more remote, with lower populations and, as a result, any meaningful and sustainable economic development has been challenging. Many residents feel CBT funding should be distributed more in correlation with the impact to communities and residents. Many others believe that CBT is only now producing returns from investments that can be distributed throughout the Basin to make a real difference ($20M in 2013, doubling by 2017) and that residents should get involved in the Trust’ planning activities.
Many Basin residents appreciate all the work CBT is doing in the Basin and highly value the organization while others want the Trust to do more to stimulate economic growth in impacted Basin communities. However, a large number of residents appear not to know the CBT mandate, revenue sources and amounts, what programs are available and how to access them.
Basin residents expressed concern for future generations on numerous occasions. Many residents are concerned about present and future training and employment. Most Basin residents want to see more youth involved in the review of the Treaty and suggest providing Treaty information to students in the K-12 school system[ Note: the development of Columbia River Treaty curriculum and pilots in classrooms are now underway]. Some Basin youth question whether there may be a tendency for Basin residents to use the Treaty review process as an opportunity to air past grievances rather than as an opportunity to fulfill future aspirations.
Basin residents were concerned that First Nations voices are heard during the Treaty Review. While most Basin residents are satisfied that First Nations’ interests and concerns, particularly regarding archaeological sites, would be part of a separate Treaty Review First Nations Consultation, some residents feel the information exchanged with First Nations should be public. Many Basin residents also feel the Sinixt should be included in the First Nations consultation.
Most Basin residents believe that climate change must be taken into account in the analysis regarding the future of the Treaty. Some residents are concerned that climate change could affect socio-economic conditions in the Basin and therefore impact the benefits and costs associated with the Treaty. They maintain that adaptation to climate change will increase the value of agricultural land, water and other resources in the Basin and decrease the value of other resources and infrastructures. Many Basin residents suspect that the flood protection provided by Canadian storage will increase in value as the region experiences more rain and more severe fluctuations in weather.
4.5 Governance
Many Basin residents are interested in public engagement and collaboration in water management as a whole, and in the Treaty review process. They feel that the Treaty review has presented an opportunity to examine how to do things differently, including having more inclusive and ongoing discussions on how dams and reservoirs are operated.
Most Basin residents would like to see better communication between residents, local governments and BC Hydro. Many Basin residents appreciated BC Hydro’s communication during the extreme high water flows in 2012, and would like to see similar communication during future high water events. Many residents feel there needs to be local input, especially from those most impacted, to decision-making on BC Hydro operations that may negatively impact local communities, as well as local input to regular reservoir management and dam operations. Some Basin residents note that there should be representation from throughout the Basin so that the whole system is considered. Some residents point to the inclusive water management discussions that are part of the water use planning process and would like to see some kind of dialogue between local residents and BC Hydro continue on a regular basis, and a similar process for the Kootenay system.
Many Basin residents feel there should be more consultation and greater communication between the Province, BC Hydro, Basin residents and First Nations on agreements and management plans, including flood risk management and water use plans, which will impact the Columbia River and the Kootenay River, noting that ensuring good relations between these groups is as important if not more important as than ensuring good relations between the Canadian and U.S. Entities.
Many Basin residents, particular residents around Koocanusa Reservoir and the Kootenay River, would also like more local involvement in discussions between the Canadian and U.S. Entities around coordination of water levels and reservoir and dam operations at Libby Dam. Some Basin residents feel that achieving Canadian Entity and local involvement in the governance of the Kootenay system would be a solid win in any future Treaty arrangements.
Many Basin residents feel discussions leading to agreements with the U.S. should involve a board of advisors and not just BC Hydro, noting BC Hydro’s mandate is focussed on power production, and agreements in the future need to consider other values as well as power. Some Basin residents believe that BC Hydro should not be the sole developer of hydroelectricity along the Columbia River and that management should include First Nations.
The Columbia River Treaty Local Governments’ Committee and some Basin residents have expressed that there should be local government representation during negotiations with the U.S. on the future of the Treaty. Some residents maintain that there should be broader public involvement in the negotiation process. Others feel that the Treaty review process should also include engagement with residents of British Columbia outside of the Columbia Basin as they may also be impacted by future Treaty options
Many Basin residents, especially youth, feel cross-border communication is important so that residents in Canada and the U.S. fully understand the impacts of the Columbia River Treaty. Basin residents also feel climate change adaptation, ecosystems and return of the salmon are issues that would benefit from a more system-wide planning.
Many Basin residents are interested in a transboundary conference to explore issues of mutual interest. Some residents feel the time for such a conference should be after recommendations are made to Canada and to the U.S. Department of State.
Many residents would like to see Basin-wide management of the ecosystem, although some Basin residents question how useful this would be in reality given the size, breadth and diversity of the Columbia Basin. Some residents feel there may be an opportunity for a future Treaty option to include a third objective of inclusive governance nested with ecosystem values. They are, however, concerned that pursuing such a radical change could invalidate the Treaty. Some Basin residents feel people are disenchanted by how things are done, not disenchanted with the Treaty.
Previous: Other Columbia River Treaty Review Engagement
Next: Conclusion
Thank you for noting that many Basin residents would like to see members of Sinixt Nation invited to the Treaty Process, and for noting that some residents requested a more transparent consultation with First Nations. These were both concerns of mine. I hope you will further explore these as options.
Socio-economic impacts go beyond the resevoir area. Water from the Columbia R. is stored behind the first dam on the American side, the Grand Coulee. This water does not go through any turbines instead it is used to irrigate vast areas of Washington desert where there is a thriving agricultural industry.
In the 1980’s Washington apple production was 7 times that of BC. Now it is 30 times with proposals to increase the irrigated acreage. Cheap Washington fruit is killing the BC fruit industry. In recent years our production has gone down 33%. BC farmers operate until a year of low prices for their produce puts them out of business. Everything is affected from cherries to potatoes, and cattle to corn.
Without the Columbis River Treaty (CRT) the Grand Coulee would have to be used for flood control and less water would be available for irrigation. 3 million acre feet of water per year are used for irrigation. The CRT requires Canada to store and supply the US with 15.5 million acre feet of water per year. The water used for irrigation is 20% of that.
Canada supplies the US with water (at no cost) that is used to the detriment of Canadian agriculture. For this water we should receive 100% of the value of electricity produced if this water was put through a Canadian turbine, which is about $80 million per year. The US share is the benefit they receive from agriculture.
Money received for irrigation water supplied to the US should be put into a BC Agricultural Trust.
The restoration of salmon is total nonsense! The US will catch the salmon (if any) at the mouth of the Columbia R. The only thing we will have to show for money spent are spawned salmon littering our beaches, AND the US asking for more water for the salmon, which will also aid their navigation.
Also a fish ladder 8 Km long would have to be built to get the salmon up 550 feet (170M) over the Grand Coulee with many casualties along the way.
Instead we should enhance local fish and wildlife.
Resevoirs should be brought to stable levels to repair ecosystems while maintaining power generation. This may mean supplying less water to the US. The Grand Coulee dam should have a greater role in flood control. The US idea for water management is asking Canada for more water. The US diverts water we send them for hydroelectric generation to other uses so we should make the electricity here.
Our river is flooded from the US border to the same latitude as Quesnel, what is the value of that?
Flood control for the US has diverted a flood that would have caused $2 billion in damages, what is the value of that?
Our dams operate at 66% capacity due to the demands of the CRT, what is the value of their lost production?
Water the US diverts for irrigation is killing the BC fruit industry. BC fruit growers operate until a year of low prices put them out of business. What is the value of the losses to our agricultural industry?
By using barge and ships on the Columbia instead of rail car transport the US saves $120 million a year. What is our share of that?
The US wants water for their endangered species.
The US has over developed their water park on the Columbia. What is the value of their future water demands?
The total comes to over $500 million a year.
If we don’t get that I think we are entitled to tell the US to cut down on their water use to about 12.5 million acre feet a year and work out a rational water use plan that will repair our eco-systems.