Columbia River Treaty Review




Columbia River Treaty Review
Updated December 15, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R43287




Columbia River Treaty Review

Summary
The Columbia River Treaty (CRT or Treaty) is an international agreement between the United
States and Canada for the cooperative development and operation of the water resources of the
Columbia River Basin to provide for flood control and electric power. The Treaty was the result
of more than 20 years of negotiations between the two countries and was ratified in 1961.
Implementation began in 1964.
The Treaty provided for the construction and operation of three dams in Canada and one dam in
the United States whose reservoir extends into Canada. Together, these dams more than doubled
the amount of reservoir storage available in the basin and provided significant flood protection
benefits. In exchange for these benefits, the United States agreed to provide Canada with lump-
sum cash payments and a portion of downstream hydropower benefits that are attributable to
Canadian operations under the CRT, known as the Canadian Entitlement. Some have estimated
the Canadian Entitlement to be worth as much as $335 million annually.
The CRT has no specific end date. Currently, either the United States or Canada can terminate
most provisions of the CRT with a minimum of 10 years’ written notice. If the CRT is not
terminated or modified, most of its provisions would continue indefinitely without actions by the
United States or Canada. The only exception is the CRT’s flood control provisions, which are
scheduled to transition automatically to “called-upon” operations at that time, meaning the United
States would request and compensate Canada for flood control operations as necessary.
To date, neither country has given notice of termination, but, following internal government
Treaty reviews, both countries indicated interest in its modification. Perspectives on the CRT
vary. Some believe the Treaty should include stronger provisions related to tribal resources and
flows for fisheries that are not in the Treaty; others disagree and focus on the perceived need to
adjust the Canadian Entitlement to reflect actual hydropower benefits. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and the Bonneville Power Administration, in their joint role as the U.S. Entity
overseeing the Treaty, undertook a review of the CRT from 2009 to 2013. Based on studies and
stakeholder input, they provided a Regional Recommendation to the State Department in
December 2013. They recommended continuing the Treaty with certain modifications, including
rebalancing the CRT’s hydropower provisions, further delineating called-upon flood control
operations after 2024, and incorporating into the Treaty flows to benefit Columbia River fisheries.
For its part, the Canadian Entity (the Province of British Columbia) released in March 2013 a
recommendation to continue the CRT with modifications “within the Treaty framework.” It
disputed several assumptions in the U.S. Entity’s review process.
Following a two-year federal interagency review of the U.S. Regional Recommendation, the U.S.
State Department finalized its negotiating parameters and authorized talks with Canada in
October 2016. Between 2018 and 2022, U.S. and Canadian negotiating teams held 14 rounds of
negotiations. As of the date of this report, these negotiations remain ongoing.
Past Congresses have held oversight hearings and weighed in on CRT-related activities through
their oversight roles, and the 117th Congress is considering providing the Corps new authority for
post-2024 called-upon flood control operations. If the executive branch comes to an agreement
with Canadian officials regarding modification of the CRT, any changes to the CRT’s text would
require the Senate’s advice and consent. If notice of Treaty termination is given, it is unclear
whether such a notice would be reversible within the 10-year window and how Congress might
inform such a decision.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 16 Columbia River Treaty Review

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
History and Background .................................................................................................................. 2
Columbia River Treaty Review ....................................................................................................... 6
Technical Studies ...................................................................................................................... 6
Treaty Review Regional Recommendations ............................................................................. 6
Status of Treaty Negotiations .................................................................................................... 7
Perspectives on Columbia River Treaty Review ............................................................................. 8
U.S. Entity and Stakeholders .................................................................................................... 8
Status of the Canadian Entitlement ..................................................................................... 9
Flows to Improve Ecosystems as a New Treaty Purpose .................................................... 9
Uncertainties Related to “Called-Upon” Flood Control ................................................... 10
Canadian Perspectives on CRT Review ................................................................................... 11
The Role of Congress in Treaty Review ........................................................................................ 12

Figures
Figure 1. Columbia River Basin and Dams ..................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Columbia River Basin: Relative Storage of Dams ........................................................... 5

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 13

Congressional Research Service

link to page 9 link to page 15 Columbia River Treaty Review

Introduction
The Columbia River Treaty (CRT, or Treaty), signed in 1961, is an international agreement
between the United States and Canada for the cooperative development and operation of the
water resources of the Columbia River Basin for the benefit of flood control and electric power.1
Precipitated by several flooding events in the basin (including a major flood in the Northwest in
1948), the CRT was the result of more than 20 years of negotiations seeking a joint resolution to
address flooding and plan for development of the basin’s water resources. The Treaty provided
for 15.5 million acre-feet (MaF) of additional water storage in Canada through the construction of
four dams (three in Canada, one in the United States). This storage, along with agreed-upon
operating plans, provides flood control, hydropower, and other downstream benefits. In exchange
for these benefits, the United States agreed to provide Canada with lump-sum cash payments and
a portion of hydropower benefits.
Implementation of the CRT began in 1964.2 The Treaty has no specific end date. Currently, either
the United States or Canada can terminate most provisions of the CRT with a minimum of 10
years’ written notice. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), in their designated role as the U.S. Entity, undertook a review of the Treaty
beginning in 2011. Based on studies and additional stakeholder input, the U.S. Entity made its
recommendation to the U.S. Department of State in December 2013. If the Treaty is not
terminated or modified, most of its current provisions would continue indefinitely without action
by the U.S. or Canadian Entities, with the notable exception of flood control operations, which
are scheduled to end in 2024 and transition to “called-upon” operations.3
Perspectives on the CRT and its review vary. Some believe that the Treaty should continue but be
altered to include, for example, guarantees related to tribal resources and fisheries flows that were
not included in the original Treaty. Others believe that the Canadian Entitlement should be
reduced to more equitably share actual hydropower benefits, or be eliminated entirely. For its
part, Canada has stated that without the Canadian Entitlement (or with alterations that would
decrease its share of these revenues), it would see no reason for the Treaty to continue. The final
Regional Recommendation to the State Department, coordinated by the U.S. Entity, was to
continue the Treaty post-2024, but with modifications. The State Department has since finalized
its proposed negotiating parameters, although they are not available to the public. The Canadian
recommendation, finalized in March 2013, also favored continuing the treaty, but with
modifications “within the Treaty framework,” some of which were considerably different than
those recommended by the United States.
The executive branch, through the State Department, is responsible for negotiations related to the
CRT. However, the Senate, through its constitutional role to provide advice and consent, is
entrusted with the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive
branch. Changes to the CRT may or may not trigger such a vote; in any case, the Senate may
choose to review any changes to the CRT, including a termination notice.4 In addition, both
houses of Congress may choose to weigh in on ongoing Treaty review and negotiation activities

1 The CRT is different, and was considered separately, from tribal fisheries treaty rights on the Columbia River.
2 Implementation of the Treaty occurs through the U.S. Entity (BPA and the Northwestern Division of the Corps,
jointly, with the BPA Administrator as Chair and the Corps as a member) and the Canadian Entity (the British
Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, or BC Hydro).
3 Flood control provided by the Canadian projects would still continue, but is expected to transition to “called-upon”
operations at that time. This means that the United States would request and compensate Canada for flood control
operations. See below section, “Columbia River Treaty Review,” for more information.
4 See below section, “The Role of Congress in Treaty Review.”
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 link to page 8 Columbia River Treaty Review

by the U.S. Entity, as well as having to enact any authorizations or appropriations that may be
necessary for federal agencies pursuant to the Treaty’s framework (e.g., guidance called-upon
flood control operations).
This report provides a brief overview of the Columbia River Treaty review. It includes
background on the history of the basin and consideration of the treaty, as well as a brief summary
of studies and analyses of the Columbia River Treaty review process to date.
History and Background
The Columbia River is the predominant river in the Pacific Northwest and is one of the largest in
the United States in terms of water volume flowing to the ocean. The Columbia River Basin
receives water that drains from approximately 259,500 square miles in the region, including parts
of British Columbia in Canada, and four U.S. states: Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
The basin is unique among large river basins in the United States because of its high annual
runoff, limited amount of storage (in the U.S. portion of the basin), and extreme variation in flow
levels. The basin has the second-largest runoff in the United States in terms of average flows
(275,000 cubic feet per second). Approximately 60% of this runoff occurs in May, June, and July.
While about 15% of the river basin’s surface area is in Canada, the Canadian portion of the basin
accounts for a considerably larger share of the basin’s average annual runoff volume.5
The Columbia River is the largest hydropower-producing river system in the United States.
Federal development of the river’s hydropower capacity dates to 1932, when the federal
government initiated construction of dams of the Columbia River and its tributaries. In total, 31
federal dams within the Columbia River Basin are owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior).
Additional dams are owned by nonfederal entities. The BPA, part of the Department of Energy,
markets power from federal dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries (collectively known
as the Federal Columbia River Power System, FCRPS). Other than the largest of these facilities,
Grand Coulee (which has some storage capacity), most of these facilities on the main stem of the
river in the United States have limited reservoir storage and are managed as “run of the river” for
hydropower, flood control, and navigation.6 Figure 1, below, provides an overview of the basin,
including dam ownership. Figure 2 shows the relative storage capacity of these dams.
The basin is also important habitat for a number of fish species. Economically important species
in the region include steelhead trout; chinook, coho, chum, and sockeye salmon; and other
species. These fish are important to commercial and sport anglers as well as Native American
tribes in the region. The basin also provides habitat for several threatened and endangered species
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543); requirements under this
law are an important factor in the operation of the FCRPS.
Other major uses of the basin’s waters include navigation, irrigation, recreation, and water supply.
Four federal dams on the river’s mainstem have navigation locks that allow for barge traffic to
transport bulk commodities that are important to regional and national economies. Due to this
infrastructure, the Columbia River is navigable up to 465 miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean.
Six percent of the basin’s water is diverted for irrigated agriculture, and is particularly important
in eastern Washington, northeastern Oregon, and southern Idaho. Basin waters are also diverted

5 In most years, it is estimated that the Canadian part of the basin accounts for 38%-50% of the basin’s runoff.
6 Notably, some headwaters projects have flood storage, including Libby, Hungry Horse, and Dworshak.
Congressional Research Service

2


Columbia River Treaty Review

for other water supply purposes, and the rivers and reservoirs of the basin are important for
recreational users. All of these users have an interest in management of basin water supplies.
Figure 1. Columbia River Basin and Dams

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review, April 2013.
The negotiation and ratification of the CRT were precipitated by several events in the basin. Most
notably, a major flood event in the Northwest in 1948, the Vanport flood, caused significant
damage throughout the basin and served as the impetus for negotiations between the United
States and Canada, including studies by the International Joint Commission (IJC).7 Initially,
following the flood, the United States had proposed in 1951 to build Libby Dam in Montana
(which would flood 42 miles into Canada). Canada was opposed to this solution, and as a

7 The IJC was established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, which established principles and mechanisms to
help resolve disputes concerning water quantity and quality along the U.S.-Canada boundary. The IJC is a joint
international body. More information about the IJC is available https://www.ijc.org/en/who/mission.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 Columbia River Treaty Review

response proposed to divert as much as 15.5 Maf from the Columbia River for its own purposes.
Based on a number of technical studies, the IJC recommended a compromise, which included
development of upriver storage in Canada to help regulate flows on the Columbia River,
including those for flood control and hydropower generation.
The CRT was signed in 1961 but was not fully ratified by both countries (and therefore did not go
into effect) until 1964. Implementation of the Treaty occurs through the U.S. Entity and the
Canadian Entity.8 The Treaty provided for the construction of 15.5 Maf of additional storage in
Canada through the construction of three dams: Duncan (completed in 1968), Hugh Keenleyside,
or Arrow (completed in 1969), and Mica (completed in 1973). Construction of Libby Dam in
Montana, whose reservoir backs 42 miles into Canada, was completed in 1973. Together, the four
dams more than doubled the amount of reservoir storage available in the basin before
construction began, providing for significant new flood protection and power benefits throughout
the basin (see Figure 2). The CRT also required that the United States and Canada prepare an
“Assured Operating Plan” (to meet flood control and power objectives) for the operation of
Canadian storage six years in advance of each operating year. Along with “Detailed Operating
Plans,” which may also be developed to produce more advantageous results for both U.S. and
Canadian operating entities, these plans govern project operations under the Treaty.9
Under the CRT, the United States gained operational benefits in the form of flexible storage and
reliable operations in Canada that provide for flood control and hydropower generation. In
exchange, Canada (through the Canadian Entity) receives lump-sum payments from the United
States for flood control benefits through 2024, as well as a portion of annual hydropower benefits
from the operation of Canadian Treaty storage. In exchange for the assured use of 8.45 Maf
annually of Canadian storage, the United States paid $64.4 million to Canada for flood control
benefits as the three Canadian dams became operational. Under the CRT, Canada is also entitled
to half of the estimated increase in downstream hydropower generated at U.S. dams.10 Canada
initially sold this electricity (known as the Canadian Entitlement) to a consortium of U.S. utilities
for $254 million over a 30-year term (1973-2003).11 Currently, the United States delivers the
Canadian Entitlement directly to Canada through BPA’s Northern Intertie. The U.S. Entity has
estimated the value of the Canadian Entitlement at a range of $229 million to $335 million
annually, depending on a number of factors.12

8 Executive Order 11177, “Providing for Certain Arrangements Under the Columbia River Treaty,” 29 C.F.R. §13097.
September 16, 1964.
9 For example, since 1995, Detailed Operating Plans under Article XIV of the Treaty have provided extra flow storage
of 1 million acre-feet per year for fisheries flows.
10 The amount of the Canadian Entitlement is based on a formula which calculates the theoretical value of additional
generation from Canadian dams.
11 Together with the flood control payments, these payments largely financed the construction of the Canadian
facilities.
12 U.S. Entity, “Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review: Recent Study Results,” June 2012. Hereinafter “U.S.
Entity, Recent Study Results.”
Congressional Research Service

4


Columbia River Treaty Review

Figure 2. Columbia River Basin: Relative Storage of Dams

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012.
Note: Maf=mil ion acre-feet.
Several notable changes to Columbia River operations since ratification of the CRT factor into
current negotiations. Most notably, declining populations of salmon and steelhead in the
Columbia and Snake Rivers led to listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C.
§§1531-1543) beginning in 1991. These listings have resulted in steps to improve salmon and
steelhead habitat in the United States, including operational changes (e.g., augmented spring and
summer flows) and mitigation actions (e.g., construction of fish passage facilities).13 For more
information on these listings and related federal actions, see CRS Report R40169, Endangered
Species Act Litigation Regarding Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead
, by Stephen P. Mulligan
and Harold F. Upton.

13 As noted above, limited operational changes on both sides of the border have occurred pursuant to supplemental
agreements under the Treaty.
Congressional Research Service

5

Columbia River Treaty Review

Columbia River Treaty Review
The CRT has no specific end date, and most of its provisions—except those related to flood
control operations—would continue indefinitely without action by the United States or Canada.
Currently, either the United States or Canada can terminate most provisions of the CRT with a
minimum of 10 years’ written notice.
Assured annual flood control operations under the Treaty are scheduled to end in 2024,
independent of a decision on Treaty termination. Flood control provided by the Canadian projects
is expected to transition to “called-upon” operations at this time. Under called-upon operations,
the United States would be allowed to request alterations to Canadian operations as necessary for
flood control, and Canada would be responsible for making these changes. In exchange, the
United States would pay for operating costs and economic losses in Canada due to the changed
operation.14 The Corps and the BPA, in their role as the U.S. Entity, undertook a review of the
Treaty from 2009 to 2013 and delivered a final recommendation to the State Department in
December 2013.
Technical Studies
As noted above, the U.S. Entity undertook a series of studies and reports to inform the parties
who are reviewing the CRT (this process is also known as “Treaty review”).15 The U.S. Entity
undertook its studies with significant input from a sovereign review team (SRT), a group of
regional representatives with whom the U.S. Entity has worked to develop its recommendation on
the future of the Treaty. In collaboration with the SRT, the U.S. Entity has also conducted
stakeholder outreach so as to provide for additional input from other interests in developing a
recommendation.
The U.S. Entity conducted its technical studies in three iterations. Iteration one focused on
physical effects of system operations (i.e., effects on hydropower production, etc., not the effects
on ecology), and modeled both current and future scenarios.16 Iterations two and three included
additional analysis of various scenarios, such as modeling effects on fish and wildlife habitat and
species. After the Treaty review began, the U.S. Entity has also produced a number of summary
reports and fact sheets on Treaty review and potential future scenarios.
Treaty Review Regional Recommendations
On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Entity shared an initial working draft of its recommendation with the
State Department for comments. On September 20, 2013, the U.S. Entity released its Draft
Regional Recommendation for additional review and comment through October 25, 2013. The
U.S. Entity delivered the final Regional Recommendation to the State Department in December
13, 2013.17 The recommendation, which reflects U.S. Entity study results as well as stakeholder

14 The Treaty does not describe the methodologies and procedures for how called-upon flood control would be
implemented after 2024. Those details, including potential costs for these operations, still need to be resolved between
the two nations. Canada and the United States disagreed with some of the initial assumptions regarding implementation
of called upon flood control by the U.S. Entity in its Treaty review studies.
15 Separately, Canada has undertaken its own studies.
16 For a summary of these studies, see U.S. Entity, Recent Study Results.
17 U.S. Entity, “U.S. Entity Regional Recommendation for the Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2023.”
December 13, 2013. Hereinafter, “Regional Recommendation.”
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 9 Columbia River Treaty Review

comments, is to modify the Treaty post-2024. The executive branch, through the State
Department, is to make the final determination on those changes to the Treaty that are in the
national interest and is to conduct any negotiations with Canada related to the future of the CRT.
This process may involve additional coordination with the U.S. Entity and regional stakeholders.
In its Regional Recommendation, the U.S. Entity notes that the Treaty provides benefits to both
countries, but recommends that it be modernized so as to “[ensure] a more resilient and healthy
ecosystem-based function throughout the Columbia River Basin while maintaining an acceptable
level of flood risk and preserving reliable and economic hydropower benefits.”18 The
recommendation included nine “general principles” for future negotiations, as well as several
specific recommendations related to alterations of the existing Treaty.19
Some of the notable recommendations for modifications to the Treaty by the U.S. Entity included
providing stream flows to enhance certain fish populations. This could come through the
expansion of agreements to further augment flows for spring and summer (with these flows
coming from reduced fall and winter drafts—also known as drawdowns—in Canadian reservoirs)
and development of a joint program for fish passage.20 Other recommendations included
minimizing adverse effects on tribal resources; incorporating a dry-year strategy; rebalancing the
power benefits between the two countries;21 and implementing post-2024 CRT flood risk
management, including effective use and called-upon flood storage, through a coordinated
operation plan and definition of “reasonable compensation” for Canada.22 Finally, the
recommendation also suggests that, following negotiations with Canada over the CRT, the
Administration should review membership of the U.S. Entity.23
Status of Treaty Negotiations
On October 7, 2016, the State Department finalized U.S. negotiating parameters for the CRT and
formally authorized talks with Canada through the State Department Circular 175 Procedure.24
The document, which is not available to the public, was the culmination of a two-year
interagency review process, which itself built on the Regional Recommendation for Treaty
modification.25 After finalizing its negotiating parameters, the United States requested
engagement with the Canadian Foreign Ministry.

18 Regional Recommendation, p. 2.
19 For a full list of the general principles, see Regional Recommendation, p. 3. Detailed recommendations are available
on p. 4 of the Regional Recommendation.
20 The Regional Recommendation noted that these changes should not detract from existing Treaty obligations. See
Regional Recommendation, p. 5.
21 The Regional Recommendation states that CRT power benefits are not equitably shared and that Canada is deriving
substantially greater value from coordinated power operations than the United States. See Regional Recommendation,
p. 4.
22 Under the original CRT, many of the specific details related to called-upon storage were not defined. See footnote
14.
23 This could potentially include a third member of the U.S. Entity representing the “ecosystem function,” depending on
the extent to which this change is incorporated in Treaty modification.
24 For more information, see State Department, “Coordination with the Secretary of State and the Circular 175
Procedure,” November 16, 2018, at https://www.state.gov/treaty-procedures/.
25 The process was led by the National Security Council, which designated the Department of State to coordinate and
oversee an interagency policy review of the Regional Recommendation. The Interagency Policy Committee included
the National Security Council; the White House Council on Environmental Quality; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
and the Departments of State, Energy, Commerce, the Interior, and others.
Congressional Research Service

7

Columbia River Treaty Review

Negotiations between the U.S. and Canadian negotiating teams formally began on May 29-30,
2018.26 From 2018 to 2022, the two countries held 14 rounds of negotiations, with the last round
of negotiations held on October 4-5, 2022.27 According to the State Department, the U.S.
negotiating position is guided by the U.S. Entity’s Regional Recommendation and includes
participation on the negotiating team by the Department of State, BPA, the Corps, the Department
of the Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.28 The State
Department and the Province of British Columbia have also convened town halls and community
meetings to discuss the status of negotiations with the public.29
Perspectives on Columbia River Treaty Review
Various perspectives on the CRT and the review process have been represented in studies,
meetings, and other public forums conducted since Treaty review began. The Regional
Recommendation represents the views of the U.S. Entity and the SRT, as well as many of the
stakeholders who have weighed in through meetings and the public comment process.30 However,
the Regional Recommendation does not represent the final U.S. approach to Treaty review. The
executive branch, through the State Department, will handle those negotiations.
To date, the primary Canadian perspectives provided on Treaty review have been centrally
coordinated by the British Columbia (BC) provincial government, and BC announced its own
decision on March 13, 2014.31 BC recommends continuing the Treaty, but seeking modifications
within the existing framework. A summary of the perspectives of the U.S. Entity, selected U.S.
stakeholders, and BC is provided below.
U.S. Entity and Stakeholders
To date, studies by the U.S. Entity have generally concluded that although the CRT has been
mutually beneficial to the United States and Canada, not all benefits have been shared equitably,
and the Treaty should be “modernized.” Studies by the U.S. Entity concluded that under a
scenario where the Treaty continues, both governments would continue to benefit from assured
operating plans that provide for predictable power and flood control benefits, among other things.
These same studies generally found that without the CRT, Canada would be able to operate its
dams for its own benefit (except for called-upon flood storage, which would still be an obligation
regardless of termination). This could make U.S. hydropower generation more difficult to control
and predict, and could also result in species impacts if advantageous flows are not agreed upon
ahead of time. Despite this unpredictability, the United States could gain some advantages from
Treaty termination. Studies by the U.S. Entity have concluded that a relatively large financial

26 U.S. Department of State, “On the Opening of Negotiations to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty Regime,” May
30, 2018, at https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/05/282867.htm. Hereinafter “State Department May 2018
Announcement.”
27 U.S. Department of State, “Conclusion of the Round 14 of Negotiations to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty
Regime,” press release, October 6, 2022, at https://www.state.gov/conclusion-of-round-14-of-negotiations-to-
modernize-the-columbia-river-treaty-regime/.
28 State Department May 2018 Announcement.
29 For additional information on these efforts by the State Department, see https://www.state.gov/columbia-river-treaty/
. For a summary of efforts by the Province of British Columbia, see https://engage.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/.
30 The full list of comments is available at http://www.bpa.gov/applications/publiccomments/CommentList.aspx?ID=
199.
31 These comments are consolidated at http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/.
Congressional Research Service

8

Columbia River Treaty Review

benefit for the United States would likely result from terminating the Treaty—eliminating the
Canadian Entitlement—while Canada would likely see reduced financial benefits from
hydropower generation from the loss of the Canadian Entitlement.32 However, rather than
recommend termination, the U.S. Entity has recommended modification of the Treaty, including a
“rebalanced” Canadian Entitlement and assurances for flows to improve ecosystems, among other
things.
While most stakeholders acknowledge benefits of the CRT, several groups and individuals
submitted comments criticizing the Regional Recommendation and/or its earlier drafts. Based on
these comments, major areas of debate can generally be divided into three categories: how to
handle the Canadian Entitlement, how (or whether) to incorporate flows to benefit fisheries into
the current coequal Treaty goals of hydropower and flood control, and specifics related to future
called-upon flood management operations.
Status of the Canadian Entitlement
The status of the Canadian Entitlement to one-half of the hydropower contributed by its dam
operations has been a matter of contention, especially among power interests. The final Regional
Recommendation calls for “rebalancing” of the Canadian Entitlement, without specifics as to
what extent it should be rebalanced. While power interests have generally stopped short of calling
for termination of the CRT, they criticized the lack of specifics in earlier drafts of the
recommendation, and emphasized their view that the single biggest shortcoming of the CRT is
that hydropower benefits have not been shared equally.33 In their public comments, many power
interests noted that the Canadian Entitlement should be revised to provide a more equitable
methodology for dividing hydropower generation benefits between the countries.34 Some of these
groups believe that because more than half of the actual generation under Treaty-related
operations is being returned to British Columbia, the current Canadian Entitlement deprives U.S.
power customers of low-cost power, effectively increasing electricity rates in the Northwest.
Some suggest that the status of the Canadian Entitlement, rather than ecosystem flows (discussed
below), should be the focus of Treaty modernization.35
Flows to Improve Ecosystems as a New Treaty Purpose
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Treaty review stems from the fact that the 1964
Treaty did not include fisheries or ecosystem flows along with the Treaty’s other primary
purposes of flood control and hydropower. Subsequent to the Treaty’s ratification, Canada and the
United States agreed under the Treaty’s Detailed Operating Plans to maintain an additional 1
million acre-feet of storage at Canadian dams for flows to improve fisheries. As noted above, the

32 Studies have estimated that the Canadian Entitlement is worth approximately $229 million-$335 million annually,
and that net annual revenues for the United States would increase by about $180 million to $280 million, while
Canadian revenues would decrease approximately $220 million to $320 million. See U.S. Entity, Recent Study Results,
pp. 6-7.
33 As stated previously, the Canadian Entitlement amount was a theoretical amount calculated when the CRT was
originally negotiated, and did not take into account requirements to regulate and maintain fisheries in the United States
that have subsequently been required and have resulted in a reduction in hydropower generation and revenues since
Treaty ratification.
34 See, for example, Tacoma Public Utilities, Public Comment for the Columbia River Treaty Review, August 16,
2013.
35 See, for example, Public Power Council, Public Comment for the Columbia River Treaty Review, August 6, 2013.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 Columbia River Treaty Review

U.S. Entity has recommended that a new Treaty take into account ecosystem flows and include a
federal fisheries representative as part of the U.S. Entity.
While tribal and environmental groups have generally agreed that provisions for ecosystem-based
functions should be incorporated into the agreement, some also have argued that the proposed
recommendations for Treaty modifications did not go far enough in providing for these purposes.
They have called for the ecosystem function to be explicitly added as a third purpose of the
Treaty, to be treated coequally with hydropower production and flood risk management. Interests
have argued that the Regional Recommendation’s approach (which mentions the ecosystem
function but does not call for it to be treated as a coequal purpose) would effectively subordinate
these changes to the other two purposes.36 They acknowledge that adding the ecosystem function
as a coequal purpose would likely entail operational changes on the Columbia River in both
countries beyond those currently provided for under the ESA, for example. One of the primary
goals of these changes would be augmented flows for fisheries in spring and summer months and
during water shortages.
Conversely, some power interests (including some BPA customers) are concerned with the
approach in the Regional Recommendation for the opposite reason: they think that the
recommendation embodies more accommodations for ecosystem flows than should be provided.
Thus, they oppose efforts to add ecosystem purposes as a stated coequal purpose of the Treaty. In
the comment process, some stakeholders noted that ecosystem flows are already prioritized in
both countries through major operational changes that have been required since the Treaty was
ratified.37 In addition to recent increases in storage for fisheries flows, they point to the listings of
salmon and steelhead on the Columbia and Snake Rivers under the ESA, along with related
operational changes and mitigation, as having benefited fisheries.38 They also note that BPA’s
power customers already make significant contributions to mitigation through power rates, which
have been estimated by some to provide more than $250 million per year to improve fish and
wildlife flows.39 Finally, some have expressed concern with potentially inherent contradictions
between the maintenance of existing hydropower operations under the Treaty and expanded
spring and summer flows to benefit fisheries.40 They believe that further operational changes of
this type will be damaging to the Northwest economy and to ratepayers.
Uncertainties Related to “Called-Upon” Flood Control
A final area of concern in the Treaty review process has been the future approach to “called-
upon” flood control operations. The Regional Recommendation suggests that modifications to the
CRT should include a coordinated operation plan and definition of “reasonable compensation” for
Canada for called-upon flood control. Both countries have acknowledged that details related to
these operations, which U.S. entities would pay Canada for U.S. benefits, and under what
circumstances these operations would be required, need clarification, either in modifications to
the Treaty or in future operating plans.41 During the Treaty review process, many regional entities

36 Save Our Wild Salmon, Public Comment for the Columbia River Treaty Review.
37 See for example, Northwest River Partners, Public Comment for the Public River Treaty Review, August 16, 2013.
Hereinafter “Northwest River Partners Comment.” For background on these efforts, see previous section, “History and
Background.”

38 See previous section, “History and Background.”
39 Northwest River Partners Comment.
40 Western Montana Electric Generating & Transmission Cooperative, Inc., Public Comment for the Columbia River
Treaty Review, August 16, 2013.
41 To date, called-upon flood control operations have not been necessary because of the flood control operations under
the 1964 treaty, and the specific details related to “called-upon” storage were not defined in the original CRT.
Congressional Research Service

10

Columbia River Treaty Review

(including states, electricity ratepayers, and other regional stakeholders) have focused on the
recommendation’s uncertainty regarding payments for these benefits. They have argued that the
federal government (rather than ratepayers or other regional beneficiaries) should be responsible
for paying these costs. For its part, the U.S. Entity has not taken a formal position on who should
pay for these benefits, and has instead focused on estimating flood risk and potential operational
needs. These estimates have been a matter of disagreement with Canada, discussed below.
Canadian Perspectives on CRT Review
Canada, represented by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development,
has the constitutional authority to negotiate international treaties. However, the Canadian Entity
(BC) has been the primary entity engaged in Treaty review to date. BC initiated studies to
synthesize its perspective on the Treaty beginning in 2011. These studies resulted in a decision,
finalized in March 2013, to continue the Treaty while “seeking improvements within the existing
Treaty framework.”42 The principles outlined by BC include, among other things, specific
requirements and expectations for called-upon flood control operations and a formal statement of
the province’s belief that the Canadian Entitlement does not account for the full “range” of
benefits accruing to the United States and the impacts on BC. The principles also acknowledge
that the potential for ecosystem-based improvements “inside and outside the treaty” is an
important consideration for the Treaty, but contend that management of salmon populations
(including restoration of habitat) is not a Treaty issue per se.43 Some of the primary differences
between the two countries are explained further below.
Over the course of its review, BC documented its disagreement with several of the review
findings by the U.S. Entity. It argued that, in contrast to the claims of many U.S. interests, the
United States actually benefits from the CRT more than Canada.44 In particular, Canada disagreed
with some of the U.S. Entity findings and recommendations pertaining to flood control,
hydropower, and ecosystem flows. For instance, Canada noted its disagreement with the U.S.
Entity’s previous findings related to flood control benefits and expected operations. It argued that
the United States has saved billions of dollars as a result of Canadian storage over the life of the
Treaty, and that an agreed-upon operational plan for flood control storage similar to the current
approach would be preferable to both entities in lieu of the scheduled transition to called-upon
flood control operations in 2024. In particular, Canada has disagreed with the U.S. Entity’s
projections of the need and cost for called-upon flood control after 2024, including the expected
runoff “trigger” for called-upon Canadian flood storage.45 In essence, Canada has argued that
smaller U.S. reservoirs that are not currently used for flood control are actually able to provide
flood storage, and would be responsible for doing so under the Treaty’s requirement that
“effective use” be made of U.S. storage before called-upon storage is required (generally the

42 Province of British Columbia, Columbia River Treaty Review: B.C. Decision, March 13, 2014.
43 According to the BC decision document, restoration of salmon habitat is the responsibility of the government of
Canada and should be handled outside of the Treaty.
44 Province of British Columbia, “U.S. Benefits from the Columbia River Treaty—Past, Present, and Future: A
Province of British Columbia Perspective,” June 25, 2013. Hereinafter, “British Columbia U.S. Benefits Study.”
45 The actual trigger for called-upon flood control operations, as well as the cost for these operations, is not currently
defined in the Treaty and is likely to be an important point in negotiations between the two countries. While the U.S.
Entity has projected that a range of peak flows at the Dalles (a large dam near the mouth of the Columbia River) from
450,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 650,000 cfs would activate available Canadian storage, the Canadian Entity has
assumed that it would provide called-upon storage only once flows reach 600,000 cfs (which is expected to be rare). If
Canada only provides storage under these scenarios, some U.S. dams may need to be operated to account for an
increased flood risk.
Congressional Research Service

11

Columbia River Treaty Review

United States has not assumed this would be the case). Canada argues that these new operations
would result in forgone benefits to the United States associated with hydropower generation and
fisheries, among other things, and thus called-upon operations may not be as cost-effective as
some in the United States have projected. The Canadian Entity estimates that, for power
production alone, called-upon operations would result in $40 million to $150 million per year in
lost benefits to the United States.46 In contrast, using its own assumptions, the U.S. Entity has
previously estimated costs of between $4 million and $34 million per request for called-upon
flood control, but has not projected the same level of losses to U.S. generating capacity.47
Canada has also argued that the Canadian Entitlement is more equitable than previous analysis by
the U.S. Entity suggested, and thus that it should remain in place. In its report on U.S. benefits,
the Canadian Entity noted that it would see no reason for the Treaty to continue or be renegotiated
without the Canadian Entitlement.48 Among other things, Canada has argued that the reliability of
operations provided for under the Treaty allows for generation that is worth more to the United
States than the Canadian Entitlement. The Canadian Entity also noted that if the Treaty were
terminated, the lack of reliable expectations for Canadian flow would constrain U.S. hydropower
benefits.49 As previously noted, the U.S. Entity has projected that under a Treaty termination
scenario, the United States would gain significant revenue while Canadian net revenues would be
expected to decrease, largely due to the termination of the Canadian Entitlement.50
The Role of Congress in Treaty Review
The President, through the National Security Council, determines the negotiating position on the
CRT, and the State Department is responsible for conducting negotiations related to the Treaty.
However, Congress is also involved in this process. The Constitution entrusts the Senate with the
power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch.51 The Senate
does not ratify treaties; instead it takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate may
formally provide its advice and consent on the ratification process. The Senate is not required to
provide an up or down vote on a resolution of ratification, nor are treaties required to be
resubmitted after each Congress.52
The Senate would take up a new resolution of ratification for the CRT only if the United States
and Canada agreed to Treaty modifications and the executive branch submitted the modification
to the Senate for review. If the United States and Canada continued the Treaty without
modification or if either entity provided a notice of termination, there would be no apparent
advice and consent role for the Senate.53 In case of a termination by either country, the Treaty

46 British Columbia U.S. Benefits Study, p. 11.
47 In contrast to Canada, the U.S. Entity appears to have assumed limited losses associated with hydropower generation
due to altered operations for maximum power production by Canada, but has not assumed significant losses resulting
from new flood control operations at U.S. dams.
48 British Columbia U.S. Benefits Study, p. 21.
49 To date, Canada has not produced estimates of the cost of this lack of reliability. British Columbia U.S. Benefits
Study, p. 12.
50 U.S. Entity, Recent Study Results, p. 7.
51 For more on the Senate’s role in treaty consideration, see CRS Report 98-384, Senate Consideration of Treaties, by
Valerie Heitshusen, or http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm.
52 Some treaties have lain “dormant” in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for multiple Congresses.
53 For more background on the Senate’s role in treaty termination, see CRS Report RL32528, International Law and
Agreements: Their Effect upon U.S. Law
, by Stephen P. Mulligan, at p. 23.
Congressional Research Service

12

Columbia River Treaty Review

does not address whether such a notice could be reversed (i.e., by a different Administration)
prior to the termination date.
In the past, the House and Senate both have weighed in on Treaty review with oversight
hearings.54 Some Members of Congress also have weighed in on Treaty discussions through other
avenues, including letters to the Obama and Trump Administrations expressing concern over the
slow pace of negotiations.55 On June 29, 2021, a bicameral group of Pacific Northwest lawmakers
wrote to President Biden urging prompt negotiation of a modernized CRT, noting among other
things the need for a strategy and funding requests for called-upon flood control operations
beginning in 2024 (i.e., as early as FY2023).56
Congress also has considered resolutions and authorizing provisions related to the CRT. In the
117th Congress, the December 6, 2022, Rules Committee print of H.R. 7776 included provisions
in Section 8309 related to future called-upon flood control operations in the basin. The bill would
formally authorize the Secretary of the Army to expend funds for called-upon flood control
operations only when such funds are appropriated by Congress for these purposes. It also would
require reporting on the expenditure of these funds and would authorize the Corps to study
options for U.S.-based flood control with the potential to reduce the need for Canadian calls.
Previously, in the 116th Congress, a resolution (H.Con.Res. 126) would have called for the
Secretary of State to issue a notice of termination based on the inequity of the Treaty’s
commercial power provisions.


Author Information

Charles V. Stern

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy


54 The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on CRT Review on November 7, 2013. The
House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on CRT Review on December 9, 2013.
55 Letter from Pacific Northwest Delegation to President Obama, April 14, 2015, and Letter from Reps. Dan Newhouse,
Kurt Schrader, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Peter DeFazio, Greg Walden, Jaime Herrera Beutler, and Dave Reichert to
President Trump, June 21, 2017.
56 Letter from Pacific Northwest Delegation to President Biden, June 29, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

13

Columbia River Treaty Review



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R43287 · VERSION 24 · UPDATED
14