Challenging conversations: a unique Stanford symposium on the Columbia River

Last week, Americans and Canadians gathered at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California to discuss the Columbia River Treaty, its proposed agreement in principle, and the uncertain future of the watershed’s cooperative management. For me, it was a trip back to the undergraduate university where I first learned how to think independently and write well. I am so grateful for the influence of Wallace Stegner, founder of the university’s creative writing program.

The event was sponsored by the Bill Lane Center for the American West. That alone demonstrates a broadening interest in the treaty, even at academic institutions that are not within or near the watershed. No question about it: the Columbia is finally getting its due as the great river of the west it always has been. You can find the full agenda here

While some high profile politicians attended and spoke, the highlight for me was to see the superb panel of Indigenous leaders discussing efforts to restore salmon. They live by values, first. The panel included the upper Columbia’s advocate, DR Michel, a Sinixt descendant and Executive Director of UCUT.org. Aja DeCoteau, Executive Director of CRITFC reminded the audience that the tribes in the sprawling international basin are all salmon people. I never tire of hoping for ethics to combine with the economics of river management.

When Stanford professor emeritus of history David Kennedy asked me at the break what had inspiring Indigenous voices to rise, my answer was quick: They have always been speaking from the heart. We are the ones who have started to listen.

Of course, no discussion about the Columbia would be complete without hearing from economists and hydropower producers. During dinner, I dialogued with the affable and adept Kurt Miller, CEO and Executive Director of the Northwest Public Power Association. I heard some of the same old story – the critical need for hydropower energy; plenty of justification for taking far more from the river than giving back. There remains a sense of entitlement in many power producers throughout the basin, but especially those in the United States on the mid-Columbia, who have relied for 60 years on Canadian treaty flows. They really cannot imagine anything else.

And that leads me to the final takeaway: current American and Canadian relations.

The general atmosphere in the room was one of American embarrassment, and even some shame, about the unfriendly atmosphere created by the U.S. administration. I learned that an earlier draft of the agenda hoped for both American and Canadian negotiators to be part of the panel discussions. That possibility evaporated, and we all know why. The closing keynote by Murray Rankin, KC, former British Columbia Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, gently summarized the betrayal and anger felt in Canada. Americans applauded in support, especially when he offered a liberal dose of Canadian pride. Did I detect some envy in the room?

As a dual citizen, straddling the middle, I sense that the story of a cooperative agreement between countries is not over. I also feel a rare back-eddy of American humility alongside a surge of Canadian pride. I was asked several times what I thought might happen to the Agreement in Principle, to the treaty itself. Who could possibly know how this will all play out? But for what it’s worth, my Canadian half knows that water storage upstream creates reliable flows downstream that have been taken too much for granted. My American half is relieved to see that the country that formed and shaped me has not finished learning how water really works. And as I’ve said before, Americans are gradually learning that gravity and dignity both really matter.

To be continued.