Can Canada turn off the faucet?

When will Canada’s recent shift to economic sovereignty reach the Columbia River Treaty? Or are changes already in the works?

In six weeks of travel across the upper Columbia River basin, I can confirm that the famous Canadian modesty reigns. Canada’s contributions to the international river system have long been underrated by the U.S.. My fellow Canadians in the upper basin still seem largely unaware of the riches that surround them.

Many recent public and private dinner table discussions about the Columbia River Treaty have demonstrated to me that while Canadians are generally (and justifiably) outraged by the recent broken trust between the two countries, the treaty is still somewhat of a bear in hibernation. Prime minister Mark Carney, and other public figures have said nary a word, other than to offer a hint.

In March, I attended public a webinar about the treaty, and listened to the B.C. Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, Adrian Dix. Dix seemed to know his stuff. He spoke with an informed passion about Canada’s 50% share of the international river’s water volume, something rarely heard in these days of instant opinions.

At one point, Dix looked directly into the camera and said Everything is now on the table, and I mean EVERYTHING.

What did Dix mean? Well, after I’ve watched and listened to policy wonks and government representatives for 20 years, this was no mere comment about faucets and water pouring out of the north. Dix was likely making direct reference to a clause in the 1964 agreement that allows either country to serve a ten-year notice of termination. Americans speaking out about the treaty have long opined that Canada would never do this, because river operations would not be measurably different…..it’s really nothing to worry about…….

Not so fast. Canadian contributions are essential to the U.S. in many ways. Massive storage capacity brought about the treaty. That storage matters. Withdrawing the current water regime, i.e., turning off the faucet, would be a big deal.

Driving north from Spokane, WA this September, I followed state highway 25. It more or less tracks the Lake Roosevelt Reservoir, a massive body of water backing up behind northeastern Washington’s Grand Coulee Dam. This reservoir was completely full to the brim, a completely unnatural condition for a dry landscape in early autumn. Once I crossed the border into B.C., things changed quite dramatically, especially for those living in the Arrow Lakes Valley, the path of the main stem of the great river. There, deep drawdowns had drained the reservoir noticeably, much to the ire of residents there.

The massive Grand Coulee generator system and thirsty irrigation needs of northeastern Washington are just a few side-benefits from the treaty, dwarfing the 1964 birth of the Canadian Entitlement. (If you want to break your brain in half, read the wiki link, scrolling to “Treaty Provisions.”) As I wrote in April, the entire U.S. system has no cultural memory of the Columbia River without Canadian water storage. Reliable flows have always mattered to U.S. electricity generation. In this era, they also matter for U.S. agriculture, for continued U.S. construction of new data centers, and (case in point 2012), for more extreme flood control needs in a changing climate.

This is the stark reality of the Columbia River Treaty. Canada must send water at U.S. request in certain, agreed-upon ways. The treaty is also “in perpetuity” which means that Canada will continue to respond to requests in a legally binding way, unless the two countries agree on a new deal, or unless either country announces an intent to terminate.

To my fellow citizens south of the line: it’s time to wake up. These times, they are a changin’. To my fellow citizens north of the line, I’m proud of your recent response to unreasonable trade tariffs. I urge you to continue to broaden your understanding of sovereign economic policy. What might it mean to turn off Canada’s steady supply of water to a country once considered to be a good neighbor and friend?