Elbows Up for the Columbia River Treaty?

Will Canada’s recent trade stand-off with the U.S. influence its stance on the Columbia River Treaty? I’ve been rolling this question around in my mind lately…..

Back when Elbow’s Up began in early 2025, Adrian Dix, British Columbia cabinet Minister for Energy Mines and Resources, threw a soft pitch during a webinar attended by many worried or curious treaty geeks. Referring to the status of the 2024 Agreement in Principle (AIP), he was saying not even a year later: “everything is on the table.”

I’ve blogged before about the AIP, a sort-of “modernized” treaty between the two countries, motivated by the 2024 expiration of the 1964 flood control provisions.

Formal acceptance by both countries had slipped into a back eddy after the election of a new U.S. administration. An interim agreement provided some status quo until July, 2027. But according to Canadian legal expert Nigel Banks, the current interim agreement leans toward being more beneficial for the U.S.

Maybe Dix was throwing a hard ball? (Fellow treaty geeks can watch the webinar here and judge for themselves.)

One has to wonder if a quiet re-thinking of both the AIP and the entire transboundary system is now under way in Canada. Any number of scenarios could emerge before the temporary agreement expires in 2027.

Earlier this year, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney addressed the Economic Club of New York. His speech demonstrated Canada’s strengthening economic sovereignty.

In particular, Carney spoke of “strategic autonomy” related to the country’s resource management. This includes water.

He went on to define Canada as an “energy super-power,” one aimed at doubling domestic electricity output. Listening, I wondered: could changes to the upper Columbia River system be part of achieving that goal?

Carney also reminded his American audience that “85% of electricity imports to the US come from Canada.” Then, in the wake of worsening trade negotiations this week, the premier of Ontario (Doug Ford) announced a new tariff: on hydro-power kilowatts exported to several U.S. states.

Now, it’s important to clarify that the Columbia River Treaty does not involve electricity made in Canada and exported into the U.S. Pacific Northwest. But it certainly could. For over 60 years, the water stored in Canada has favoured power production in the U.S. It has required water releases from three enormous storage reservoirs in Canada, and when the U.S. asked for them.

Few Americans realize that the productivity and predictability of U.S. Columbia River power production in the Pacific Northwest is thanks to upstream Canadian water storage. Yes, there are downstream benefits paid north, but they do not offer Canada any actual sovereignty.

In conversations I’ve had with a few U.S.-based power producers, they seem to underestimate the value of reliability, which is understandable, because they have had that guarantee for over 60 years. One could imagine they might be assuming it would always be there.

Living under the treaty terms has never been a sweet deal for Canada. In the short term, most of the cost of constructing the three treaty dams was covered by the U.S. – in a one-time payment. But in the long term, the social and ecological harms to the upper Columbia River system in Canada have been catastrophic, and they are ongoing. You can read more about that here.

Could this be a moment for Canada to reclaim full control over its Columbia River water? Is it time to take apart the treaty system and rebuild it in a way that respects reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and repairs the damaged ecosystem?

Engineering and legal experts will continue to slice and dice the details. Politicians and industry will spin their stories or create fear, in an effort to maintain the status quo. But in the end, the fundamental laws of gravity are always at play. The treaty has a termination clause, and Canada has a choice.

The possibility of Canada serving 10-year’s notice to terminate seemed unimaginable five years ago. But so, too did Elbows Up….not to mention renaming Lake Ontario.

Listening to Carney at the mic, everything does appear to be on the table. Keep your eye on this treaty ball.