NW treaty needs an update

Last week’s 50th anniversary of the Columbia River Treaty between the United States and Canada rolled on unacknowledged. Even a Northwest version of “Jeopardy!” would evoke blank stares, speculating on newsreel of President Lyndon Johnson and Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson as they sat below dishwater skies at the Peace Arch in Blaine.

“President Johnson had his 10-gallon hat and he didn’t even seem to notice the rain,” wrote the Bellingham Herald’s Ken Robertson.

But there are aspects to the agreement as outdated as LBJ’s cowboy hat. The treaty, which focuses on everything from flood control to hydro power and irrigation and has served as a template for other nations managing transboundary water disputes, needs to be modernized.

“After a multi-year process, it is clear the treaty in its current form needs to be updated to meet the modern-day issues facing the Columbia River Basin, the greater Northwest region and the nation,” Sen. Patty Murray said after the U.S. “entity” (the Bonneville Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) issued its recommendations to the State Department last December.

The devil is in the updated details, however, so vague language on strategies will need to suffice. For now.

As Steve Klein, the CEO of the Snohomish County PUD, said in a statement about the treaty, “It matters to everyone’s monthly electric bill.” Klein and other members of the Columbia River Treaty Power Group, comprised of electric utilities and industry associations, are pushing to eliminate the Canadian entitlement, which dings Northwest ratepayers. Terminating the treaty, which requires 10-years’ written notice, would trigger renegotiation. It’s an option, especially if Canada doesn’t agree to a more equitable sharing of benefits.

But there’s much more to treaty modernization than cheap hydro power and flood control. And here’s where the treaty betrays its age: Unlike the 1980 Northwest Power Act, there’s no ecosystem-based management, let alone accommodation for tribes and fish passage.

“Today we recognize fish, wildlife, riparian habitat conditions, water quality and water temperatures as vital issues for the treaty. All of these omissions from the current treaty are wrong from our 21st century perspective,” a coalition of religious and indigenous groups wrote. And what of climate change?

Harmonizing science, ecosystem health and fair play for tribes into a new Columbia River Treaty is Nobel Peace Prize-worthy. Ambitious, yes, but it needs to happen.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Editorial: Woodard, Paul for state House’s 10th District

The Herald endorses: Suzanne Woodard and Dave Paul for the ‘purple’ multi-county legislative district.

Editorial cartoons for Friday, July 10

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Editorial: What history is owed through our monuments

The decisions regarding whom we honor in our public squares require deliberation and consensus.

Editorial: It’s not just baseball that we may have to wait for

The AquaSox season is canceled. But if we don’t get a grip on COVID, we risk losing much more.

Editorial: Everett police reforms a template for others

The department’s response to an on-camera arrest shows the value of its recent reforms in policing.

Comment: America’s confused obsession with Mary Kay Letourneau

There was a faction of the population that was willing to treat the rape saga as a fairy tale.

Comment: Cancel culture a threat; just not for its detractors

The message of a joint letter defending free speech risks getting lost in its co-signers’ celebrity.

Some things to consider before you vote

We are facing many repeat candidates on the ballot this year. They… Continue reading

Forests aren’t good source for public revenue

Forests are important to the health of the planet, and to the… Continue reading

Most Read