Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review 1 WA Association of Counties April 25, 2013.
-
Upload
georgia-ruskin -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review 1 WA Association of Counties April 25, 2013.
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
1
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY 2014/2024
REVIEWWA Association of Counties
April 25, 2013
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
2
Presentation Topics1. Why review the Treaty now?2. Washington State Interests.3. What if we continue the
Treaty?4. What if we terminate the
Treaty?5. What if we
modernizeTreaty?6. Can the Treaty provide
water supplies for WA and OR?
7. Next Steps.8. The Sovereign Review Team
Process.
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
3
Why review the Treaty now? While the Treaty has no specified end date,
either nation can unilaterally terminate most provisions as early as September 2024 with 10 years’ advanced written notice.
The region is working to deliver a recommendation to the U.S. State Department by Fall 2013 so they are ready to act if necessary by September 2014.
(Some Treaty flood risk operations expire in 2024. Other flood risk elements in the Treaty continue past 2024.)
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
4
Washington State Interests(in no particular order)
Power generation Salmon and resident fish Flood control Water supply,
agriculture, municipal (including Columbia River Water Management Program)
Recreation Navigation Tribal cultural resources
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
5
What if we continue the Treaty?
NW ratepayers continue to pay $200 million to $300 million/yr for one tenth the benefit.
Flood risk affected by expiration of assured storage. Draft U.S. reservoirs deeper, more often.
Same level of certainty about flows. Can negotiate additional fish flows
with Canada from Treaty and nonTreaty storage.
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
6
What if we terminate the Treaty?
NW ratepayers gain $200 million to $300 million/yr
Canada loses a comparable amount.
Water flows are likely to fall in the summer and winter and
rise in the spring. Flood risk may increase and U.S. reservoirs
are drafted deeper, more often as a result. Request flood storage from Canada more often (called upon).
More uncertainty about flows across the border.
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
7
Modernizing: Can the Treaty improve U.S. power benefits?
Current Treaty operations come close to generating maximum power values
May reduce the size of the Canadian entitlements
Change the delivery point for the Canadian entitlement from Oliver, British Columbia.
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
8
Modernizing: Can the Treaty provide better benefits for fish?
Enhanced spring flows benefit juvenile migrants but raise dissolved gas and flood risk while reducing power generation.
Enhanced summer and dry year flows benefit juvenile and adult migrants with smaller negative impacts.
More stable reservoirs would help resident fish (i.e. Lake Roosevelt)
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
9
Modernizing: Can the Treaty provide the same level of flood risk?
Assured storage in Canada may reduce the depth and frequency of required drafts in the U.S.
A new agreement could reduce uncertainty about U.S. “effective use” and “called upon.”
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
10
Modernizing: Can the Treaty provide the same level of flood risk?
County State % of Expected Annual
Damages1 Pend Oreille County WA 39.31%2 Flathead County MT 25.27%3 Sanders County MT 11.97%4 Multnomah County OR 9.83%5 Cowlitz County WA 3.14%6 Bonner County ID 2.61%7 Clark County WA 1.59%8 Columbia County OR 1.36%9 Lincoln County MT 1.14%10Clatsop County OR 1.09%
Results from analysis of post 2024 given current operating conditions.
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
11
Modernizing: Can the Treaty provide water supplies for WA and OR?
Tested the availability of 1.5 MAF between April and October
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
12
Modernizing: Can the Treaty provide water supplies for WA and OR?
Conclusion: 1.5 Maf may be available in many but not all years.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70End
of M
arch
Add
ition
al S
tora
ge R
elat
ive
to 2
A-TC
(maf
)
These estimates assume Mica stores water October-March so long as: -100kcfs or chum flow requirements are met at Bonneville Dam. -Mica and Arrow meet minimum flow requirements.
Estimates of Potential Additional Canadian Storage
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
13
Will the draft recommendations from the Federal Entity include: Entitlements: Equitable sharing of power
benefits Ecosystem function: Additional Treaty
purpose to include expansion of spring, summer and dry year flows for ecosystem
Flood risk: Provide the same level of flood risk
Water supply: Reasonable amount of water for spring and summer use
Climate change: An adaptable and flexible Treaty
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
14
Will the draft recommendations from the Federal Entity include:
More work for the United States Review flood risk policy in the Columbia
Basin U.S. process to determine use of potential
Canadian storage: spring vs. summer, in-stream vs. out-of-stream
Assess the savings from reducing entitlements
Consider modification of the U.S. Entity Regional flood plain restoration strategy
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
15
Next Steps Complete final analysis (Iteration 3):
Testing a modernized Treaty. Is there a regional Treaty
recommendation? Continue, terminate, or modify Elements to be included in a new or
modified treaty Deliver regional recommendation by Fall
2013 Negotiate with Canada
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
16
Regional Processes
Sovereign Review Team (and Technical Team): States: WA, OR, ID, MT NW Tribes: 5 representatives (USRT, CRITFC, UCUT, Cowlitz,
CSKT) Federal Agencies: NMFS, USFWS, BOR, USACE, BPA, BLM,
EPA, USFS, USGS, BIA, NPS
NW Stakeholders: Additional Outreach Regional workshops, open houses Joint Sovereign Policy Group/Stakeholder meetings Technical consultation with regional experts among stakeholders
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
17
End
Tom KarierWA Member of NW Power and
Conservation [email protected](509) 359-2470
Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review
18
Arrow - Average Outflow - All Years
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
cfs
CC 450 TC 450 TT 600 TC 600 TT
Key Assumption: Canadian Operations Post-2024, Treaty Terminates
Current Conditions/Treaty Continues• Outflows from Arrow are still limited by
Treaty power and flood control requirements.
• The limited number of Called Upon years had less impact than the power requirements.
Treaty Terminates• Outflows are relatively
constant across the year.
• Flows are a result of an optimal power operation for Canada, not the Treaty.
Under Treaty Continues alternatives, the bump in outflows from Arrow in the Aug/Sept/Oct period are a result of proportional draft requirements.