The renegotiation of the Columbia River Treaty is not a bargaining chip to be used for international trade relations between Canada and the United States amid an escalating tariff dispute, according to a B.C. cabinet minister.
Terminating the treaty as a retaliatory measure to U.S. trade policies would not have any immediate impact, as both sides require notice of a decade in order to unilaterally end the agreement, said Adrian Dix, the provincial minister responsible for the treaty modernization efforts
"In short, Canadian action to terminate the treaty would have little effect on the current dispute and would obviously involve losses on all sides," Dix said, "but lets be clear, we're going to defend our interests even if terminating the treaty — as one of those tools — is not effective in our current dispute with the United States."
Dix spoke on the current status of the treaty negotiations during a virtual public info session held on March 25 that featured elected officials and the members of the negotiating team, including First Nations representatives.
Dix said negotiators remain committed to working with the Americans when they are ready to engage, as the U.S. government has paused negotiations in order to review the State Department's international engagement.
The minister also addressed recent commentary from U.S. President Donald Trump, who made reference to water sources in B.C. as a "faucet" that the U.S. can harness for its own purposes.
The original treaty facilitated the construction of three dams in B.C. — Mica, Duncan and Keenleyside — on the Columbia River system, while a fourth was built in Libby, Mont., along the Kootenay River, which snakes through the U.S. before re-entering Canada near Creston and flowing into Kootenay Lake.
"We need to be clear that the water has flowed and continues to flow along the Columbia River downstream into the United States," said Dix. "The B.C. treaty dams are used to manage the timing and volume on the Columbia River and provide flows across the Canada-U.S. border consistent with treaty operating plans. Once the water crosses the border, the U.S. can manage it for their own domestic purposes however they see fit.
"In other words, the river flows into the United States and at that point, it becomes their water to manage. So the idea that Canada can supply water through the treaty for broad American needs is not accurate and is not a concern although it reflects, I think, the nature of the current debate and intentions expressed towards Canada in the American government."
Ratified in 1964, the original Columbia River Treaty was intended as a water-sharing agreement between Canada and the United States as a mechanism to provide downstream flood-risk management and power generation.
Efforts to update the treaty have been underway for over a decade, as formal negotiations between the two countries began in 2018. Columbia Basin Indigenous Nations — the Ktunaxa, Secwépemc and Syilx Okanagan — are included in the Canadian delegation and have led the way on environmental elements of the treaty such as ecosystem preservation and salmon reintroduction initiatives.
Those talks culminated in an Agreement-in-Principle (AIP) last summer, which contains commitments and serves as a framework that both Canada and the U.S. can rely on while drafting a modernized treaty. The AIP is not legally binding and must go through federal legislative approvals in both countries.
Specific elements of the AIP include increased domestic flexibility, pre-planned flood control, compensation for flood risk management, establishing a Indigenous and Tribal advisory body, ensuring flows for salmon reintroduction initiatives, and creating a transboundary Kootenay/Kootenai working group.
Historically, consultation with Columbia Basin Indigenous Nations during the drafting of the original treaty was essentially non-existent.
“A modernized treaty would recognize and honour Ktunaxa rights and title as stewards at the Columbia Headwaters,” said Kathryn Teneese, chair of the Ktunaxa Nation Council, in a press release issued March 19. “The current pause in the treaty’s renegotiation provides our Nation with a critical opportunity to advance domestic discussions and address longstanding grievances stemming from the treaty’s historic impacts.”
The proposed terms also see a reduction in the "Canadian Entitlement" — the compensation provided in the form of generated hydro electricity based on market rates instead of a monetary transaction — that B.C. and Canada receives from the United States.
Assured flood control provisions expired in 2024, however, both Canada and the U.S. also recently reached an interim agreement for measures that will ensure the pre-planned flood risk management terms set out in the AIP are implemented for a three-year period, as well as ensuring the payment of the Canadian Entitlement until 2044.
The need to establish more permanent provisions beyond the interim agreement will encourage the United States to to return to the negotiating table, said Dix.
The effort to update the treaty formally began during the first Trump term and stretched into the Biden presidency. however, given the current political environment in the U.S., Dix noted it would have been preferable to have an updated treaty already signed.
"That has not happened but I think the values involved remain important and we've got to continue at this point not to be shaken by the noise, but to see the possibility that the renewed treaty will bring, and to continue to work for it and to stand strongly in our positions and we surely intent to do that."
