The Columbia River Treaty: A Critical View

Abstract

Every summer, tourists in large numbers are attracted to Grand Coulee Dam, which until recently was the world's largest. Part of the attraction is the water spilling over the dam in a man-made cascade more than twice as high as Niagara, and often carrying more water. Like Niagara, these artificial falls are illuminated at night for the tourists. The spectacle is one of wasted energy on a very large scale, and it is repeated at each of the dams downstream, which together with Grand Coulee are equivalent to eight Niagara Falls. If there has been a quick spring accompanied by abundant rain, great quantities of water almost inundate these dams. As it rushes to the sea, the water bursts its banks in the estuary, taking lives at will, and ruining millions of dollars worth of property at a time. The beauty of wasted energy is not only fascinating; it is too often deadly. Moreover, the waste is needless. The water which goes over the spillways to please the tourists could be used at a different time of the year to generate very cheap electricity; in the winter, the generators stand idle for much of the time for lack of water to drive them. In order to be used in a different season, the water needs to be stored in reservoirs, just as the wheat harvest must be stored in granaries if it is to be used during the winter season. It happens that the granaries of the Columbia River are for the most part located in Canada. There is, therefore, an opportunity for Canada and the United States to create great wealth by co-operating with one another on the Columbia River. The Columbia River controversy arises principally over where and when this wealth is to be created, and how it is to be shared. In the negotiations which have taken place, there are a number of points of direct conflict, in the sense that either Canada or the United States in the outcome will win at the expense of the other. Points which are not in conflict do not require negotiation.