International Water Scarcity and Variability by Dinar Shlomi; Dinar Ariel;

Author:Dinar, Shlomi; Dinar, Ariel;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: University of California Press

The Case of the Columbia River

The Columbia River is shared between upstream Canada and the downstream United States. The latter is mightier than the former in aggregate-power terms. While the 1961 Columbia River agreement14 has benefitted both riparians, the negotiation process and a reading of the treaty point to Canada’s use of its superior upstream position to extract concessions from the U.S.

Specifically, post-war America was booming in the 1950s and the need for electricity was increasing considerably.15 (Flood control was another priority for the U.S.) Upstream Canada likewise considered its increasing power demands and economic growth (LeMarquand 1977, 56). Cooperation would therefore provide benefits to both countries, given their scarcity in energy and flood-control benefits.

Interestingly, Canada was at first reluctant to go ahead with any projects unless it was assured of receiving some compensation for the unrealized benefits it was to send downstream to the U.S. (Lepawsky 1963, 542; Krutilla 1966, 10; LeMarquand 1976, 886; Barrett 1994, 22; Housen-Couriel 1994, 16; Giordano 2003a, 371). Barrett (1994) notes that the U.S. believed that Canada would want to develop the Columbia River on its side of the border anyway, and so felt that it did not need to compensate Canada for constructing the project. When Canada threatened to construct an alternative project on a different river, which would provide the U.S. with no benefits, the U.S. heeded the threat as a credible one, and Canada was able to secure a more attractive deal (22).

The agreement stipulated that Canada construct the dams which would provide the improved stream flow and regulation and thereby increased hydropower generation (and flood control) in the U.S. Half of the downstream power benefits produced in the U.S., and created by the enhanced water flow, were to be provided to Canada. The Canadian entitlement was considered surplus energy, at the time, and was sold to the U.S.

Krutilla (1966) likewise notes that the treaty cannot be considered an isolated affair. In addition to the compensation provided to Canada, issue linkage was likewise affected. According to Krutilla, the Columbia River system was an arena in which the U.S. could make an attractive arrangement in exchange for concessions perhaps involving North American continental defense or perhaps other areas in which the vital interests of the U.S. were at stake (96).

In all, Canada’s bargaining position was strengthened given its upstream position, where the majority of infrastructure per the Columbia River agreement was to be built. Consequently, it could extract particular concessions from the downstream riparian and shape the final outcome. At the end, side payments and benefit-sharing projects (hydropower and flood-control facilities) incentivized cooperation.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.