Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Columbia River Treaty’s adaptive capacity for fish conservation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Major international agreements governing the shared use of transboundary waters rarely deal explicitly with species conservation, yet they often have major implications for aquatic, avian, and terrestrial species. To meet conservation objectives, it may be necessary to find flexibility, or “adaptive capacity” within these agreements to enable conservation measures. This study applies incident analysis to assess the adaptive capacity of the Canada–US Columbia River Treaty (CRT) to respond to evolving species conservation needs. Like many other transboundary agreements, the terms of the CRT cover power production, flood protection and irrigation, but not species conservation. We analyze the discourses and normative expectations of politically relevant actors regarding an international conflict with Canada over the use of flow modifications by US agencies to conserve an endangered species of sturgeon. Four distinct discourse coalitions formed around the issue, each with its own interpretation of the problem, normative expectations about the rules that should apply, and power to shape decision making. The incident highlights how domestic conservation laws can directly impinge upon an international transboundary water treaty, and how flexibility can be found within existing institutional arrangements for conservation purposes. However, new norms for fish conservation were not fully incorporated into the CRT and decision-making authority for conservation-related disputes became more entrenched in the Treaty’s implementing agencies, potentially further excluding actors who might support fish conservation, such as environmental organizations and Indigenous governments. We recommend strategies to increase the adaptive capacity of the CRT and similar international agreements to enable species conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used in this study cannot be shared due to the confidential nature of the interviews and many of the source documents.

References

  • Bankes, Nigel. 1996. The Columbia Basin and the Columbia River Treaty: Canadian Perspectives in the 1990s. Northwest Water Law & Policy Project, 1–116.

  • Bankes, Nigel. 2004. River Treaties and Changing Values. LawNow 28 (6) (Jun/Jul 2004).

  • Barton, G. J. (2004). Characterization of Channel Substrate and Changes in Suspended-Sediment Transport and Channel Geometry in White Sturgeon Spawning Habitat in the Kootenai River Near Bonners Ferry, Idaho, Following the Closure of Libby Dam. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4324. 1st ed. Reston, USA: United States Geological Survey

  • Belbin, S., & VanderZwaag, D. L. (2016). White sturgeon in jeopardy: Gauging the law and policy currents. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 19(1), 62–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events. George Washington University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff-Mattson, Z., & Lynch, A. H. (2016). Adaptive governance in water reform discourses of the Murray-Darling Basin Australia. Policy Sciences, 49(3), 281–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumm, M.C. 1980. Hydropower vs. Salmon: the Struggle of the Pacific Northwest's Anadromous Fish Resources for a Peaceful Coexistence with the Federal Columbia River Power System. Envtl. L. 11. HeinOnline: 211.

  • Brels, S., Coates, D., & Loures, F. (2009). Transboundary Water Resources Management: the Role of International Watercourse Agreements in Implementation of the CBD. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

  • British Columbia. (2014). Columbia River Treaty Review – BC Decision. BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, Victoria, Canada: Ministry of Energy and Mines. Retrieved on August 30, 2019 from: https://engage.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/bc-decision/

  • Canada, United States of America. (1964). The Columbia River Treaty Protocol and Related Documents. Department of External Affairs & Department of Northern Affairs National and Resources. Ottawa, Canada.

  • Canada. (1995). Note No. 010. Washington DC, USA: Canadian Embassy.

  • Clark, T. W., & Rutherford, M. B. (2005). Chapter 7: The institutional system of wildlife management: Making it more effective. In T. W. Clark, M. B. Rutherford, & D. Casey (Eds.), Coexisting with large carnivores lessons from greater yellowstone. Washington DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Columbia. (2013). U.S. Benefits From the Columbia River Treaty – Past, Present and Future: a Province of British Columbia Perspective. Victoria, Canada: BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, Retrieved on August 29, 2019 from: https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/6/2012/07/US-Benefits-from-CRT-June-20-13-2.pdf.

  • Convention on Biological Diversity, ed. (2008). COP 9 Decision IX/9: Biological Diversity of Inland Water Ecosystems. Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=11662.

  • Cromley, C. M. (2000). The killing of grizzly Bea. In T. W. Clark, A. R. Willard, & C. M. Cromley (Eds.), Foundations of natural resources policy and management. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, S., Anders, P., Ennis, G., Hallock, R., Hammond, J., Ireland, S., Laufle, J., Lauzier, R., Lockhard, L., & Marotz, B. (1999). Recovery Plan for Kootenai River White Sturgeon (Acipenser Transmontanus). Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 15(4–5), 157–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilman, R. T., Abell, R. A., & Williams, C. E. (2004). How can conservation biology inform the practice of integrated river basin management? International Journal of River Basin Management, 2(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2004.9635228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Affairs Canada. (2019). Federal government announces Columbia River Basin Indigenous Nations to participate as observers in Columbia River Treaty negotiations Government of Canada, Global Affairs Canada (accessed online August 30, 2019): https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2019/04/federal-government-announces-columbia-river-basin-indigenous-nations-to-participate-as-observers-in-columbia-river-treaty-negotiations.html

  • Hofferberth, M., & Weber, C. (2015). Lost in translation: a critique of constructivist norm research. Journal of International Relations and Development, 18(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2014.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal, 51(159), 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketchum, K., & Barroso, L. A. (2006). The Columbia river treaty - an example of effective cross-border river regulation. X Symposium of Specialists in Electric Operational and Expansion Planning May 21–25 (March): 1–11.

  • Kock, T. J., Congleton, J. L., & Anders, P. J. (2006). Effects of sediment cover on survival and development of white sturgeon embryos. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 26(1), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1577/M05-073.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, H. H. (2007). Is there a new New Haven School of International Law. Yale Journal of International Law, 32, 559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, M. (2013). Reflections on the New Haven School. The New York Law School Law Review, 58, 919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of the policy sciences. American Elsevier Publishing Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Hoffman, L., Varady, R. G., Flessa, K. W., & Balvanera, P. (2010). Ecosystem services across borders: A framework for transboundary conservation policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(2), 84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattson, D. J., & Clark, S. G. (2012). The discourses of incidents: Cougars on Mt. Elden and in Sabino Canyon Arizona. Policy Sciences, 45(4), 315–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R., Nelson, J., Paragamian, V., & Barton, G. (2010). Modeling the effect of flow and sediment transport on white sturgeon spawning habitat in the Kootenai river Idaho. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 136(12), 1077–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medema, W., McIntosh, B. S., & Jeffrey, P. J. (2008). From premise to practice: A critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagtzaam, G. (2009). The making of international environmental treaties: Neoliberal and constructivist analyses of normative evolution. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., Minchin, P. R., O'Hara, R. B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., Szoecs, E., & Wagner, H. (2018). Vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 2.4–6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan

  • OSU. (2012). International freshwater treaties database. Portland, OR: Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University. http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/database/interfreshtreatdata.html.

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Gupta, J., & Petry, D. (2008). Governance and the global water system: A theoretical exploration. Global Governance, 14, 419–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paisley, R. (2002). Adversaries into partners: International water law and the equitable sharing of downstream benefits. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 3(2), 280–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paragamian, V. L. (2012). Kootenai River white sturgeon: Synthesis of two decades of research. Endangered Species Research, 17(2), 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paragamian, V. L., Beamesderfer, R. C. P., & Ireland, S. C. (2005). Status, population dynamics, and future prospects of the endangered Kootenai river white sturgeon population with and without hatchery intervention. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134(2), 518–532. https://doi.org/10.1577/T03-011.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paragamian, V. L., Kruse, G., & Wakkinen, V. (2001). Spawning habitat of Kootenai River white sturgeon, Post-Libby dam. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21(1), 22–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paragamian, V. L., McDonald, R., John Nelson, G., & Barton, G. (2009). Kootenai River velocities, depth, and white sturgeon spawning site selection–A mystery unraveled? Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25(6), 640–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/

  • Schmeier, S., Gerlak, A. K., & Blumstein, S. (2015). Clearing the muddy waters of shared watercourses governance: Conceptualizing international River Basin Organizations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(4), 597–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, A., & Clark, D. (2018). “It’s just a matter of time:” Lessons from agency and community responses to polar bear-inflicted human injury. Conservation and Society, 16(1), 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. B., & Crossman, E. J. (1973). Freshwater fishes of Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Fisheries Research Board of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommerwerk, N., Bloesch, J., Paunovic, M., Baumgartner, C., Venohr, M., Schnieder-Jacoby, M., Hein, T., & Tockner, K. (2010). Managing the world’s most international river: The Danube River Basin. Marine and Freshwater Research, 61(7), 736–813.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swainson, N. A. (1979). Conflict over the Columbia: The Canadian background to an historic treaty. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titscher, S., Myer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • US Entity. (2013). U.S. entity regional recommendation for the future of the Columbia River treaty after 2024. US Entity to the Columbia River Treaty.

  • USFWS. (1999). Recovery plan for the white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus): Kootenai River Population. Portland, USA: Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 96 p. plus appendices.

  • Vernon, M. E., Bischoff-Mattson, Z., & Clark, S. G. (2015). Discourses of Elk hunting and Grizzly bear incidents in grand Teton national park. Wyoming. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 21(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2016.1099766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, J. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy sciences, 22(2), 97–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willard, A. R. (1984). Incidents: An essay in method. Yale Journal of International Law, 10, 21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. (2007). The Pacific Salmon treaty: A historical analysis and prescription for the future. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 22(153), 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This author funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Cedar Morton

  2. School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

    Cedar Morton & Murray Rutherford

Authors
  1. Cedar Morton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Murray Rutherford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cedar Morton.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Key articles and sections of the Columbia River Treaty

Columbia River Treaty, Article VII

2.1 Determination of Downstream Power Benefits

  1. (1)

    The downstream power benefits shall be the difference in the hydroelectric power capable of being generated in the USA with and without the use of Canadian. Storage, determined in advance and is referred to in the Treaty as the downstream power benefits.

  2. (2)

    For the purpose of determining the downstream power benefits:

    1. (a}

      The principles and procedures set out in Annex B shall be used and followed;

    2. (b}

      The Canadian storage shall be considered as next added to 13.000.000 acre-feet of the usable storage listed in Column 4 of the table in Annex B;

    3. (c}

      The hydroelectric facilities included in the base system shall be considered as being operated to make the most effective use for hydroelectric power generation of the improvement in stream flow resulting from operation of the Canadian storage.

  3. (3)

    The downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled shall be delivered as follows:

    1. (a}

      Dependable hydroelectric capacity as scheduled by the Canadian entity. and

    2. (b}

      Average annual usable hydroelectric energy in equal amounts each month. or in accordance with a modification agreed upon under paragraph (4).

  4. (4)

    Modification of the obligation in paragraph (3) (b) may be agreed upon by the entities.

Columbia River Treaty, Article XII

3.1 Kootenai River development

  1. (1)

    The USA for a period of five years from the ratification date has the option to commence construction of a dam on the Kootenai River near Libby, Montana, to provide storage to meet flood control and other purposes in the USA. The storage reservoir of the dam shall not raise the level of the Kootenai River at the Canada–USA boundary above an elevation consistent with a normal full pool elevation at the dam of 2,459 feet, USA Coast and Geodetic Survey datum. 1929 General Adjustment. 1947 International Supplemental Adjustment.

  2. (2)

    All benefits which occur in either country from the construction and operation of the storage accrue to the country in which the benefits occur.

  3. (3)

    The USA shall exercise its option by written notice to Canada and shall submit with the notice a schedule of construction which shall include provision for commencement of construction, whether by way of railroad relocation work or otherwise, within five years of the ratification date.

  4. (4)

    If the USA exercises its option, Canada in consideration of the benefits accruing to it under paragraph (2) shall prepare and make available for flooding the land in Canada necessary for the storage reservoir of the dam within a period consistent with the construction schedule.

  5. (5)

    If a variation in the operation of the storage is considered by Canada to be of advantage to it the USA shall, upon request, consult with Canada. If the USA determines that the variation would not be to its disadvantage it shall vary the operation accordingly.

  6. (6)

    The operation of the storage by the USA shall be consistent with any order of approval which may be in force from time to time relating to the levels of Kootenay Lake made by the International Joint Commission under the Boundary Waters Treaty, 1909.

  7. (7)

    Any obligation of Canada under this Article ceases if the USA, having exercised the option, does not commence construction of the dam in accordance with the construction schedule.

  8. (8)

    If the USA exercises the option it shall commence full operation of the storage within seven years of the date fixed in the construction schedule for commencement of construction.

  9. (9)

    If Canada considers that any portion of the land referred to in paragraph (4) is no longer needed for the purpose of this Article Canada and the USA, at the request of Canada, shall consider modification of the obligation of Canada in paragraph (4).

  10. (10)

    If the Treaty is terminated before the end of the useful life of the dam Canada shall for the remainder of the useful life of the dam continue to make available for the storage reservoir of the dam any portion of the land made available under paragraph (4) that is not required by Canada for purposes of diversion of the Kootenay River under Article XI II.

Columbia River Treaty, Article XIV

4.1 Arrangements for Implementation

  1. (1)

    Canada and the USA shall each, as soon as possible after the ratification date, designate entities and when so designated the entities are empowered and charged with the duty to formulate and carry out the operating arrangements necessary to implement the Treaty. Either Canada or the USA may designate one or more entities. If more than one is designated the powers and duties conferred upon the entities by the Treaty shall be allocated among them in the designation.

  2. (2)

    In addition to the powers and duties dealt with specifically elsewhere in the Treaty the powers and duties of the entities include:

    1. (a)

      Coordination of plans and exchange of information relating to facilities to be used in producing and obtaining the benefits contemplated by the Treaty,

    2. (b)

      Calculation of and arrangements for delivery of hydroelectric power to which Canada is entitled for providing flood control,

    3. (c)

      Calculation of the amounts payable to the USA for standby transmission services,

    4. (d)

      Consultation on requests for variations made pursuant to Articles XII (5) and XIII (6),

    5. (e)

      The establishment and operation of a hydrometeorological system as required by Annex A,

    6. (f)

      Assisting and cooperating with the Permanent Engineering Board in the discharge of its functions,

    7. (g)

      Periodic calculation of accounts,

    8. (h)

      Preparation of the hydroelectric operating plans and the flood control operating plans for the Canadian storage together with determination of the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled,

    9. (i)

      Preparation of proposals to implement Article VIII and carrying out any disposal authorized or exchange provided for therein,

    10. (j)

      Making appropriate arrangements for delivery to Canada of the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled including such matters as load factors for delivery, times and points of delivery, and calculation of transmission loss,

    11. (k)

      Preparation and implementation of detailed operating plans that may produce results more advantageous to both countries than those that would arise from operation under the plans referred to in Annexes A and B.

  3. (3)

    The entities are authorized to make maintenance curtailments. Except in case of emergency, the entity responsible for a maintenance curtailment shall give notice to the corresponding Canadian or USA entity of the curtailment, including the reason therefor and the probable duration thereof and shall both schedule the curtailment with a view to minimizing its impact and exercise due diligence to resume full operation.

  4. (4)

    Canada and the USA may by an exchange of notes empower or charge the entities with any other matter coming within the scope of the Treaty.

Columbia River Treaty, Article XVI

5.1 Settlement of differences

  1. (1)

    Differences arising under the Treaty which Canada and the USA cannot resolve may be referred by either to the International Joint Commission for decision.

  2. (2)

    If the International Joint Commission does not render a decision within three months of the referral or within such other period as may be agreed upon by Canada and the USA, either may then submit the difference to arbitration by written notice to the other.

  3. (3)

    Arbitration shall be by a tribunal composed of a member appointed by Canada. a member appointed by the USA and a member appointed jointly by Canada and the USA who shall be Chairman. If within six weeks of the delivery of a notice under paragraph (2) either Canada or the USA has failed to appoint its member. or they are unable to agree upon the member who is to be Chairman. Either Canada or the USA may request the President of the International Court of Justice to appoint the member or members. The decision of a majority of the members of an arbitration tribunal shall be the decision of the tribunal.

  4. (4)

    Canada and the USA shall accept as definitive and binding and shall carry out any decision of the International Joint Commission or an arbitration tribunal.

  5. (5)

    Provision for the administrative support of a tribunal and for remuneration and expenses of its members shall be as agreed in an exchange of notes between Canada and the USA.

  6. (6)

    Canada and the USA may agree by an exchange of notes on alternative procedures for settling differences arising under the Treaty, including reference of any difference to the International Court of Justice for decision.

5.2 Article V of the protocol agreement to the Columbia River Treaty

Inasmuch as control of historic streamflows of the Kootenay River by the darn provided for in Article XII(I) of the Treaty would result in more than 200,000 kilowatt years per annum of energy benefit downstream in Canada, as well as important flood control protection to Canada, and the operation of that dam is therefore of concern to Canada, the entities shall, pursuant to Article XIV(2) (a) of the Treaty, cooperate on a continuing basis to coordinate the operation of that dam with the operation of hydroelectric plants on the Kootenay River and elsewhere in Canada in accordance with the provisions of Article XII(5) and Article XII(6) of the Treaty.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morton, C., Rutherford, M. The Columbia River Treaty’s adaptive capacity for fish conservation. Int Environ Agreements 23, 43–75 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-022-09586-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-022-09586-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation