Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Hood River news. (Hood River, Or.) 1909-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 15, 2020)
A4 Wednesday, January 15, 2020 HOOD RIVER NEWS | Hood River, Ore. hoodrivernews.com OPINION Our Readers Write ‘Walk the walk’ Library at 6 p.m. Hope to see you there. John Hlavac Hood River I have been reading letters for years now from people feeling angry, frustrated and hopeless about the political situation since Trump and Walden have been trying to take away your medical insur- ance, ravage the environment Reading the editorial in the and destroy public schools, to Jan. 8 Hood River News, I name just a few. found myself drawn to the Then I go to the Hood River opening sentence, “I had Democrats meetings and can learned that you should always count the number of members shout louder than your aggres- on two hands. sor.” It seems that the author is Where are you people who using his pulpit as editor of a are so outraged!? It’s time to local newspaper to shout loud- step up and walk the walk, not er than most in our communi- just talk the talk. ty. Secondly, Oregon senator The meetings are the second Jeff Merkely is quoted in the Wednesday of the month at the article, “Trump and Pompeo Solidarity needed are either dangerously inept or colossally ignorant.” Merkley also talks of the president’s reckless and impulsive actions regarding Iran. As the father of a current naval reconnaissance aircrew- man who just recently re- turned from deployment, and second cousin and namesake to a recent Annapolisis and Naval BUDs graduate, I would hope that the senator and newspaperman feel that the president and secretary of state are receiving mostly good intel from those in the field that are tasked with defending our free- doms. Although the authority and decision making of those in the highest offices of Amer- ica needs to be questioned at all times by their constituents, they and those tasked with intelligence gathering could use some solidarity at times regardless of political parti- sanship. Jeff McNerney Hood River Nothing to lose Jan. 9 was a day of action called by large groups of activ- ists from around the country who fear that Trump will start a war with Iran. Even in our small town, a group of about 30 souls braved the cold to participate in a rally organized by Indivisible Columbia Gorge. They came out to speak their minds and raise awareness about the constant assault on our senses, now so common- place in our society, that many of us just want to tune it out. I would imagine that even the most staunch Trump support- ers in our community couldn’t deny that subterfuge is the president’s modus operandi when faced with a situation (such as impeachment) that he doesn’t like. And what he did in the assassination of Qasem Soleimani made it clear that he will stop at nothing in order to change the subject. Many high level military experts have spoken out about this assassi- nation, stating that although Soleimani was an unsavory character, he had been one for many years and no one had done anything to remove him. One must ask why now and what were the imminent dangers to our country that apparently led to this unilateral decision. As usual, it was all about Trump. No clear reasons have been given to Congress or the American people. It is time for our legislators in both par- ties to come together and stop the insanity coming from the White House. We the People need real protection. We elect- ed Congress and the Senate to be a check on executive power. The only imminent threat is Trump. We ask our Congress- man Greg Walden to take a stand for us. He has nothing to lose now. Sarah Bellinson Hood River ANOTHER VOICE Americans need to broaden their perspectives and expectations on Columbia River treaty renegotiation By GRAEME LEE ROWLANDS Last May, the U.S. and Canada began negotiations to modernize the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) — a 1964 agreement that defines the way both countries share the Northwest’s greatest wa- terway. The CRT required British Columbia (B.C.) to build three dams in the upper por- tion of the watershed and use them to control river flows to increase hydropower gener- ation at American dams and prevent downstream flood- ing, primarily in the greater Portland area. In return, the U.S. paid B.C. about $534 million (at 2019 dollar value) for the first 60 years of flood control and agreed for the life of the treaty to return 50 percent of power enhance- ments to B.C. This annual share of hy- droelectricity, known as the “Canadian Entitlement,” is a theoretical quantity cal- culated in advance by both countries as the maximum amount possible in a system optimized for power genera- tion. In most years since the 1990s, this calculation has exceeded actual U.S. genera- tion due to domestic factors influencing the operation of American dams, including integration with other power sources and legal obliga- tions to provide river flows suitable for struggling fish populations. Now that the CRT is up for revision, public utility districts (PUDs) and others are insisting that the U.S. negotiating team (led by the State Department) must secure deep cuts to the Ca- nadian Entitlement — or terminate the agreement. It’s fair to argue that payments to B.C. should be aligned more closely with actual benefits. However, those advocating steep reductions in the En- titlement seem to have exag- gerated the imbalance and have neglected to consider the Treaty’s full context. In doing so, they may be setting Americans up for failure, with a one-sided perspective and unrealistic expectations. At the Dec. 16 “Treaty Town Hall” event hosted by the State Department, Douglas (Wash.) County PUD Manager Gary Ivory epitomized this misleading narrative when he told nego- P10988 HRN 01-15-20A.indd 4 tiators, “We believe that any- thing less than a 90 percent reduction (of the entitle- ment) is going to be a failure on your part.” This statement implies that the Entitlement is 10 times larger than it should be. But estimates provided by the bi-national “Permanent Engineering Board” charged with executing the Treaty offer a different story. Since 2004, the Entitlement has on average been just 2.37 times greater than actual generation. This suggests a reduction of only about 58 percent to align it with actual power generation, not the Changes to the CRT will be determined through a complex multi-issue negotiation, which inherently involves compromise. 90 percent that PUDS have argued for. Furthermore, changes to the CRT will be determined through a complex multi-is- sue negotiation, which in- herently involves compro- mise. Canadian water man- agement does more than en- hance power production and manage flood risk. It gives the U.S. flexibility to oper- ate dams (especially Grand Coulee) for other purposes including irrigated agricul- ture in the Columbia Basin Project, ecosystem health, commercial navigation and recreation. The Treaty required B.C. to flood four of its most eco- logically and agriculturally rich valleys, forcibly evicting thousands of people and destroying rural communi- ties. Furthermore, Canadi- an Basin residents are still forced to compromise do- mestic priorities to abide by Treaty operations. The Canadian Entitlement is the only ongoing benefit British Columbia receives for this. As such, it is exceed- ingly unlikely that Canadian negotiators will agree to provide downstream services and concede to American Photo by Peter Marbach FOR ONE MAN’S multi-year perspective on the Columbia River and the international treaty, there is Hood River Peter Marbach’s “Heal- ing The Big River” book talk Jan. 22 at the Hood River Library starting at 6:30 p.m. Marbach traveled from source to sea to chronicle how it has been shaped by time and politics; in his book, Tribal members, activists and others write about how they view the past and future of the Columbia. Marbach, in November at Columbia Center for The Arts, displays a photo from a Canadian stretch of the river. demands for a drastically reduced Canadian Entitle- ment. At the same time, the U.S. is not in a position to easily walk away from the Treaty, as PUDs have sug- gested it should do. By taking such an extreme stance that is out of touch with transboundary realities, PUDs are setting an im- possible bar for the U.S. negotiating team to reach. If the public believes the negotiation is as simple as playing tough with Canada to get a better deal for electric ratepayers, they are going to be sorely disappointed when they don’t get anything close to the near-elimination of payments that PUDs have told them to expect. Historically, many Colum- bia Basin maps have cut the watershed off at the in- ternational boundary. This cartographic fragmentation is reflective of an attitude that persists today, which believes that the watershed is best shared through a strict division of national interests. If we are going to find an agreement for the future that both countries can live with, we will need to reject this divisive philosophy. Americans and Canadi- ans need to understand and value all of the interests at hand, including those of their neighbors across the border. ■ Graeme Lee Rowlands is a published researcher and con- tractor who has traveled the length of the Columbia River and worked in both the Amer- ican and Canadian sides of the Basin. His written work on issues related to the Columbia River Treaty has appeared in more than 50 publications. He is on twitter at @gleerowlands. 1/14/20 9:33 AM
