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