International Managment in the Columbia River System


Jump to: navigation, search
edit  ·  ToolkitWater Conflict and Cooperation
History of Humanity and Water | Shared Waters and Ethics | Legal and Institutional Approaches | Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
Emerging Trends | Public Participation | Indicators | Means and Tools | Basin Management | Lessons Learned
Organisations and Projects | Publications | Glossary | Bibliography
Case Studies: Incomati | Nile | Columbia | Lempa | Lake Titicaca | Mekong | Aral Sea | Rhine | Jordan I | Jordan II
Events | Contacts

Publication Title

International Managment in the Columbia River System

Publication Type

UNESCO-IHP, PCCP Series Publication, 47 p


Keith W. Muckleston

Publication Date


Publication URL




Various approaches to international water management have been practiced in the Columbia River system for almost eight decades. The hydrography of the upper part of the system results in both Canada and the US being upstream and downstream coriparians. The Kootenay River has been particularly significant in this respect. Negotiations have stressed equality rather than equity despite the asymmetry in the size of populations and economies. Equality stems from the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and has been fostered by the International Joint Commission (IJC). The coriparians have enjoyed a long history of relatively harmonious relations, but irritants over use of boundary waters occasionally develop, most of which have been successfully addressed through the IJC. This success was not the rule, however, through much of the 1950s. Disagreements over the proposed Libby Dam and the principle of sharing downstream benefits were exacerbated by a proposed hydropower project (the McNaughton Plan), which would have diverted part of the Columbia River in Canada into the Fraser System. During this period interests in both countries invoked water management principles in support of their positions, including: equitable utilization, historic use, riverine integrity, and absolute sovereignty. Disagreements were reduced near the end of the decade by US acceptance of sharing downstream benefits and completion of the IJC report affirming the feasibility of international development of the Columbia River.

By 1961 the federal governments had negotiated and signed the Columbia River Treaty (CRT), but the refusal of British Columbia to sign until concessions to its plans were made delayed ratification of the treaty until 1964. The CRT features equal sharing of downstream benefits for hydropower and flood control in the US that result from development and use of 19 km3 of usable storage in Canada. The United States prepaid Canada's share of the value of benefits from 60 years of flood control and 30 years of hydropower, a sum sufficient to pay for the construction of the CRT dams. The CRT also allowed the US to build Libby Dam and disallowed the McNaughton Plan by limiting diversions out of the Columbia to consumptive uses.

The CRT's hydropower and flood control objectives have been met, but the coriparians are challenged to successfully deal with the increased value society places on endangered biota, environmental quality, and sustainability. The report concludes, among other things, that successful international water management is more likely when coriparian states have a history of harmonious relations and have created a permanent legal/administrative framework designed to address problems from use of boundary waters.


  • Annual Report of the Columbia River Treaty. 2001. Canada and United States Entities, 1 October 2000 through 30 September 2001. n.p. November.
  • Bloomfield, L. M. and Fitzgerald, G. F., 1958. Boundary Water Problems of Canada and the United States. Toronto, Canada, Carwell.
  • BPA (Bonneville Power Administration), Office of Power and Resource Management. 1983. Environmental Assessment on Proposed Agreements to Resolve Revelstoke Filling Issues and Access Reservoir Storage Space in Canada. DOE/EA-0227 n.p.
  • BPA, Office of Power and Resources Management, 1990. Non-Treaty Storage Agreement, Technical Report. Portland, Oreg., n.p.
  • Bruce, J. P. and Quinn, F. J. 1979. What Difference Do Boundaries Make? Canadian Water Resources Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 8–9.
  • Cano, G. J. 1976. Argentina, Brazil, and the de la Plata River Basin: A Summary Review of Their Legal Relationship. Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 16. No. 4, pp. 879–82.
  • Cohen, M. 1958. Some Legal and Political Aspects of the Columbia River Dispute. The Canadian Bar Review. Vol. 36, p. 70.
  • Columbia Basin Trust. 1997. Columbia Basin Management Plan. n.p.
  • Columbia River Water Management Group. 1996. Columbia River Water Management Report for Water Year 1996. Portland, Oreg., Columbia River Water Management Group.
  • Columbia River Water Management Group. 1992. Columbia River Water Management Report for Water Year 1992. Portland, Oreg., Columbia River Water Management Group.
  • Columbia River Water Management Group. 1997. Annual Report of the Columbia River Treaty, 1 October 1996 through 30 September 1997. Portland, Oreg., Columbia River Water Management Group.
  • Columbia River Water Management Group. 2001. Annual Report of the Columbia River Treaty, 1 October through 30 September 2001. Portland, Oreg., Columbia River Water Management Group.
  • Day, J. C. 1999. Stakeholders’ Involvement in Transboundary Water Resources. unpublished paper.
  • Day, J. C., Beaudreau K. M., and Hackett, N. C. 1998. Stakeholders’ Interests in Water: The Columbia River Example. unpublished paper.
  • Departments of External and Northern Affairs and Natural Resources. 1964. The Columbia River Treaty, Protocol and Related Documents. Ottawa, Canada, Queen’s Printer and Controller of Stationery.
  • Foxworthy, B. L. and Moody, D. W. 1985. National Water Summary, USGS Water Supply Paper 2300. Washington, D.C., USGPO.
  • Hallauer, W. G. 1979. Agreements and Aftermaths: the British Columbia–Washington State Boundary. Canadian Water Resources Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 50–1.
  • Hyde, J. M. (BPA member of the CRT Operating Committee) 2000. US–Canada Columbia River Treaty and Flows for Salmon. Presentation at Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oreg., May 23.
  • International Joint Commission 1988. Impacts of a Proposed Coal Mine in the Flathead River Basin. Ottowa, Canada, n.p.
  • Johnson, R. W. 1960. Effect of Existing Uses on the Equitable Apportionment of International Rivers: An American View. UBC Law Review. Vol. 1, pp. 389–98.
  • Johnson, R. W. 1966. The Canada–United States Controversy Over the Columbia River. Washington Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 676–763.
  • Krolopp-Kirn, J. and Marts, M. E. 1986. The Skagit–High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement. Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 26. pp. 261–89.
  • Krutilla, J. V. 1967. The Economics of an International River Basin Development. Baltimore, Maryland, The Johns Hopkins Press.
  • Le Marquand, D. 1993. The International Joint Commission and Changing Canada-United States Boundary Relations. Natural Resources Journal. Vol. 33, p. 90.
  • Martin, C. E. 1957. The Diversion of Columbia River Waters. Reprint from Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, pp. 2–10. Reprinted Lancaster, Pa., Lancaster Press.
  • Marts, M. E. 1954. Upstream Storage Problems in the Columbia River Power Development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol. 44, pp. 43–50.
  • Muckleston, K.W. 1992. Grand Coulee Dam. In: D. G. Janelle (ed.), Geographic Snapshots of North America. New York, Guilford.
  • Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. 1970. Columbia–North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands, Appendix III, Legal and Administrative Background. Vancouver, Wash., ????.
  • Power Planning Committee, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. 1964. The Columbia River Treaty, The Coordination Agreement, The Columbia Storage Power Exchange, The Pacific Northwest-Southwest Intertie and Their Impact on the Columbia River Flow Regime. Vancouver, Wash., the Commission.
  • Report of the President’s Water Resources Policy Commission. 1950. Ten Rivers in America’s Future (Volume 2). Washington, D.C., USGPO.
  • Sax, J. L. 1968. Water Law, Planning and Policy. New York, Bobbs-Merrill.
  • Smith, S. 2001. Water Resources. In: J. B. Colin (ed.) The Pacific Province: Geographical Essays. Canadian Western Geographical Series 36. Victoria, B.C., Western Geographical Press.
  • SOR Interagency Team. 1995. Columbia River System Operation Review, Final EIS, Appendix J, Recreation DOE/EIS-0170. Portland, Oreg., n.p.
  • Swainson, N. A. 1979. Conflict Over the Columbia: The Canadian Background to an Historic Treaty. Montreal, Canada, McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  • Thompson, M. W. 1979. Preventing Disputes Along the International Boundary. Canadian Water Resources Journal. Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 6–15.
  • Trelease, F. J.; Bloomenthal, H. S.; and Geraud, J. R. 1965. Natural Resources. St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing.
  • US Congress. 1948. H. D. 531, 81st Cong. 2nd Sess., Review Report on Columbia River and Tributaries, Appendix A, Columbia River Basin in Canada. Washington, D.C., USGPO.
  • USACE. 1932. Columbia River and Minor Tributaries, H.D. 103, 73rd Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, D.C., USGPO.
  • USACE. 1948. Seattle District, Review Report on Columbia River and Tributaries, Appendix A, Columbia River Basin in Canada, 1948. Seattle, Wash., the Seattle District.
  • USACE. 1963. Columbia River and Tributaries. H.D. 403, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess. Vol. I. Washington, D.C., USGPO.
  • Uslaner, E. M. 1992. Energy, Policy and Federalism in the United States and Canada. In: J. Lemco (ed.) The Canada-United States Relationship: The Politics of Energy and Environmental Coordination. Westport, Conn. and London, Praeger.
  • Wilson, J. W. 1973. People in the Way. Toronto, Canada, University of Toronto Press.

See also

External Resources


 PCCP Columbia River case study.pdf

8782 Rating: 2.0/5 (55 votes cast)