DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposed Agreements to Resolve Revelstoke Filling Issues and Access Reservoir Storage Space in Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proposed Agreements to Resolve Revelstoke Filling Issues and Access Reservoir Storage Space in Canada DOE/EA-0227 ---- ,------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Proposed Agreements to Resolve Revelstoke Filling Issues and Access Reservoir Storage Space in Canada Office of Power and Resources Management BONNEVILLE PO'WER ADMINISTRATION OCTOBER 1983 APPENDIX A REPRODUCTION OF BPA BROCHURE ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY A-l Appendix A: Co lumbia River Treaty This doc ume nt is reprinted for infor­ mational purposes . Although some data may no t be c urrent , the report was appropriate f or the point- in- time i n which it was published . INTRODUCTION dam, Libby; in northwestern Montana. It backs water 42 miles into Canada. These dams have Until the 60's, dams on the Columbia River had more than doubled the amount of water that can been built only iri the United States. In 1964, how­ be stored to regulate flows on the main stem of the ever, the Columbia River Treaty between the Columbia River. Canadian and United States governments inaugu­ rated a dam construction program in Canada to This means that water formerly · flowing un­ harness the upper reaches of the Columbia and checked to the sea can be held back to control its tributaries and develop their potential to the floods and released as needed to produce power mutual advantage of both co·untries. at dams downstream in Canada and in the United The United States derives two major benefits States. from the Treaty: One is flood control-ending the danger of serious flooding on both the Columbia There are now 11 dams operating on the Co­ and Kootenay rivers (Kootenai in the United lumbia in the United States. Six are owned by the States). The other ·is a large block of low-cost Federal government and five by three public util­ power. For her part, Canada also receives flood ity districts of the State of Washington. control on the Columbia and Kootenay and an equal share of low-cost power from the Columbia The regulation of streamflows made possible River. by the thtee Canadian reservoirs enables dams in the United States to produce up to 2.8 million In accordance with the Treaty; Canada built kilowatts of dependable capacity; which Canada three dams in British Columbia which were com­ and the United States share equally: Canada has pleted between 1967 and 1973. The Treaty also sold her share in the United States on a long-term allowed the United States to construct a fourth contract. One-half the downstream power bene- A-2 Signing the Columbia River 'ITealy; January 17. 1961 . fits attributable to each Canadian project go to the THE COLUMBIA RIVER United States purchasers for 30 years after the Heavy snows and rains which fall on the Ca­ completion date of each project. Thereafter, they nadian Rockies create the Columbia River. From revert to Canada. Columbia Lake in British Columbia, deep in the rocky spine of the North American continent, the Generation at Libby Dam will add to this sup­ Columbia River flows northward for 200 miles, ply about 750,000 kilowatts of firm power at site then abruptly turns south . .It enters the United and downstream in the United States. Thus total States near Northport, Washington, about 90 Treaty power benefits in the United States, in­ miles north of Spokane. From its source in Co­ cluding Canada's share, amount to as much as 3.5 million kilowatts. Canada, too, can reap lumbia Lake to its mouth in the Pacific Ocean the river flows 1,240 miles and drops 2,650 feet. Five downstream benefits from Libby Dam, estimated hundred miles and 1,350 feet of the river'S descent by the British Columbia Hydro and Power Author­ are in Canada. ity to be about 200,000 kilowatts. This includes the Kootenay Canal project on that river in Canada. Although only 15 percent of the drainage area of the Columbia River is in Canada, about 30 per­ The Treaty and the Pacific Northwest-Pacific cent of its total flow originates there. In the 1948 Southwest Intertie made feasible the construction flood which destroyed Vanport, Oregon, about 28 of a third powerhouse at Grand Coulee Dam. Ul­ percent of the ~olumbia waters came from timately the third powerhouse is capable of hav­ Canada. - ing an installed nameplate generating capacity of 7.5 million kilowatts, for a total of almost 10.1 mil­ The flood control benefits achieved during lion kilowatts, larger than any existing hydro plant 1974 as a result of the reservoir capacity of Arrow in the world. La.kes and Duncan in Canada and the Libby A-3 reservoir in the United States were significant. Duncan, Keenleyside (formerly Arrow Lakes), and Mica dams in British Columbia. All of this is It is estimated that Libby; Duncan, and Keen­ usable for power production and for flood control. leyside (referred to as "Arrow Lakes" in the Treaty) projects contributed about 23 percent of Canada under the Treaty has agreed to oper­ the total effective storage for flood control regula­ ate 8,450,000 acre-feet of storage for flood control tion of the lower Columbia River during the peak in the United States. The United States may call on runoff month of June 1974. Canada for additional flood control, but must then pay extra for it. The Columbia is the second largest river in the United States. Only the Mississippi travels Two of the Canadian storage dams, Mica and farther and carries more water. The Columbia's Keenleyside, are on the main stream of the Co­ flow is 10 times that of the Colorado, 2Yz times that lumbia. The third, Duncan, is on a tributary of the of the Nile. It has one-third of the hydroelectric Kootenay: potential of the United States. As a source of power, the Columbia is the mightiest stream on Duncan Dam was completed on July 31, 1967; the North American continent. Keeleyside Dam, October 10, 1968; and Mica Dam, March 29, 1973, all in advance of schedule. The Columbia River and its tributaries drain a basin larger than France, a basin of 258,000 The United States under the Treaty option square miles. built Libby Dam on the Kootenai River in Mon­ Like the main stream, the tributaries of the tana. Libby Dam adds nearly 5 million acre-feet of Columbia, rising high in the region's mountains, storage, all of it usable both for power and flood are fed by snows and rain. As the seasons change control. Storage was available for flood control and the snows melt, the flows of the Columbia July 1, 1973. River and its tributaries fluctuate widely. At Revelstoke, British Columbia, the Columbia Existing non-treaty storage on the Columbia River's largest measured flow is 99 times the low­ River and its tributaries, including non-Federal est. At the International Boundary; 130 miles south installations, totals 28 million acre-feet - all us­ of Revelstoke, the Columbia's largest flow is able for power production and 16.9 million acre­ 680,000 cubic feet per second, its smallest 12,900 feet usable for flood control. cfs. These characteristics intensify the problems Total storage on the Columbia and its of flood control and power production. The solu­ tributaries is 'now some 43.5 million acre-feet of tion to both of these problems is to build storage which over 25 million acre-feet are usable for dams to control the river and thus alleviate flood flood control, as shown in the following table: losses while regulating the flow to increase firm power production. Although equivalent control U• • ble lor U•• b le lor pow.r llood control could be achieved by building storage on Co­ (million . cre-IMt) lumbia River tributaries within the United States, Non-treaty Columbia River storage in the U.S. above The Dalles oR. 28.0 16.9 the sites where the needed amount of storage Three Canadian Treaty Dams 15.5 8.450' could be built at the least initial cost were in Total 43.5 25.350 Canada. The Treaty provided for development of 'Under the Treaty the United States has paid for the use of 8,450, 000 acre-feet of storage for flood control. The remaining 7 million this storage to benefit both Canada and the acre-feet may be used on an 'on-caW basis for control of large United States. floods with additional payment to Canada. TREATY SUMMARY Under the Treaty Canada was to develop 15.5 million acre-feet of water storage by building PROFILE SHOWING ELEVATIONS AND RIVER-MILE LOCATIONS OF PROJECTS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASE SYSTEM 4000 " TREATY PROJECT J7' BASE SYSTEM FEDERAL PROJECT Y BASE SYSTEM NONFEOERAl 'RQJECT JSOC JOOO -' w 2500 ~ ~ '"w > 2000 0 ..< ~ 1500 . 000 500 1------~~~~:.....:~--------------------ICEHARaoR*-----_l 100 200 300 " 400 100 tOO 7(1) 100 100 1000 1100 12'11) MILES FROM MOUTH OF COLUMBIA RIVER Operating Plan base system includes Kootenay Lake in British Columbia, the II dams on the main stem, and 12 Under the terms of the Treaty, each nation has dams on the Columbia tributaries. designated an operating entity. Canada's entity is British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. The Most of the Treaty power is produced at the 11 United States entity consists of the Administrator main stem dams. The six Federal dams are Bon­ of the Bonneville Power Administration, Chair­ neville, Grand Coulee, McNary, The Dalles, Chief man, and the Division Engineer, North Pacific Joseph and John Day. The five non-Federal main Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The en­ stem dams are Rock Island and Rocky Reach tities are charged with formulating and carrying owned by Chelan County PUD; Priest Rapids and out the operating arrangements necessary to im- Wanapum owned by Grant County PUD; and plement the Treaty.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kootenay System Operations
    Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies Appendix C Kootenay System Operations Operation of the Kootenay River system is complicated as it is administered by several different jurisdictions and the hydroelectric facilities are owned by different agencies/companies. As shown in Figure 1, the Kootenay River originates in the Rocky Mountains not far from Field, BC. The river flows south, within a few km of the source of the Columbia River at Canal Flats, and then continues south into Koocanusa Reservoir, formed behind Libby Dam in Montana, United States. From Libby, the Kootenay River turns west and north, and re-enters British Columbia near the community of Creston, flowing into the south arm of Kootenay Lake. In the northern part of the Kootenay basin, the Duncan River is joined by the Lardeau River just downstream from Duncan Dam, and then flows into the north arm of Kootenay Lake. Water from the north and south arms of Kootenay Lake then flows through the west arm of the lake and past the Corra Linn Dam near Nelson (as well as other dams) en route to the Columbia–Kootenay confluence at Castlegar. The components of this system and various agreements/orders that regulate flows are described in this Appendix. November 29, 2013 1 Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies Figure 1: Kootenay and Columbia Region November 29, 2013 2 Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies 1.0 Coordination of Libby Operations Background Under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty, Canada permitted the U.S. to build the Libby Dam on the Kootenai River (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • KR/KL Burbot Conservation Strategy
    January 2005 Citation: KVRI Burbot Committee. 2005. Kootenai River/Kootenay Lake Conservation Strategy. Prepared by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho with assistance from S. P. Cramer and Associates. 77 pp. plus appendices. Conservation strategies delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and maintain species and populations that have been recognized as imperiled, but not federally listed as threatened or endangered under the US Endangered Species Act. This Strategy resulted from cooperative efforts of U.S. and Canadian Federal, Provincial, and State agencies, Native American Tribes, First Nations, local Elected Officials, Congressional and Governor’s staff, and other important resource stakeholders, including members of the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative. This Conservation Strategy does not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of all individuals or agencies involved with its formulation. This Conservation Strategy is subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of conservation tasks. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho would like to thank the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) and the KVRI Burbot Committee for their contributions to this Burbot Conservation Strategy. The Tribe also thanks the Boundary County Historical Society and the residents of Boundary County for providing local historical information provided in Appendix 2. The Tribe also thanks Ray Beamesderfer and Paul Anders of S.P. Cramer and Associates for their assistance in preparing this document. Funding was provided by the Bonneville Power Administration through the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, and by the Idaho Congressional Delegation through a congressional appropriation administered to the Kootenai Tribe by the Department of Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Treaty Review Technical Studies Report
    Columbia River Treaty Review Technical Studies Prepared by BC Hydro and Power Authority November 29, 2013 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Approach to Treaty Strategic Decision ............................................................................................... 5 1.3 Process and Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................ 7 1.3.1 Environmental Advisory Committee and Fish and Wildlife Technical Committee ............. 7 1.3.2 Water Use Plan and Structured Decision Making Process ................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Columbia and Kootenay Hydroelectric System Summary ............................................................. 9 2.1 Operations on the Columbia River - Relationship between Columbia River Treaty, Non Treaty Storage Agreement, and Water Use Plans ............................................................................................... 10 2.2 Operations on the Kootenay River - Relationship between Columbia River Treaty, Duncan Water Use Plan, International Joint Commission Order, and Canal Plant Agreement ...................................... 12 Chapter 3: Selection of Alternatives to Model .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTH INTERIOR SUBSYSTEM Supersedes SOO 7T-33 Issued 13 October 2020
    BC HYDRO T&D SYSTEM OPERATIONS SYSTEM OPERATING ORDER 7T-33 SOUTH INTERIOR SUBSYSTEM Supersedes SOO 7T-33 issued 13 October 2020 Effective Date: 09 March 2021 Expiry Year: 2025 Original signed by: APPROVED BY: Bob Cielen, Operations Planning Manager, T&D System Operations Requires same day posting on bchydro.com and on BCRC Extranet upon release. Requires same day MRS conveyance notification upon posting Denotes Revision SOO 7T-33 Effective Date: 09 March 2021 Page 2 of 32 SOUTH INTERIOR SUBSYSTEM INDEX 1.0 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 SYSTEM VOLTAGE CONTROL ........................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Nominal Voltage .............................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 SF6 Switchgear Voltage Ratings ..................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Overvoltage Protection .................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 MCA & REV RMR for Voltage Control ............................................................................................ 7 4.0 SERIES CAPACITORS OPERATIONS ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • February 10, 2010 the Valley Voice 1
    February 10, 2010 The Valley Voice 1 Volume 19, Number 3 February 10, 2010 Delivered to every home between Edgewood, Kaslo & South Slocan. Published bi-weekly. “Your independently owned regional community newspaper serving the Arrow Lakes, Slocan & North Kootenay Lake Valleys.” WE Graham and Winlaw Schools under review for closure or re-configuration by Jan McMurray The estimated savings of closing move the VWP to Mt. Sentinel. near Castlegar that was closed, but kindergarteners, and said she hoped School District No. 8’s board Winlaw School is $64,000. In this Campbell answered, “Anything is the funding was still coming in and parents would ask board members to of education will decide the fate of scenario, it was assumed that all possible.” there were still community programs consider this in their decision. Winlaw and WE Graham Schools kids from the two communities Another concern if WEG running at the school. Ahead of the February 16 on April 13, as part of the district’s would go to WEG, although it was closes is the fate of WE Graham Former Slocan Valley school meeting at WEG, parents are asked ongoing review of its facilities. acknowledged that some parents Community Service Society. The trustee, Penny Tees, commented to submit their ideas in writing to the At a public meeting in Winlaw would choose to send their children society gets some of its funding from that busing was at the core of the district office in Nelson, or to book on February 1, the board and some south to Brent Kennedy. The 7/8 the school district because WEG has three options.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Bonneville Power Administration Columbia River Treaty History and 2014/2024 Review 1 he Columbia River Treaty History of the Treaty T between the United States and The Columbia River, the fourth largest river on the continent as measured by average annual fl ow, Canada has served as a model of generates more power than any other river in North America. While its headwaters originate in British international cooperation since 1964, Columbia, only about 15 percent of the 259,500 square miles of the Columbia River Basin is actually bringing signifi cant fl ood control and located in Canada. Yet the Canadian waters account for about 38 percent of the average annual volume, power generation benefi ts to both and up to 50 percent of the peak fl ood waters, that fl ow by The Dalles Dam on the Columbia River countries. Either Canada or the United between Oregon and Washington. In the 1940s, offi cials from the United States and States can terminate most of the Canada began a long process to seek a joint solution to the fl ooding caused by the unregulated Columbia provisions of the Treaty any time on or River and to the postwar demand for greater energy resources. That effort culminated in the Columbia River after Sept.16, 2024, with a minimum Treaty, an international agreement between Canada and the United States for the cooperative development 10 years’ written advance notice. The of water resources regulation in the upper Columbia River U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Valley Voice Is a Locally-Owned Independent Newspaper
    February 22, 2012 The Valley Voice 1 Volume 21, Number 4 February 22, 2012 Delivered to every home between Edgewood, Kaslo & South Slocan. Published bi-weekly. “Your independently owned regional community newspaper serving the Arrow Lakes, Slocan & North Kootenay Lake Valleys.” Ministry slaps suspension on Meadow Creek Cedar’s forest licence by Jan McMurray that the $42,000 fine and the Wiggill also explained that there rather than allowing Meadow Creek for Meadow Creek Cedar. An FPB Meadow Creek Cedar (MCC) remediation order to reforest the is one exception to the company’s Cedar to seize the logs in the bush.” spokesperson reported that the has been given notice that its forest six blocks relate directly to the licence suspension. Operations on He added that if logs are left in the investigation of that complaint is licence is suspended as of February silviculture contravention found in a cutblock in the Trout Lake area, bush too long, there is a vulnerability nearing completion. FPB complaints 29. The company was also given the recent investigation. The decision which include a road permit, will be to spruce budworm. are completely separate from ministry a $42,000 fine for failing to meet to suspend the licence, however, was allowed to continue past the February Wiggill confirmed that some investigations. its silviculture (tree planting) made based on both current and past 29 suspension date. “This is to additional ministry investigations are In addition, many violations of obligations, and an order to have contraventions. essentially protect the interests of the ongoing involving Meadow Creek safety regulations have been found the tree planting done by August 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Dams and Hydroelectricity in the Columbia
    COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: DAMS AND HYDROELECTRICITY The power of falling water can be converted to hydroelectricity A Powerful River Major mountain ranges and large volumes of river flows into the Pacific—make the Columbia precipitation are the foundation for the Columbia one of the most powerful rivers in North America. River Basin. The large volumes of annual runoff, The entire Columbia River on both sides of combined with changes in elevation—from the the border is one of the most hydroelectrically river’s headwaters at Canal Flats in BC’s Rocky developed river systems in the world, with more Mountain Trench, to Astoria, Oregon, where the than 470 dams on the main stem and tributaries. Two Countries: One River Changing Water Levels Most dams on the Columbia River system were built between Deciding how to release and store water in the Canadian the 1940s and 1980s. They are part of a coordinated water Columbia River system is a complex process. Decision-makers management system guided by the 1964 Columbia River Treaty must balance obligations under the CRT (flood control and (CRT) between Canada and the United States. The CRT: power generation) with regional and provincial concerns such as ecosystems, recreation and cultural values. 1. coordinates flood control 2. optimizes hydroelectricity generation on both sides of the STORING AND RELEASING WATER border. The ability to store water in reservoirs behind dams means water can be released when it’s needed for fisheries, flood control, hydroelectricity, irrigation, recreation and transportation. Managing the River Releasing water to meet these needs influences water levels throughout the year and explains why water levels The Columbia River system includes creeks, glaciers, lakes, change frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Draft
    DRAFT SCOPING STUDY WORKING COPY FOR VIEWING PURPOSES BRILLIANT ONLY HEADPOND STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE KATARINA HARTWIG HEATHER LESCHIED MAY 2017 Scoping Study: Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Katarina Hartwig, Heather Leschied | May 2017 Design and Layout: Mandi McRobbie Cover Photo: Douglas Noblet, WildAir Photography ©2017 Living Lakes Canada All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce all or part of this publication for non-commercial purposes, as long as you cite the source Living Lakes Canada Box 691 Invermere, BC V0A 1K0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Scoping Study is intended to be the first phase of a stewardship strategy for the Brilliant Headpond Reservoir. The Scoping Study is guided by the Brilliant Headpond Stewardship Initiative Steering Committee, which includes leaders from the Brilliant Headpond communities of Tarrys, Thrums, Glade, Shoreacres, and South Slocan, representatives of the Ktunaxa First Nation and Okanagan Nation Alliance, and Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK) Area I Director, Andy Davidoff, and RDCK Area H Director, Walter Popoff. The Brilliant Headpond Reservoir (“BHPR”) was created by the damming of the Kootenay River at the Brilliant Canyon for the completion of the West Kootenay Power Corps. Brilliant Dam hydroelectric project completed in 1944. The BHPR area extends from Columbia Power Corporation’s (current owner) Brilliant Dam and Brilliant Expansion Project (2007) upstream to the Slocan Pool area just below BC Hydro’s Kootenay Canal (1975) and FortisBC’s South Slocan (1928) dams. FortisBC owns and operates the four dams on the Lower Kootenay, upstream of Brilliant Dam, and FortisBC operates Brilliant Dam and Brilliant Expansion facilities on behalf of Columbia Power Corporation.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin Plan
    FOR REFERENCE ONLY This version is now archived. Updated 2019 Columbia Region Action Plans available at: fwcp.ca/region/columbia-region Photo credit: Larry Halverson COLUMBIA BASIN PLAN June 2012 Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program ........................................................................ 1 Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Principles .................................................................................................................................. 2 Partners .................................................................................................................................... 2 Policy Context ........................................................................................................................... 2 Program Delivery ...................................................................................................................... 4 Project Investment Criteria ...................................................................................................... 4 2. The Columbia River Basin .................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Place Where We Live: Looking Back to Look Forward
    The Place Where We Live LOOKING BACK TO LOOK FORWARD THE PLACE WHERE WE LIVE: LOOKING BACK TO LOOK FORWARD We’re all downstream. — Ecologists motto, adopted by Margaret and Jim Drescher Windhorse Farm, New Germany, Nova Scotia Cover Photo — Fishing on the Salmo River — early 1900’s. PHOTO COURTESY OF TRAIL CITY ARCHIVES INSET PHOTOS COURTESY OF BERNARINE STEDILE AND THE SALMO MUSEUM Gerry and Alice Nellestijn at Wulf Lake — September Long Weekend 1999 © The Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society Printed in Canada The Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society and the Salmo Watershed Assessment Project – Youth Team gratefully acknowledge support from Alice Nellestijn of QNB Creative Inc. for design and production. Kay Hohn brought excellent proofreading skills that were able to pull this book together without changing the flavour of individual contributions.Without their assistance our book would not be possible. This book is a direct result of the Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society’s (SWSS), Salmo Watershed Assessment Project also known as the “Partnership Proposal For Youth Services Canada Project:Youth Jobs With a Purpose.” SWSS activated funds to employ eight youth for the summer of 1999.This book emerged from expectations and interests from our staff and youth team.We hope you enjoy it. We are grateful for our partnership with the scientific community and Human Resources Development Canada. For SWSS and our Youth,the summer of 1999 is a year that we will all remember, thanks to you. i The Place Where We Live: Looking Back To Look Forward PREFACE In the summer of 1999, the Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society (SWSS) partnered with Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) to carry out an assessment of the Salmo River Watershed.This assessment was conducted to tell us ‘what is’ the condition of the environmental habitat of our mainstem, tributaries and riparian area (the zone of influence between the land and water).
    [Show full text]
  • Kootenay System Overview
    Kootenay System Overview Heather Matthews March 2016 Kootenay System Storage - Koocanusa Reservoir - Duncan Reservoir - Kootenay Lake 2 Dams • Libby Dam (USACE) • Duncan Dam (BC Hydro) • Kootenay Canal Plant (BC Hydro) • River Plants (Fortis) • Corra Linn • Upper Bonnington / [City of Nelson] • Lower Bonnington • South Slocan • Brilliant & Expansion (CPC) 3 River Plants 4 Agreements & Regulatory • Columbia River Treaty • Duncan Reservoir • Koocanusa Reservoir • International Joint Commission • Kootenay Lake • BC Water Licenses • Storage and diversion for power purposes • Canal Plant Agreement • Operate like one owner 5 Libby and the Treaty Columbia River Treaty: o Provide the US with the option to build Libby Dam o Koocanusa reservoir floods 42 miles into Canada o Libby Dam provides flood and power benefits for Canada. o Power generated at Libby belongs to the US o Power benefits downstream in Canada on the Kootenay river stay in Canada o Coordination on Libby operation continues even if Treaty is terminated. o Canada can request a change in operation. If it is not to the US disadvantage the US shall agree 6 Canal Plant Agreement History • 1964: Columbia River Treaty was ratified • River plants and Brilliant already existed on the Kootenay River • Regulation of Kootenay River flows by Duncan Dam (1967) and Libby Dam (1973) made the Kootenay Canal Plant economic • In 1972 BC Hydro, West Kootenay Power and Cominco entered into the Canal Plant Agreement “cooperate in the operation of their available storages and generating facilities in British Columbia for the purpose of obtaining optimum generation” 7 Kootenay River System An Engineer’s View Since KCL is more efficient than the River Plants, water is diverted to Kootenay Canal instead of through river plants.
    [Show full text]