The Columbia River Treaty: A Reply to Professor Bourne
| DOI | 10.1177/002070206201700206 |
| Published date | 01 June 1962 |
| Date | 01 June 1962 |
| Author | Larratt T. Higgins |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Columbia
River
Treaty:
A
Reply
to
Professor
Bourne
Larratt
T.
Higgins
Toronto
Professor
Bourne's
note
on
the
Columbia
River
Treaty
provides
a
valuable
and
much
needed
contribution
to public
discussion
and
under-
standing
of
this
issue
for
Canadians.
In
particular,
he
is
to
be
con-
gratulated for
his
frankness
in
bringing
into
the
open
the
fact
that
most
of
the
trouble
with
this
Treaty
stems
from
the
refusal
of
the
British
Columbia
Government
to
permit
the
construction
of
works
in
Canada
required
to
divert
the
Kootenay
into
the
Columbia.
Elsewhere
1
he
has
estimated
the
loss
to
Canada in
the
order
of
400,000
kilowatts
of
capa-
city
excluding
downstream
benefits.
He
does
not
comment
on
the
fact
that
Article
XII
of
the
Treaty
gives
the
United
States the
option
to
build
Libby
Dam
on
rather
better terms
than
it
originally
had
in
mind
when
application
was
first
made
in
1951,
and
on
far
better
terms
than
the
subsequent application
which
was rejected
by
Canada.
With respect
to
his
extensive
quotation
of
IJC
"Power
Principle
No.
6",
I
would
suggest
that
the
only
place
in
the Treaty
where
this
has
been
put
to
its
intended
use
is
in
Article
IX.
This
permits
the
United
States
to
negotiate a
reduction
in
Canada's
entitlement
to
power
from
the
Ben
Franklin
project
"between
Priest
Rapids
Dam
and
McNary
Dam".
The
Treaty
does
not, for
example,
cover
the
situation
which
might arise
should power
from
the
Peace
River prove
to
be
competitive
in
cost
with
power
from
the
Columbia
(as
in
fact the British
Columbia
Energy
Board
has
been
somewhat desperately
trying
to
show).
Moreover,
the
prime
power
benefits
are
not
divided
equally
under
the
Treaty
as
this
principle
requires.
2
1
C. B.
Bourne,
"The
Columbia
River
Controversy",
Canadian
Bar
Review,
Vol.
XXXVII,
No.
3,
September,
1959,
p.
449.
2
See
Canada.
House
of
Commons
Debates,
January
18,
1961,
Vol.
II,
p.
1207
which
shows
Canada
receiving
763
thousand
kilowatt-years
of
prime
energy
compared
to
1,142
for
the
United
States
in
1970.
The
benefits
to
Canada
are
to
decrease
rapidly
thereafter,
amounting
to
only
396
by
1985
according
to
a
report
prepared
for
the
B.C.
Energy
Board
by
Sir
Alexander
Gibb
and
Mertz
&
McLellan
(see
table
7,
p.
57).
To continue reading
Request your trial