The Columbia River Treaty: Another View
| Date | 01 June 1962 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070206201700205 |
| Published date | 01 June 1962 |
| Author | C. B. Bourne |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Columbia
River Treaty:
Another
View
C.
B.
Bourne
University
of
British
Columbia.
In
the
Autumn
1961
issue
of
the
Journal
(Vol.
xvi,
No.
4,
pp.
399-404),
Mr.
Larratt
Higgins examined
the
recent
Columbia
River
Treaty
and
judged
it
to
be
"a
complete
strategic
victory
for
the
United
States"
and
"a
crushing,
if
not
humilating
defeat
for
Canada".
He
has
thus
added
fuel
to
the
controversy
inside
Canada
about
the
Columbia
River
Treaty
and
has
contributed
to
the
confusion
in
the
minds
of
the
Canadian
public
about
this subject.
Unfortunately,
his
condemnation
of
the
Treaty
rests
to
a
considerable
extent
on
an
interpretation
of
it
which,
in
my opinion,
is
completely erroneous.
His
main
attack
was
against
the
Treaty
provisions
giving
the
United
States
the
option
to build
Libby
Dam
on
the
Kootenay
River
just
south
of
the
Canada-United
States
boundary
line,
and consequently
prohibiting
certain
water
diversions
in
Canada.
These
provisions
involve
a
rejection
of
the
plan
for
maximum
diversion
of
water
from the
Koote-
nay
River
into
the
Columbia
River
favoured
by
General
Mac-
Naughton,
the Chairman
of
the
Canadian
Section,
International
Joint
Commission,
and
said
by
the
International
Columbia
River Engineering
Board
in
its
report
to
the
International
Joint
Commission to
be
the
cheapest
plan.
I
do
not
quarrel
with
his
criticism
of
the
decision
to
allow
the
building
of
Libby
Dam.
The
alternative
plan
for
maximum
diversion
of
the
Kootenay
River
would
undoubtedly
be
the
best
one
for
Canada,
for
it
would
significantly
add
to
the
production
of
power
in
Canada
and
would
also
make
any
future
diversions
of
water
from
the
Columbia
River into
the
Fraser
River system
both
easier
and
cheaper.
However,
one should
not
condemn
a
treaty
merely
because
the
best
possible
plan
for
one
party
was
not
agreed
to.
It is
true
that
the plan
provided
for
in
the Treaty
is a
second
best as
far
as
Canada
is
con-
cerned;
but
it is
nevertheless
of
advantage
to
Canada.
Furthermore,
the
rejection
of
the
maximum
diversion
plan
was
not
forced
on
Canada
by
the
United
States,
as
Mr.
Higgins
implied.
In
fact, there
is
evidence
that
the
United
States
would
not
have
insisted
on
the
Libby
Dam
project,
for
its
hydro-electrical
advantages
are
marginal
and
needed
flood
cont-
rol
could
have
been
achieved
just
as
well
by
diversions
made
in
Canada.
It is
common
knowledge
that
the
Government
of
British
Columbia
refused
to
agree
to
the
flooding
of
the
Kootenay
Valley
and
To continue reading
Request your trial