The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Columbia River Treaty Up for Review.

bankside

bankside

JUB 10k Club
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Posts
19,018
Reaction score
90
Points
48
Location
Edmonton
Well, it appears Canada and the US will have to spend the next ten years discussing the 50-year old Columbia River Treaty, which is due to expire in 2024. Well, not expire, but it is the first "change initiation date."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ol-talks-over-columbia-river/article17474772/
Under the treaty signed in 1964, British Columbia controls floods and releases water to generate power in the U.S. in return for payments ranging from $150-million to $300-million annually. The pact has no expiration date, but either country may, with 10 years’ notice, cancel it or suggest changes that would begin in 2024. This September is the first opportunity for either to engage in that process.
Click to expand...

Also in the news:
With water treaty to be revisited, future of Columbia River up for debate
Expanded water treaty B.C.’s only hope, says former planner

So far, pontificating from both sides:
The US view.
The Canadian view.

It boils down to "We're only going to pay Canada 10% of what we pay now" followed by "Fine. Good luck with the droughts and floods."

So, lots of posturing. The really silly bit I noticed in the US proposal was the idea of sharing costs to restore salmon spawning up the length of the Columbia River. It was a US dam built pre-treaty that cut off the fish. The US can pay to fix it, if they want to restore access to spawning grounds in Canada for their US commercial salmon fishery.
 
They should pick a dozen universities, ask them to analyze the costs and benefits, take the median figure, and go with that for the payments.

BC should pick four US universities and two in Europe; the US should pick four Canadian universities and two in Europe.
 
^ Good idea.

Otherwise, it is likely that the US will one day just 'annex' Canada for the water.
 
Based on my limited overview, I tend to agree with the BC government position. Benefits the US derives from the treaty are worth far more than the few hundred million dollars it pays BC for water storage and management under provisions of the current treaty.

B.C. wants Columbia River Treaty renewed, with 14 tweaks (CBC News; March 14, 2014)

 
I think the US bargaining position is based on the idea that Canada is unlikely to tear down the dams if the US pays nothing, thus allowing the continuation of many of the benefits for free. It is also unlikely under international law that Canada could manipulate water releases to deliberately exact economic costs, treaty or not. Probably we could just let them sit open though, not bothering to close them for better or for worse, which would be the functional equivalent of demolishing them without the motive of malice.

Then, seeing that the treaty has continuing provisions for flood control on request, the cost could be very very high.

I like the old engineer's idea best: expand the deal to include additional green(ish) power generation for California. I don't think California should be allowed to touch the water itself, but they'd be welcome to buy power at relatively attractive rates.
 
bankside said:
Canada is unlikely to tear down the dams if the US pays nothing, thus allowing the continuation of many of the benefits for free.
Click to expand...

Coordinating with Canada to control the release of water is easily worth billions of dollars to the US to help mitigate flood damage alone. And that’s without considering the $8 billion agricultural industry in the Northwest US, massive electricity production, cargo transport, and of course~ helping little fishes navigate human obstacles in the waterways.
 
opinterph said:
Based on my limited overview, I tend to agree with the BC government position. Benefits the US derives from the treaty are worth far more than the few hundred million dollars it pays BC for water storage and management under provisions of the current treaty.

B.C. wants Columbia River Treaty renewed, with 14 tweaks (CBC News; March 14, 2014)

Click to expand...

I definitely agree with them about the salmon -- there's little point in trying to get Canada to change anything on that until the US has restored salmon on our side of the border.

There's an issue that needs to be addressed that I doubt will even be mentioned: the sediments accumulating behind all the dams, that should be going down the river like before. The damage to the coasts of Washington and Oregon from the stockpiling of those sediments are incalculable.
 
bankside said:
I think the US bargaining position is based on the idea that Canada is unlikely to tear down the dams if the US pays nothing, thus allowing the continuation of many of the benefits for free. It is also unlikely under international law that Canada could manipulate water releases to deliberately exact economic costs, treaty or not. Probably we could just let them sit open though, not bothering to close them for better or for worse, which would be the functional equivalent of demolishing them without the motive of malice.

Then, seeing that the treaty has continuing provisions for flood control on request, the cost could be very very high.

I like the old engineer's idea best: expand the deal to include additional green(ish) power generation for California. I don't think California should be allowed to touch the water itself, but they'd be welcome to buy power at relatively attractive rates.
Click to expand...

The treaty should allow California to buy water at the rate proposed once by an Oregon governor: pound for pound . . . water for gold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top