Wednesday,

March 18, 1959

Page |

Mica Creek SPX Bo. .
SSNS

EXISTING AND pRoPosep
HYDRO ELECTRIC
DEVELOPMENTS

unre ciee Sy

Legend

| roveseo oams

EXISTING OANS On
MM | couunaia Teiuranies

fs kw. caaciry
OF EXISTING U.S, PLANTS

APPROXIMATE INCREASE
| wits asics ceeex stone

FOnNevnts

Meeting in Chic
Friendly Drag Service from the Heart of the Cariboo 't

te Williams Lake
7 Pharmacy

J. Bruce Magoffin, Ph.c.
Dispensing ‘Chemist
WILLIAMS LAKE, B.0.

EMERGENCY PRESCRIPTIONS — PHONE 336

Commission will

Grosvenor Hotel. |.

“ Vancouver’s Friendliest
Hotel"

the upper Columbia River.
4

Excellent Food in Fine
Surroundings
Newly Furnished Guest Rooms
Ample Parking

tions of

S zon

wants some of this energy

840 Howe Street .
: water regulation.

Gordon Munro, Manager

area shown here would become lake if dam is built.
Air photo by Douglas Kermode, Vernon.

USE TRIBUNE CLASSIFIEDS

JUSTARRIVED IN TOWN EES:
TO HELP You IF

in
Dz

To LEND YOU CASH,
A CAR To BUY
OR WASHER

FRIDGE OR NEW HI-Fi

Ee z

To FIX THE HOUSE
GAINST WINTERS CHILLS
AND CLEAR THE DECKS
~To PAY FUEL BILLS

MY MEANINGS PLAIN
FOR ALL TO SEE
\F YOU NEED CASH

ml

lation
slat

=

ss

TRANS CANADA CREDIT OPENS OFFICE HERE

ago this week, the International Joint
receive important engineering re-
ports on the development of hydro-olectric power on
Map at left shows loca-
dams proposed in previous reports, and an
estimate of increased capacity that Upper Columbia
storage will give U.S. plants downstream. Canada
returned in excharige for
Photo .at right shows location of
proposed Mica Creek Dam (bottom picture). Entire

Both U.S. and Canada vitally
-interested in Columbia talks

: Meeting in Chicago this week, the International
Joint Commission will receive engineering reports

on the development of h:
Columbia River.

‘ydro power on the Upper |. av
Here are some of the facts of tite 4} een ney Comma)

Columbia power question as written by R. C. McMor-

die,
Commission,

“For all practical practical purposes, the [

alternative schemes of develop-
ment of the Upper Columbi:
with the attendant controversy
concerning downstream benefits
and diversions, came strongly to
the attention of the public when
International Joint Commission
deliberations became deadlocked
in the matter of the Libby dam
on the Kootenay River.

RETURN OF POWER

The proposed U.S. dam at
Libby, Montana, would back
water beyond the U.S. boundary
into Canada. One-third of the
water storage area would be pro-
vided in Canada. In discussing
this project, the U.S. section of
the IJC acknowledged Tesponsi-
bility to pay for diretct pnysical
damage to Canada for lands
which would be flooded above
the dam. The Canadian section
of the IJC also asked for the
return of a portion of the power
from Libby itself and from
Plants on the Lower Columbia,
such as would be created by
construction ofthe dam and’ by
the release of the storage water
held by the reservoir.

The principle of downstream
benefits is recognized in inter-
national law and apparently in
interestate arrangements im the
U.S. The United States long ago
obtained downstream benefits in
a: comparable case (at Grand
Falls on the Saint John River)
when Canada was to derive some
benefits from the storage of
water on the U.S. side of the
border. But the U.S. had never
applied the principle, or 2ven
acknowledged it, with’ Canada
the beneficiary,

TRUMP CARD :
In the discussions in the Libby
dam, Canada had a trump card.
She could divert some of the
waters of the Kootenay River to
the Columbia River at Canal
Flats, and make the Libby dam
impractical. This ‘possibility

was introduced into the discus-
sions and the negotiations be-
came deadlocked.

When the matter of a storage
dam on the Canadian reaches of
the Columbia River was raised
by the U.S., it was apparent that
the same principles were again
involved. Gen. McNaughton’s
revelation that Columbia River
waters could be diverted to the
North Thompson thence to the
Fraser came as a shock not only
to the U.S. section of the IJC
but to the general public on both
sides of the border.

This possibility of diverting
both the Kootenay and the Col-
umbia would, if carried through,
leave the United States out with
regard to additional upstream
storage which they hoped would
be ‘made available to augment
the flow to their huge power
complex on the Lower Columbia.
POLICY DETERMINED

The respective governments of
the two countries next stepped
in and held a high-level confer-
ence to endeavour to determine
policy. The result of high-level
consultation was an instruction
to the IJC to recommend a basis
for the apportionment of down-

stream benefits. This has been

, | time.

acting general manager of the B.C. Power:

downstream benefits for the first
The current meetings of
the IJC are expected to produce

the desired

about 2,000,000 kilowatts in the
combined present hydro-electric
installations in the entire prov-

This power is being generated
in a large integrated complex of
generating stations, both pub-
Ucly and privately owned.

The present U.S. power output
it attained chiefy from run-vf-
the-river plants below the bor-
der, ‘although some storage is

HISTORY

In order to understand some-
thing of what is involved in the
Policy decisions still to ‘be
worked out, a reference to inter-
national water negotiations. on
this continent is helpful.

The legai relationship between
Canada and the United States in
matters of joint water develop-
ment is laid down in the Boun-
dary Waters Treaty of 1909. The
negotiations for this treaty
started in 1906 arising out of
the Niagara River power diver-
sion and other problems. Gene-
al principles were fomulated and
an International Joint Commis-
sion was set up to apply those
principles to matters regarding
boundary waters which were in
dispute. Thus the International
Joint Commission is automatic-
ally implicated in any difference
of opinion regarding such inter-
national rivers as the Columbia
and the Kootenay.

The principles which were
established left each country in
full control of all waters within
its own territory even though
those waters in their natural
channels would later flow across
the boundary, but they permitted
the other country to sue for loss
sustained as a result of the
action of the first country. This
idea was incorporated into
Article 2 of the Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909. At that time it
represented the position taken
by the United Sattes in all prior
discussions. The principle had
been based upon a still broader
principle expounded by Chief
Justice Marshalt of the Supreme
Court of the United States in
1812. =

construed to mean that the U.S.
has accepted the principle of

“The jurisdiction of

It i

e
nation within its own territory
is

is exclusive and absolute.

susceptible of no limitation not] g¢,

imposed by itself.”

APPLICABLE TO COLUMBLA

In the current Canana-U.s.
talks, Canada holds that the
principle incorporated in the
Boundary Waters Treaty is ap-
Plicable to the Columbia, and
that Canada has certain rights
which call for the payment of
downstream benefits if the Upper
Columbia is developed. Canada
wishes these downstream rights
to be paid for not in dollars, but
in electric ‘power.

That is the way the matter
stands at present.

Government leaders and
utility engineers in Canada are
generally agreed that no definite
measures for development of the
Upper Columbia can be taken
until policy has been worked out
and agreement reached.

Once storage is created in
Canada, some downstream bene-
fits thereby become immediately
available for the downstream
plants.

WHAT IT MEANS TO US.

The U.S. is generating about
7,000,000 kilowatts on the Col-
umbia River, its tributaries and
the associated power systems.
(This compares with a total of

jowest PMCE even, @

J aos

\

now such as at Hungry
Horse. With additional means
of controlling the flow on some
tributary streams but particu-
larly on the main stem of the
Columbia north of the border.
they could perhaps double the
present generating capacity on
the Columbia itself, Load fore-
casts show that this extra power
Will be required by them within
the next 10 years.

The development of power on
the Lower Columbia has been a
major contributing factor to the
industrial development of the
northwest United States during
the past 20 years. If this devel-
opment is to continue, increased
energy production must come
from some source. The Columbia
River, its flood waters made use-
ful’ through upstream water
storge, is a most logical and
economical source, since many of
he major works for utilizing
this additional flow are already
in place or authorized.

Estimates of the work of up-
stream storage to the U.S. plants
located on the Lower Columbia
have gone as high as 1,900,000
Kilowatts if the Mica Creek ”
Dam were built for storage pur-
Poses alone, and if the appro-
priate installations of additional
capacity are made to existing
and projected U.S. plants on the
Lower Columbia. If the U.S.
Plants had only to add the extra
machines to obtain this tremea>
dous increase in electric power
output, it is probably that no
Power anywhere in the world
could be obtained as cheaply.

AND TO CANADA

~

The chief benefit to Canada of
Upper Columbia development
would be the return of down-
stream benefits in the form of
electric power. -

8 resulting from water stor-
age at Mica Dam were returned
to British Columbia in the form

| of energy, this would much more

|tmat double the total generating

jcapacity of the present B.C.
Power Commission system.

The stakes in the discussions
now going on between the two
countries are indeed big ones.

Power could, of course, be
generated for B.C. at the site of
the Mica Creek Dam, or at the |
other dam sites in the Upper
Columbia. A suitable installed
capacity for a generating station
at Mica Creek has been esti-
mated at 1,200,00 kolwatts, but
this figure is predicated upon
total utilization of water storage
for our own power production.
If storage of the dam were to
be regulated for best utilization
south of the border, then de-
pendable “‘on site” production
at Mica Creek could be reduced,
but would be much more than
made up by the increased output
of the downstream plants.

The value of this power pro-
duction to the British Columbia
economy would make it reason- ~
able to expect that the benefits
would parallel those so clearly

manifest in the Northwestern
States.

i

Farmers, cottagers, Property-owners —
this is your chain saw —packed with power,
light in weight And For Additional Value
—the new MAC D-30 brings you LUBRI-
MAC, McCulloch's revolutionary new
system that oils the chin directly from
the standard fuel mix! automatically,
Plus—the new MAC 0-30 has all the
professional features such as Automatic
Clutch, Rewind Starter and Diaphragm
Carburetor.

ANOTHER STAND-OUT! 3
The McCulloch D-36 (With LUBRI-MAC),
4.5 h.p. with extra heavy-duty McCulloch
features. Built for rugged professional
cutting. A bargain at $194.95 *

GORDON COLE

McCulloch Sales and Service
MACKENZIE AVE.

Loans from $150 to $2,500—up to 30 months to repay

Your own genuine MeCULLOCH
Chain Saw with
Money-saving, work-saving

LUBRI-MAC

Trans Canada Credit is an all-Canadiau
loan company operating branches through-
out the nation. It is a subsidiary of
Traders Finance Corporation, one of
Canada’s largest automobile financing
institutions. Loans made without
endorsers or bankable security.

TRANS CANADA CRE

CORPORATION LIMITED

1511 3rd Avenue, Prince George, B.C.

LOANS ARRANGED BY ’PHONE
JUST CALL

LOGAN 4-7917

_, é
TRANS CANADA CREDIT * with 12” Blade.and Chain

Come in, see and try the sensational
MAC D-30 and the D-36 at

iT

PHONE 172