Grand Coulee Dam and the Columbia Basin Project usa final Report: November 2000

 
5.2.2.1  Native Americans and First Nations Tribes 
 
The groups of people that bore the major cost of the project were US Native Americans and Canadian 
First Nations tribes whose livelihood and culture were permanently and significantly altered by the 
project. The project’s main direct effect was the inundation of lands and the elimination of anadromous 
fish runs upstream of the dam site. The creation of this physical barrier resulted in the termination of 
spawning that had traditionally occurred in the Columbia River Basin upstream of GCD.Tribes 
dependent on catching salmon upstream of GCD, such as the Colville, Spokane, and Nez Perce, were 
forced either to go elsewhere to fish or to cease fishing for salmon and steelhead entirely. This change 
caused adverse economic, cultural, and social changes because salmon had previously played a central 
role in the cultural, religious, economic, and social activities of the tribes. Additionally, the construction 
of the reservoir forced the relocation and resettlement of approximately 2 000 members of the Colville 
tribe and between 100 and 250 members of the Spokane tribe. 
 
Some adversely affected tribes have shared in the benefits of the project. For example, the Spokane and 
Colville tribes receive income from recreational users of Lake Roosevelt, but the compensation amount 
has been small.
145
 While some reparations have been made to affected tribes (eg, a 1994 US government 
settlement with the Colville tribe), many tribal members feel that monetary reparations cannot make up 
for the adverse effects of GCD on their livelihood and culture. Types and levels of compensation has 
also varied among the tribes (eg, thus far, the Spokane have only been compensated for the taking of 
their land, and not for other adverse effects), and this has contributed to inter-tribal tensions. First 
Nations in Canada are planning to take actions to receive compensation for their losses, but those actions 
have not yet been initiated. 
 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         104 
 
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions, and 
recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to represent the views of the Commission 
 
5.2.2.2 Ecosystem-related 
Impacts 
 
Major aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems have been adversely impacted by the project. The physical 
barrier and large reservoir created by GCD have resulted in significant adverse environmental effects, 
the most salient of which are negative impacts on anadromous fish populations in the upper Columbia 
River Basin. While not the sole cause of anadromous fish decline in the upper basin, the construction 
and operation of GCD exacerbated already poor conditions. Ongoing operations of the dam, in 
conjunction with other projects on the Columbia River system, add to the problem (eg, by reducing 
downstream outmigration flows and increasing in-stream dissolved gas concentrations). Natural seasonal 
fluctuations of the river have been altered to better meet some human needs, particularly those associated 
with power production, flood control, and irrigation. It was not until the mid-1980s that changes were 
made in system-wide project operations to address increasingly serious fish recovery issues. Although a 
GCD-related hatchery programme (the GCFMP) was initiated in the early 1940s, the programme 
assumed that future losses of salmon and steelhead to the region could be remedied artificially by a 
programme based on hatcheries and fish transplantation. There are divergent views on the extent to 
which hatcheries have been able to compensate for the loss of wild salmon and steelhead, but there is 
wide agreement that biodiversity has been reduced by GCFMP. 
 
The ecosystem that now exists in the vicinity of GCD and CBP, as well as the entire Columbia River 
Basin, is markedly different than the original, pre-project landscape. The Columbia River is no longer a 
natural, flowing river with distinct seasonal fluctuations in flow. GCD, along with other large dams 
constructed along the river have transformed the nature and type of the flow regime, affecting factors 
such as river flow rates, temperature, and nutrient content. Large storage reservoirs, like Lake Roosevelt, 
also create a very different set of conditions for aquatic and riparian biota. Terrestrially, high desert has 
been replaced with irrigated farmland and seep ponds. Individuals who value the aquatic, riparian, and 
terrestrial ecosystems in their natural state can also be considered major cost bearers in the sense that the 
natural conditions that existed before the project can no longer be enjoyed. 
 
5.2.2.3  Sport and Commercial Fishing Activities Related to Anadromous Fish 
 
Because it was constructed without fish passage facilities, GCD formed an impassable barrier for fish 
that traditionally spawned in the upper Columbia River Basin. Consequently, the project clearly had an 
adverse effect on commercial and sport fishing that occurred upstream of the dam. In 1937, annual losses 
to commercial and sport fishing were estimated to be between $250 000 and $300 000, the equivalent of 
$2.8 to $3.4 million in $1998. 
 
5.2.2.4 US 
Taxpayers 
 
US Treasury funds were used to construct the initial structures for the GCD and CBP in the 1930s and 
1940s. To date, 24% of the total project cost has been paid for, mostly from hydropower revenues. Since 
there is no interest on money used to construct irrigation works and there is a 50-year repayment period 
(that starts 10 years after initial development of an irrigation block), no money for this portion of the 
project has yet been repaid. BPA will begin making payments to the US Treasury for a portion of the 
construction costs allocated to irrigation beginning in 2009. 
 
5.2.2.5  Non-Native Americans Forced to Resettle 
 
The construction of the project resulted in the inundation of over 70 000 acres (28 300 hectares) and 
displaced between 2 000 and 4 000 non-Native American settlers. Those forced to resettle were not 
provided any relocation assistance by the federal government, and many were dissatisfied with the 
amount of compensation they received for their land. 
 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         105 
 
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions, and 
recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to represent the views of the Commission 
 
5.2.2.6  Some Farmers Outside the CBP Area 
 
While the CBP project clearly benefited project area farmers, it had adverse effects on other farmers in 
the region (eg, wheat farmers in Idaho) because subsidies to CBP irrigators made their operating costs 
lower. These lowered operating costs have enabled CBP farmers to accept a lower price for their crops, 
giving them an advantage over farmers growing the same crops, but not receiving the same assistance. 
 
5.2.2.7  Upstream Residents and Businesses 
 
GCD was instrumental in the development of the Columbia River Treaty, and the Treaty called for the 
construction of three dams in Canada (Duncan, Mica, and Keenleyside). Canadians in British Columbia 
and Montana residents in the area affected by the Canadian Treaty dams were adversely affected in 
terms of loss of land, forest resources, jobs, tax base, and disruption of agricultural activities. These 
dams also affected recreation and fisheries. These effects were indirect outcomes of the GCD. While the 
reservoirs behind the Treaty dams provide new recreational opportunities, there are divergent views on 
this subject. Many residents of BC believe the Canadian Treaty dams caused significant adverse effects 
on regional recreational activities. Also, as mentioned, Canadian First Nations tribes were directly 
adversely affected by GCD, primarily because of loss of salmon in the upper Columbia River Basin. 
 
5.3 Stakeholder Perspectives 
 
From July to October of 1999, we conducted 21 structured interviews with stakeholders representing 
various interests in GCD and CBP (see Annex titled “Stakeholder Interviews” for list of interviewees). 
People interviewed included Native American tribal elders, CBP farmers, local government officials, 
and the staff of environmental organisations. Because the sample is small and was not selected at 
random, we make no claims regarding the representative nature of the views we heard. Nevertheless, 
results from these interviews provide some insight on how different groups view GCD and CPB’s costs 
and benefits, and they help to identify areas of convergence and divergence on the development 
effectiveness of the project as a whole. 
 
Our analysis of the interview data indicates two areas of apparent convergence among all interviewees. 
First, most interviewees identified the primary beneficiaries of the project as irrigators (and the 
associated agricultural sector), power users, and the residents of the US Northwest generally. Second, 
most interviewees identified Native Americans as the project’s primary cost bearers. Interviewees’ 
opinions diverged on whether or not the overall benefits of GCD and CBP justified their costs. They also 
had divergent views about other groups (aside from Native Americans) that shouldered project costs, and 
about who else (besides irrigators, power users, and US Northwest residents) benefited from GCD and 
CBP. Further explanation of the interview results is presented below according to the two sub-groups of 
respondents that shared similar views. 
 
5.3.1  Tribes and Environmental Organisations 
 
Generally, the nine interviewees we spoke with who represented tribal entities and environmental groups 
had similar perspectives on the benefits and costs of the project. In aggregate, they viewed the major 
beneficiaries as irrigators, power users (ie, public utilities, citizens, and large aluminum companies), and 
residents of the US Northwest who gained from the overall socioeconomic development of the region. 
They saw the Native American tribes, sport and commercial fishing interests, and the US citizens 
generally (from an ecosystem loss perspective) as the primary cost bearers. Additional stakeholder input 
from the Canadian perspective was captured during a WCD meeting held in Castlegar, British Columbia. 
Attendees at this meeting voiced the opinion that First Nations tribes that had traditionally depended on 
upstream salmon spawning also suffered many of the same adverse impacts as Native American tribes in 
the US. 
 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         106 
 
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions, and 
recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to represent the views of the Commission 
 
When asked if, on the whole, GCD and CBP’s negative impacts were acceptable given the benefits 
generated, there was no consensus. Responses ranged from considering the project totally unacceptable, 
to viewing the project as “a wash,” to seeing the project as providing a net gain. Native American tribal 
elders we interviewed viewed the project as totally unacceptable, regardless of gains.  
 
As the following observations of a Colville tribal elder demonstrates, the impacts on many Native 
Americans and Canadian First Nations members were adverse, severe, and irreversible. 
 
The dam really did affect us. The Sanpoil lost their fishing grounds and their land, their traditional 
ways. I was brought up that way . . . It hurt us in a lot of ways . . . We lost Kettle Falls. My family 
used to go fishing there . . . Our traditional ways, fishing, land, pretty much everything we did for 
survival was hurt by the dam . . . What we got from the claims payments was just peanuts compared 
to what we lost. We have to go to the Coast hatcheries to get salmon for our dinners here . . . Losing 
our land was what really hurt. The first time they came and bought some, then they came back to buy 
more. A lot of people said, ‘when’s it going to stop? We’re always giving and get nothing.’ They 
gave us a little money and took a lot. (Sam 1999) 
  
 
Further insight on the views of Native Americans is given by the following remarks made by a Spokane 
tribal elder. 
 
Our ceremonies and spirituality were based on the rivers. When the dam went in it changed everything. 
It changed our way of life from hunters and gatherers to farming. It changed our spirituality and 
cultural realm . . . We hardly had time to relocate graves. Thousands of our ancestors went floating 
down the river and lots of historical sites were inundated. Farms and homes were destroyed. If they had 
done this to another groups of people, the mindset would have been different. The tribes were looked 
down upon and not given any consideration . . . Promises were made that everything would be taken 
care of for us . . . [but] we never received compensation for that dam. (Seyler 1999b) 
 
Some interviewees representing environmental groups viewed the project as a net positive, but 
emphasised that there were significant negative environmental impacts of the project. They also felt that 
some groups, such as irrigators and large aluminum companies received a disproportionate share of the 
project’s benefits, while others, namely Native Americans and US citizens generally, bore most of the 
costs associated with ecosystem damage. The selected quotes below demonstrate a variety of these 
views. 
  
On balance, I think the gains from low cost power were not worth the loss of the fisheries. It was a net 
negative. We are now trying to undo those effects. Our efforts reflect changing values, changing 
technologies, and changing relationships with water and land. (Ransel 1999, American Rivers) 
 
How can you balance [project benefits] against an irreplaceable loss? The genetic makeup of salmon 
has changed and in this sense the damage to salmon cannot be reversed in our lifetime. Citizens of the 
Pacific Northwest lost because salmon is part of the culture here . . . Losing the salmon is like cutting off 
a piece of one’s self. There is an existence value to salmon, even to people who do not actually use the 
river. Salmon is an icon. (Patton 1999, Northwest Energy Coalition) 
 
Looking at the big picture, the region would not have developed the way it did without the Grand Coulee 
Dam, but the fish runs were decimated. The project had both good and bad effects (Myron 1999, Oregon 
Trust). 
 
The project has brought net economic benefits to the Pacific Northwest, even in retrospect, it seems like 
a worthwhile endeavor from the power perspective, but not for irrigation . . . The Columbia Basin 
Project is the poster child for subsidized agriculture in the Pacific Northwest. It was a signal that 
agricultural development would not be market-based, but involved heavy federal intervention . . . 
Irrigators got subsidized power, subsidized water. They [the irrigators] made out like bandits. I can’t see 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         107 
 
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions, and 
recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to represent the views of the Commission 
 
any costs that they incurred . . . The aluminum companies didn’t locate here for the bauxite, they located 
themselves near dams because of cheap power. One-third of the power in the Federal Columbia River 
Power System goes to them. The tribes were most adversely affected. They lost their traditional fisheries. 
Their culture was destroyed. (Bosse 1999, Idaho Rivers United) 
 
5.3.2 Local Governments, PUDs, and CBP Irrigators 
 
The other main sub-group of interviewees represented governments of communities near GCD and Lake 
Roosevelt, a public utility district, and CBP farmers. Generally, the 12 individuals we spoke with shared 
many similar perspectives on the benefits and costs of GCD and CBP. In aggregate, they viewed the 
major beneficiaries as irrigators and associated agribusiness, power users (ie, public utilities, citizens, 
and large aluminum companies), residents of the US Northwest who gained from the overall 
socioeconomic development of the region, local towns, and recreators. They saw the Native American 
tribes as the primary cost bearers, but felt that the tribes also benefited from the project (eg, through 
tourism) and that the tremendous net positive impacts of the project far outweighed the costs to this one 
group. The following observations help illustrate the views of these stakeholders. 
 
If you look at the positive benefits [of the project] — power, flood control, fish, agriculture, wildlife 
— every one of those is impacted in a positive way. Steamboat Rock and Potholes [Reservoir] are 
highly used. There is upland hunting game for birds. There is fishing in Banks Lake and Potholes, 
too. There are recreational activities and wildlife. The project has stabilized the agricultural 
economy. It gave a base load for power production, and it was redesigned so it can handle peak 
loads. It has the ability to reduce flood damage in Portland. It added $650 million in crops per year 
to the Columbia Basin. It affects employment for the Northwest. It made agriculture the number one 
industry in Washington. Without the CBP, you would have a completely different picture. (McDaniel 
1999, South Columbia Irrigation District) 
 
We would not be here if it was not for Grand Coulee Dam. Essentially, this was a wasteland before 
the project was here. The only thing here before was jackrabbits and coyotes . . . [The project has 
definitely had a positive effect on me] . . . I started to see the transformation of this wasteland into 
viable agricultural farms. I started to see communities grow. I started to see wildlife habitat develop. 
I started to see the desert bloom and all the benefits that came from Grand Coulee Dam to 
development. (Tom Flint 1999, CBP farmer) 
 
The project has had a major positive effect [in an area] that otherwise would not have any economic 
base. The Columbia Basin Project has generated income for the economy. Without the water to grow 
crops, there wouldn’t be anything here . . . .In a majority of cases, 90% or more, people have been 
positively affected by the project . . . Even the tribes have been impacted positively. The tribes have 
casinos; [without GCD and CBP] they wouldn’t have the population base to support their services. 
On the other hand, people will say Grand Coulee Dam has no fish ladder and yes, there has been 
some loss of salmon runs. If we look at the overall benefits versus costs, you can’t say this would be 
a salmon economy [without GCD]. In 85% to 95% of cases it’s been positive. In a few cases it’s 
been negative. The greater social and economic good has come [from GCD]. We can have a strong 
economy and allocate resources to help salmon. Without a strong economy, we can’t recover the 
salmon. The tribes are aware of that — the funds [for salmon mitigation programmes] come from 
hydropower revenues . . . The negative impacts are small compared to the positive impacts. We need 
to look at the overall benefit of the project. There’s always going to be costs. In this case, the overall 
impact has been positive. (Staff
146
 1999, potato farming organisation) 
 
I’m sure the loss to Indians that were affected was severe, but on a nationwide level, the benefits of 
the project were significant. Over history, from the big picture perspective, the irrigation and direct 
and indirect benefits of the project were enormous. The defense industry and the aluminum 
companies wouldn’t have developed here if it weren’t for the dam. (local government official
147
 
1999) 
 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         108 
 
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions, and 
recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to represent the views of the Commission 
 
5.3.2  Cost Allocation and Repayment 
 
The total cost of the GCD and CBP in nominal dollars (dollars in the year they are spent)
 
is 
approximately 1.875 billion (USBR, 1998c).
 148
 Repayment costs are allocated to a variety of different 
purposes, with some of the costs categorised as “reimbursable” and others categorised as “non-
reimbursable”. Reimbursable costs are those that are to repaid by the project’s beneficiaries. For GCD 
and CBP, the main categories of reimbursable costs are for power and irrigation. Non-reimbursable costs 
are those borne by the federal government because certain purposes of the project are viewed as national 
in scope (USGAO, 1996). For the project, the main categories of non-reimbursable costs are navigation 
and flood control, which are grouped together.
149
 
 
5.3.3 Cost Allocation 
 
Under federal reclamation law, the amount of reimbursable costs a water user must repay varies by the 
type of user. For CBP, as in many water resource development projects in the US, irrigators — irrigation 
districts that have contracted with the federal government to repay the costs of constructing a project — 
are responsible for repaying their allocated share of a project’s construction costs. Under what are called 
Section 9(d) contracts, irrigators are only responsible for their share of the project’s estimated 
construction costs, as determined by their “ability to pay,” and they are not required to repay interest that 
accrues either during construction or the repayment period (USGAO, 1996; Reiners 1999).  
 
Repayment obligations for power generation include the cost of constructing hydropower-related 
facilities and interest during construction, interest during the repayment period, and what is known as 
“irrigation assistance” (USGAO, 1996). “Irrigation assitance” is defined as the difference between the 
irrigators’ allocated share of a projects construction costs (including interest) and the amount the 
irrigators actually repay. In the case of GCD and CBP, BPA will use FCRPS revenues to augment 
payments made by the irrigators to make up for the difference in capital construction costs for the 
irrigation portion of the project. Non-reimbursable capital project costs are paid for by the US Treasury 
(ie, the US taxpayer). 
 
The major categories of cost allocation for the capital portion of the GCD and CBP are presented in 
Figure 5.4.1. The figure shows that the vast majority of project costs, 96%, are allocated to reimbursable 
expenses, with 60% ($1.126 billion) allocated to power, and 36% ($670 million) to irrigation. About 4% 
of the project’s capital costs are allocated to non-reimbursable categories, with navigation and flood 
control accounting for 3% (USBR, 1998c). 
 
Total annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are currently about $43 million dollars. Of that, 
about $29 million (67%) is allocated to power, about $2.7 million (6%) is allocated to irrigation, about 
$3.6 million (8%) is allocated to non-reimbursable flood control, and about $3.3 million (7.6%) allocated 
to non-reimbursable land resource management (USBR, 1998c). In contrast to capital costs, project 
beneficiaries for reimbursable O&M costs pay for their own share (ie, no direct subsidies exist) and 
beneficiaries pay the O&M costs they are allocated. In the case of power usage for irrigation, however, 
power prices paid for pumping water through the irrigation works is well below market cost (Bolin 1999; 
Patterson, 1999).
150
 Non-reimbursable O&M expenses are paid using US Treasury funds and they are 
paid off annually. 
 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         109 
 
This is a working paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams as part of its information gathering activities. The views, conclusions, and 
recommendations contained in the working paper are not to be taken to represent the views of the Commission