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

Acronyms and Abbreviations 
 
BC 
  British 
Columbia 
BC Hydro 
 
British Columbia Hydroelectric 
BIA 
 
 
Bureau of Indian Affairs 
BPA 
  Bonneville 
Power 
Administration 
CBFWCP  
 
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Programme 
CBP 
  Columbia 
Basin 
Project 
CBT 
  Columbia 
Basin 
Trust 
CCT 
  Colville 
Confederated 
Tribes 
CEAA   
 
Canadian Entitlement Allocation Agreement  
cfs 
 
 
cubic feet per second 
Corps   
 
US Army Corps of Engineers 
CRITFC  
 
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 
DOE 
  Department 
of 
Energy 
DSI 
  Direct 
Service 
Industry 
EIS 
  Environmental 
Impact 
Statement 
EPA 
  Environmental 
Protection 
Agency 
ESA 
  Endangered 
Species 
Act 
ft 
  feet 
FCRPS   
 
Federal Columbia River Power System 
FELCC   
 
Firm Energy Load Carrying Capability 
FERC   
 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
GCD 
  Grand 
Coulee 
Dam 
GCFMP  
 
Grand Coulee Fish Mitigation Programme 
GNP 
  Gross 
National 
Product 
GVP 
 
 
Gross value of production 
ha 
  hectares 
ICC 
  Indian 
Claims 
Commission 
IJC 
  International 
Joint 
Commission 
IRA 
  Indian 
Reorganisation 
Act 
kcfs 
 
 
thousands of cubic feet per second 
km 
  kilometre 
kWh 
  kilowatt-hour 
LRNRA  
 
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area 
m 
  metre 
MAF 
  million 
acre 
feet 
MOA 
  Memorandum 
of 
Agreement 
NMFS   
 
National Marine Fisheries Service 
NPPC   
 
Northwest Power Planning Council 
NPS 
  National 
Park 
Service 
O&M 
  operations 
and 
maintenance 
PNCA   
 
Pacific Northwest Co-ordination Agreement 
PUD 
  Public 
Utility 
District 
Reclamation 
 
US Bureau of Reclamation 
ROR 
 
 
Run of the river 
SOR 
  System 
Operation 
Review 
TDG 
  Total 
Dissolved 
Gas 
TMT 
  Technical 
Management 
Team 
UCUT   
 
Upper Columbia United Tribes  
US 
  United 
States 
 
USACE  
 
US Army Corps of Engineers 
USBR   
 
US Bureau of Reclamation 
 
USFWS  
 
US Fish and Wildlife Service 
USGS 
  US 
Geological 
Service 
WCD   
 
World Commission on Dams 
 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         1 
 
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 
 
1.  The World Commission on Dams Global Case Study 
Programme 
 
The two-year mandate of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) calls for a review of the 
"development effectiveness" of large dams in the world. As part of the work programme, several case 
studies, including projects in the developed and developing nations, were conducted to provide in-depth 
analysis on specific dams. The Grand Coulee Dam (GCD), located in eastern Washington State within 
the United States (US) was selected as one of the case studies. This project is a key component of many 
water resources development plans for the entire Columbia River and its tributaries. Among all the case 
studies being conducted for the Commission, GCD is the oldest.  
 
Completed in 1941, GCD is a multi-purpose project; its purposes include irrigation, hydropower 
generation, flood control, fish and wildlife enhancement, and recreation. This case study is illustrative of 
how large water resources projects in the US Northwest have evolved in the context of changing social 
values, increased public concern over environmental issues, growth in scientific knowledge, and changes 
in the technology and socioeconomic conditions in the region. 
 
The Grand Coulee case study was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, a California-based inter-
disciplinary project team, advised by WCD staff, prepared a draft scoping report. This document was 
reviewed and commented on by relevant stakeholder groups. A public consultative stakeholder meeting 
was held on 20 May 1999 in Spokane, Washington to discuss the study objectives and proposed 
methodology for the case study. At that time, the project team and WCD staff solicited feedback from 
meeting attendees. Input from the 20 May meeting was used in determining the research plan for the 
second phase of the study.  
 
The second phase of the project took place from July 1999 to March 2000. During this period, additional 
experts joined the project team to conduct field investigations, review literature, and assist in writing and 
reviewing sections of the report. Altogether, a team of over a dozen professionals, representing fields 
including water resources planning, Native American and First Nations studies, resource and agricultural 
economics, history, power systems engineering, and fisheries biology contributed to the compilation of 
this report. Additionally, in kind contributions from the Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power 
Administration, and the Army Corps of Engineers facilitated data collection and access to key 
government personnel. A group of representatives of British Columbia Hydro (BCH), the Columbia 
Basin Trust (CBT), and other Canadian interests also contributed to the study. This report was 
distributed to stakeholder groups in December 1999 and was discussed at a second consultative 
stakeholder meeting held on 13 January 2000 in Portland, Oregon. Minutes of both consultative 
meetings, lists of attendees, and written comments submitted in response to the December 1999 draft 
report are presented in the Annex titled “Consultative Meetings and Comments”. The draft report was 
then revised to incorporate, where reasonable, comments and perspectives put forward at the second 
stakeholder meeting. This document is the case study’s final report. 
 
Several fundamental research questions put forward by the WCD affected the structure of case study 
data collection and analysis. These questions, which are presented below, were addressed in each WCD 
case study, including GCD.  
 
1.  What were the projected versus actual benefits, costs, and impacts? (Section 3) 
2.  What were the unexpected benefits, costs and impacts? (Sections 3 and 4) 
3.  What was the distribution of costs and benefits? Who gained and who lost? (Section 5) 
4.  How were key project decisions made? (Section 6) 
5.  How did the project evolve in response to changes in policies and decision-making criteria? (Section 
7) 
6.  What lessons can be learned from the experiences of this project? (Section 8) 
7.  How can the development effectiveness of the project be evaluated? (Section 9) 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         2 
 
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 
 
The overarching purpose of this case study was to learn lessons from the past, focusing on those that are 
particularly relevant to the planning, implementation, and operation of large dams worldwide. 
 
The Commission’s approach recognises that there is not always unanimity in interpretation of data, or in 
the perceptions of different interest groups. In order to understand differing perceptions of development 
effectiveness we need to take account of the convergent and divergent views and perspectives of 
different stakeholder groups affected by GCD and the associated irrigated lands known as the Columbia 
Basin Project (CBP).  
 
This report does not adopt a single “position” (eg, it does not pass judgement on whether or not the 
project should have been built or how things should have been done differently) and it does not comment 
on the future evolution or management of GCD and CBP. The case study used existing data sources and 
reports in its assessment because project resource did not permit new research to be undertaken. In this 
respect, data availability limited the study’s findings 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         3 
 
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 
 
2.  Context and Scope of the Grand Coulee Dam and 
Columbia Basin Project Case Study 
 
2.1  Major Features of the Columbia River Basin 
 
The study area for this case is the Columbia River Basin within the US and Canada. The focus is on 
GCD, which is located on the mainstream Columbia River, and the land irrigated by water stored in 
Lake Roosevelt, the reservoir created by the dam. Following common usage, the term Columbia Basin 
Project (CBP) refers to the portion of the overall project that involves irrigation.
1
 
 
The Columbia River is the 4th largest river in North America, running over 1 210 miles (1 953km) from 
its headwaters to the ocean (see Figure 1) (USDOE et al. (Main Report), 1995:2–1).
2
 The river has a 
total catchment of almost 260 000 square miles (67 x 10
6
 hectares) (USACE, 1958) – an area larger than 
that of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands combined. The basin includes large portions of Oregon, 
Washington, Idaho, and Montana, as well as the south-eastern drainage of the Canadian Province of 
British Columbia (USACE, 1958).  
 
The Columbia River originates in British Columbia and is bounded by the Rocky Mountain system to 
the east and the Cascade Range to the West. Numerous mountainous ridges in British Columbia, 
northern and central Idaho, and western Montana, which capture snowmelt, are the most significant 
contributors to the basin’s water supply (USACE, 1958:2). From Canada, the Columbia River flows 
mostly southwards through Washington, then westward where the Columbia comprises the Washington–
Oregon border. The river then flows through the famous Columbia River Gorge, which bisects the 
Cascade Range near its midpoint, and eventually reaches the Pacific Ocean. The average annual runoff 
of the river basin exceeds 180 million acre-feet (2.219 x 10
11 
m
3
).  
 
A key land feature of the basin is the Columbia Plateau, which contains the land served by the project’s 
irrigation command area. The Plateau is a semi-arid and mostly treeless area of nearly 100 000 square 
miles (259 000km
2
) that extends from north-central Washington to just below the border with Oregon. 
Land elevations in this region range from 500ft to 4 000ft (152m to 1 220m) (USDOE et al. (Main 
Report), 1995:2-2; USACE, 1958) 
 
The climatic conditions of the region make the Columbia River Basin primarily a snow-fed system. 
Snow accumulates in the mountains from November to March, then melts and produces runoff during 
the spring and summer. Runoff and streamflows normally peak in early June. In late summer and fall, 
rivers recede. Water levels tend to be lowest during October and increase very little until April (USDOE 
et al. (Main Report), 1995: 2-5). 
 
2.2  Objectives and Components of GCD and CBP 
 
The US Army Corps of Engineers (hereafer referred to as “the Corps”) and the US Bureau of 
Reclamation (hereafter referred to as “Reclamation”) planned GCD and CBP. The Army Corps of 
Engineers feasibility report for the project (hereafter referred to as the “Butler Report”), officially 
completed in 1932, was conducted by Major John S. Butler (USACE, 1933). Reclamation released its 
feasibility report (hereafter referred to as the “Reclamation Report”) in the same year (USBR, 1932). 
The plans outlined in these studies provided the background for the actual construction of the dam and 
irrigation project. A dominant theme in both these reports was that revenues from power generated at 
GCD should be used to subsidise irrigation. Without power revenues, the cost of the reclaiming the 
Columbia Plateau would be much too high for farmers. Both reports indicated that the irrigation part of 
the project should not be started until power development was well underway. As detailed in Section 5, 
the decision to build the project was heavily influenced by the objective of putting people back to work 
during the economic depression (the Great Depression) that began in the late 1920s. 
 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         4 
 
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 
 
Figure 2.2.1 Columbia River Basin 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         5 
 
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 
 
30. DWORSHAK 
 
N F Clearwater River, USCE  
31. 
HELLS CANYON  
Snake River, IP  
32. OXBOW 
 
Snake River, IP  
33. BROWNLEE 
 
Snake River, IP  
34. 
BLACK CANYON  
Payette River, USBR  
35. 
BOISE RIVER DIVERSION  
Boise River, USBR  
36. 
ANDERSON RANCH  
Boise River, USBR  
37. MINIDOKA 
 
Snake River, USBR  
38. PALISADES 
 
Snake River, USBR  
39. PELTON 
 
Deschutes River, PGE  
40. 
ROUND BUTTE  
Deschutes River, PGE  
41. 
BIG CLIFF  
N. Santiam River, USCE  
42. DETROIT 
 
N. Santiam River, USCE  
43. FOSTER 
 
S. Santiam River, USCE  
44. COUGAR 
 
McKenzie River, USCE  
45. 
GREEN PETER  
M. Santiam River, USCE  
46. DEXTER 
 
Willamelte River, USCE  
47. 
LOOKOUT POINT  
Willamelte River, USCE  
46. 
HILLS CREEK  
Willamelte River, USCE  
49. MERWIN 
 
Lewis River, PP&L  
50. YALE 
 
Lewis River, PP&L  
51. SWIFT 
 
Lewis River, PP&L  
52. 
MA YFIELD  
Cowlitz River, TCL  
53. MOSSYROCK 
 
Cowlitz River, TCL  
54. GORGE 
 
Skagit River, SCL  
55. DIABLO 
 
 
Skagit River, SCL  
56. ROSS 
 
Skagit River, SCL  
57. CULMBACK 
 
 
Sultan River, Snohomish Co.PUD  
56. 
LOST CREEK  
Rogue River, USCE  
59. 
LUCKY PEAK  
Boise River, USCE
 
Figure 2.2.1 Columbia River Basin (con’t.) 
 
Major Northwest Dams  
 
1. BONNEVILLE 
 
Columbia River, USCE 
2. THE 
DALLES 
 
Columbia River, USCE 
3. 
JOHN DAY  
Columbia River, USCE 
4, McNARY 
 
Columbia River, USCE 
5. 
PRIEST RAPIDS  
Columbia River, Grant Co. PUD  
6. WANAPUM 
 
Columbia River, Grant Co. PUD  
7. 
ROCK ISLAND  
Columbia River, Chelan Co. PUD  
8. 
ROCKY REACH  
Columbia River, Chelan Co PUD  
9. WELLS 
 
Columbia River, Douglas Co. PUD  
10. 
CHIEF JOSEPH  
Columbia River, USCE 
11. 
GRAND COULEE  
Columblo River, USBR  
12. KEENLEYSIDE 
 
Columbia River, BC Hydro  
13. REVELSTOKE 
 
Columbia River, BC Hydro  
14. MICA 
 
Columbia River, BC Hydro  
15. 
CORRA LINN  
Kootenoy River, WKP&L  
16. DUNCAN 
 
Duncon River, BC Hydro  
17. LIBBY 
 
Kootenoi River, USCE 
18. BOUNDARY 
 
Pend Orellle River, SCL  
19. 
ALBENI FALLS  
Pend Oreille River, USCE 
20. 
CABINET GORGE  
Clork Fork River, WWP  
21. 
NOXON RAPIDS  
Clark Fork River, WWP  
 
22. KERR 
 
Flathead River, MPC  
23. 
HUNGRY HORSE  
Flathead River, USBR  
24. CHANDLER 
 
Yokimo River, USBR 
25. ROZA 
 
Yokimo River, USBR  
26. 
Ice HARBOR  
Snoke River, USCE  
27 
LOWER MONUMENTAL    
 
Snake River, USCE  
28 
LITTLE GOOSE  
Snake River, USCE 
29. 
LOWER GRANITE  
Snake River, USCE  

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         6 
 
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 
 
The Butler Report, a voluminous work that examined the entire Columbia River upstream of its 
confluence with the Snake River, outlined a comprehensive plan of development for this stretch of the 
river (USACE, 1933: 1058–64). This plan proposed the construction of six dams on the Columbia River 
between its confluence with the Snake River and the Canadian border. The report recommended dams at 
Priest Rapids, Rock Island Rapids, Rocky Reach, Chelan, Foster Creek, and Grand Coulee. At the time 
of the Butler Report’s release, Rock Island Dam was already being constructed by a private power 
company (USACE, 1933: 1059). Navigation facilities were to be built up to Rocky Reach Dam. Butler 
determined that power generation could be increased with upstream storage, and so he also 
recommended regulation of Flathead and Pend Oreille Lakes and the construction of Hungry Horse Dam 
in Idaho and Montana. 
 
Major Butler examined multiple methods for irrigating the basin, and his Plans 4 and 4-A proposed 
irrigation of the Columbia Plateau through the construction of a high dam at the Grand Coulee. Plan 4, 
which proposed irrigation of 1 199 430 acres (485 392ha) of land with water stored in the Grand Coulee, 
most closely resembled the Reclamation Report plan, and it became the model upon which the actual 
project was built. Plan 4-A, the plan recommended by Butler, differed in that it proposed to irrigate only 
1 034 110 acres (418 489ha) from the dam, while irrigating the remainder of the irrigation lands, 140 
520 acres (56 866ha), by diverting water from the Priest Rapids reservoir downstream.  
 
Butler recognised that slight modifications in the designs and locations of the proposed structures would 
occur while he was developing a comprehensive plan as a broad framework for how best to use the 
waters of the Columbia River (USACE, 1933: 1064). His plan did not recommend any flood control 
provisions for this stretch of the Columbia River (USACE, 1933: 1061). In laying out his plan, Butler 
recommended that water for the purpose of irrigation be given a higher priority than water for power, 
and “that no power rights be granted which will interfere with future irrigation requirements” (USACE, 
1933: 1066). Butler also recommended that “it be required that storage above power dams be so 
regulated as to interfere as little as possible with navigation and fish life above and below the dam” 
(USACE, 1933: 1067). 
 
The Reclamation Report was much more limited in scope than the Butler Report, focusing entirely on 
GCD and CBP. It presented plans for constructing the dam and irrigation works. The report concluded 
that firm power generated at the dam could be could be absorbed within 15 years of the dam’s 
completion, and that the financial feasibility of the project depended on the time needed to absorb the 
power (USBR, 1932: 81). Significantly, the Reclamation Report concluded that surplus from power 
revenues would be “sufficient to repay within forty years about 50 per cent of the cost of the irrigation 
development for the entire acreage of 1,200,000 acres…” (USBR, 1932: 81–82). The report also 
concluded that “the slower the irrigation development proceeds the smaller the amount of additional 
funds that will have to be advanced from the Treasury of the United States”. Finally, the report urged 
that “no construction on the irrigation development should be undertaken until power revenues are 
assured and a suitable contract for repayment of the investment in irrigation works within 40 years has 
been executed . . .” 
 
Although GCD was initiated under special executive authorities granted to President Roosevelt in 1933, 
it was eventually authorised by Congress in 1935 legislation that included the following language: 
 
That for the purpose of controlling floods, improving navigation, regulating the flow of streams of 
the United States, providing for storage and for the delivery of the stored waters thereof, for the 
reclamation of public lands and Indian reservations, and for other beneficial uses, and for the 
generation of electric energy as a means of financially aiding and assisting such undertakings the 
projects known as . . . and “Grand Coulee Dam” on the Columbia River, are hereby authorised and 
adopted . . . (US Congress, 1935: Section 2) 
 
The objectives outlined in this law provide the legal foundation for GCD and CBP. The language of the 
law shows that power generation was viewed as a means of financing other project purposes. 
 

Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project 
 
         7 
 
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