The increased interest in flood protection and the growing need for power development initiated 11 years of discussion and alternative proposals for construction of dams in Canada.

This was a new federal institution meant to build transmission lines and sell the power generated by Bonneville, Grand Coulee and future Columbia Dams.

American planners realized that the full potential of the river could only be harnessed through transboundary cooperation to create additional storage capacity above the existing lower Columbia complex.

[6] With the storage provided in Canada, water releases could be timed to meet power demand, rather than relying on the snowmelt-determined natural flow rates of the river.

The creation of a government-owned power entity allowed Bennett to finance the dams and powerhouses on the Columbia at lower interest rates, thus reducing the cost.

[14] Bennett directed the negotiations for a Canadian Entitlement sales agreement which provided the funds to develop both the Columbia and the Peace rivers simultaneously.

[16][17] In short, BC pursued the Columbia River Treaty because it provided a unique opportunity for hydroelectric development that otherwise would not have been possible (due to the financial situation of the province during that period).

The treaty also allowed the U.S. to build the Libby Dam on the Kootenai River in Montana which provides a further 6.14 km3 (4.98 Maf) of active storage in the Koocanusa reservoir.

With the exception of the Mica Dam, which was designed and constructed with a powerhouse, the Canadian Treaty projects were initially built for the sole purpose of regulating water flow.

If the treaty is terminated, several provisions continue including Called Upon flood control, operation and coordination of Libby, and Kootenay River diversion rights.

[26] However, due to the exclusion of local hearings for the treaty and the outcome of the Arrow Dam many residents felt powerless in the provinces decision to flood the area.

J.W Wilson who took part in the settlement agreement for BC Hydro noticed that while they looked at the physical value of the resident's houses they were unable to include the losses that went along with living self-sufficiently, which was a lifestyle that would not be possible in a city or urban area.

[30] Finally, building the dam did provide work for many families, and supplied electricity to remote communities that were once out of reach of BC's transmission grid, and dependent on gas and diesel generators.

The Sinixt people who occupied the Columbia River Valley for thousands of years, lost sacred burial grounds, an extremely devastating experience for their community.

[35] However, due to the push to assimilate First Nations people into a cash-based economy, and no reserves being physically affected by the dams, Indian Affairs had minimal participation and influence.

[35] Once again, like BC Hydro, Indian Affairs disregarded hunting, fishing, gathering and sacred grounds as having either material, emotional or spiritual significance to First Nations people.

[37] The Kootenay Canal Plant (1975), Revelstoke Dam (1984), 185 MW Arrow Lakes Generating Station and the Brilliant Expansion Project are examples of these developments.

[39] Further negative impacts include the flooding of approximately 600 km2 of fertile and productive valley bottoms to fill the Arrow Lakes, Duncan, Kinbasket and Koocanusa reservoirs.

[40] Before the introduction of dams on the river, the changes in water level rose and fell predictably with the seasons and a nine-meter displacement existed between the spring snowmelt highs and fall lows.

[41] After the dams were built, the river flows changed and in some areas the previous maximum and minimum water levels were altered by several tens of meters.

After the damming, the water during high floods began to cover much of the valley's arable land—and when it was drawn down to produce power it carried away fertile soil, leaving agricultural land useless.

[43] Additionally, it is estimated that the habitat of 8,000 deer, 600 elk, 1,500 moose, 2,000 black bears, and 70,000 ducks and geese was flooded due to the creation of the reservoirs.

[45] Nutrient-rich sediment, that would previously have flowed downstream, becomes trapped in the reservoirs above dams, resulting in changes in water properties and temperatures on either side of the barrier.

[46] When silt settles to the bottom of the river or reservoir it covers rocks, ruins spawning grounds and eliminates all hiding place for smaller fish to escape from predators.

[44] The Columbia River, with its series of dams and reservoirs, is influenced by a complex combination of these effects, making it difficult to predict or understand exactly how the animal populations will react.

Pre-dam currents on the Columbia efficiently carried fry to the ocean, but the introduction of dams and reservoirs changed the flow of the river, forcing the young fish to exert much more energy to swim through slack waters.

There is no one solution to improving the salmon and trout populations on the Columbia as it is the cumulative effects of the dams, slack-water reservoirs, loss of habitat, pollution and overfishing that are killing the fish.

[53] BC Hydro has also provided some funding to Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area to help alleviate damage done by Duncan Dam to surrounding habitats.

Environmental impact assessments found that this dam would be deleterious to a variety of large game animals, including big-horned sheep and elk.

[56] Under pressure from environmental activist groups, the Army Corps of Engineers developed a mitigation plan that represents a major departure from the previous treaty dams.