cfs. Tailwater fluctuations would be limited to a maximum of one foot per hour, 

 but not more than four feet per day during the period of May through September; 

 and to a maximum of one foot per half hour, but not more than six feet per day 

 during the period of October through April. These constraints are the same as those 

 imposed at Libby Dam with four units operating. 



The energy produced by any hydropower source depends upon the volume of water 

 passing through the turbines and the elevation difference, or head, between the re- 

 servoir level and the river level below the dam. Since the addition of four gener- 

 ators to the Libby Dam powerhouse changes neither the inflow to the reservoir nor 

 the head, eight generators will not produce more energy than the four existing 

 generators over extended time. Additional generators will, however, produce more 

 energy over a relatively short-lived peak electrical demand period (i.e. one to as 

 many as tv/elve hours). 



In July 1973, the Corps' Seattle District Engineers recommended to the Senate 

 Public Works Committee that generators be incorporated into the design of the rereg- 

 ulating dam. Phase I studies for advanced engineering and design for that purpose 

 were authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-29). 

 Congressional authorization for the inclusion of power generators in the reregulating 

 dam, however, is still pending. Indeed, Congressional authorization for the rereg- 

 ulatory facility itself could not be demonstrated to the satisfaction of Federal 

 Judge Murray, who recently granted a preliminary injunction and ordered a halt to all 

 construction activities associated with the reregulatory project. The Corps had 

 claimed that the project was authorized in 1950 as part of authorization for the 

 Libby Dam Project. 



The question of authorization, the question of a real need for additional peaking 

 power in the northwest United States, the uncertainty as to what impacts a reregula- 

 ting facility will have on the endangered bald eagle, the wisdom of inundating ten 

 more miles of the Kootenai River, the adequacy of existing wildlife and fishery mitiga- 

 tion plans, and the long term effects of fluctuation criteria portray the controversy 

 over the reregulating dam and additional generating units at Libby Dam. 



Summaries of these important issues follow and they represent a coordinated state 

 response to the controversy. 



