The hydro-electric generating station built by Swift River Energy Limited / Horizon Legacy at the Bala north falls is built on lies, has inadequate safety measures, and its irresponsible operation ignores how the area is used for in-water recreation.
It is a drowning waiting to happen so it should not be operated in the summer.

It is unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of an extremely-popular in-water recreational area and the public safety measures implemented by Swift River Energy Limited / Horizon Legacy are inadequate for this location.

The Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes therefore unanimously passed Resolutions in both January 2019 and November 2019 requesting this station not be operated from May through October.

If there is a serious injury or worse, the information on this web site will remain available to assist a victim’s family.

Inadequate public safety due diligence

Swift River Energy Limited (same people as for Horizon Legacy and Horizon Legacy Properties) is now operating their Bala generating station and continue to have inadequate public safety measures as it is unprecedented and irresponsible to construct and operate an extremely dangerous industrial facility in the middle of a long-time and popular in-water recreational area:

  • Their public safety plan was created by the same engineering services firm that worked on the generating station itself. This; is a conflict of interest, shows there has been no independent third-party review, and is therefore inadequate as this is a life safety issue.
  • The public safety measures plan does not include any hydraulic assessment documentation even though this is specified to be included by the Canadian Dam Association’s Guidelines for Public Safety Around Dams.
  • The proponent (Swift River Energy Limited) has not considered Scuba diving and other existing area activities, as a result their safety provisions are inadequate and ineffective.
  • The proponent did not solicit input from those with local knowledge of how the area is used.
  • The proponent’s safety plans do not have input from an organization which has public safety expertise for in-water recreational activities, such as the Royal Life Saving Society Canada.
  • The approval the proponent received from Transport Canada only states: “that it is not likely to substantially interfere with navigation”. That is, Transport Canada did no assessment of and has no expertise or mandate for in-water recreation, so the proponent’s approvals received did not consider the area’s activities of greatest concern.
  • The proponent has not determined or demonstrated the impact of the various flows created by the operation of their generating station on the area’s activities such as use of the public docks upstream of their generating station, or being just outside of their downstream safety boom.

They are ignoring this issue, but it will not go away.

In summary, the proponent’s due diligence for public safety is inadequate and we therefore agree with the January 2019 and November 2019 Resolutions unanimously passed by the Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes that the proponent not operate this dangerous facility during the summer.

Attempting to blame the victim

For previous drownings caused by hydro-electric generating stations we have found that:

  • The operator’s warnings do not adequately explain what and where the dangers are and do not indicate when those dangers are present, the result is the public safety measures are inadequate.
  • The station operator blames the victim regardless of; the inadequacy of the operator’s warning signage, past actions by either party, or the dangers created by the station and related facilities.
  • The station operator has far more legal and technical resources than those acting on behalf of the victim so bullies and threatens the victim’s family into not fully pursuing the incident or ensuring it does not happen again.
  • Those acting for the victim often do not understand who is responsible for what (operating decisions, approvals, and so on).

In this case, we have seen that the proponent’s public safety measures are inadequate for the situation, and expect the information on this web site will be helpful in assisting a victim’s family.

The proponent

What would you call a proponent that takes far more than their fair share.

What would you call a proponent that does not publically show themselves in the 15 years they have been pursuing a project.

  • Background: A person should be proud of their work, not ashamed.

What would you call a proponent that repeatedly makes statements that deviate from the truth.

  • Background: We list at least 12 instances of this, the proponent has never contested any of them.