Feb 252015
 

At the December 16, 2014 Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting, the proponent’s presentation included the drawing below (click on it for a larger view). This shows the proponent would like to “preserve” Margaret Burgess Park by being allowed to instead use the following Township lands for their proposed construction (which would be at least two years):

  • Portage Landing (the land south of the proposed construction site, labelled “staging area” below)
  • Precambrian Shield parking lot
  • Don’s Bakery parking Lot

We’ve heard this before from the “Probity” group (who even had green “Save Margaret Burgess Park” buttons made for the municipal elections last October). Let’s look at what the proponent’s “deal” would really mean for Bala.

As shown by the southbound red truck turning from Muskoka Road 169 into the “staging area”, the proponent desperately wants to fill Portage Landing with 15′ of blasted rock, so they could drive dump trucks into it to reach their proposed construction site (shaded red below).

But it is  fact that Portage Landing is all trees. So to dump their blasted rock and to get their dump trucks into it, the proponent would first need to cut down all the trees in at least the north 95′ of Portage Landing. We’ve counted, this means the proponent would cut down more than 100 trees in Portage Landing to “Save Margaret Burgess Park”.

So let’s look at Margaret Burgess Park. Below is an overlay of two drawings from the proponent; one shows the trees in Margaret Burgess Park and the other shows the path of the gravel the proponent would dump into Margaret Burgess Park to make a ramp up to their proposed temporary bridge over the Bala north falls (they would use this bridge so their dump trucks could reach their proposed construction site).

As highlighted by the red arrows we’ve added to the overlay drawing below (click on it for a larger view), the proponent would need to cut down two trees, maybe three in Margaret Burgess Park.

So which is the better deal, the proponent’s current plan to cut down two or three trees, or what they’re now asking for, to cut down over 100 trees from Portage Landing.

It is obvious, the Township should not “make a deal” with the proponent. The proponent’s current plan to cut down only two or three trees in Margaret Burgess Park would be far better for Bala than their “deal” of instead cutting down over 100 trees on Portage Landing. But this is even more clear if we look at the bigger picture of the two “choices”:

  1. Proponent’s current plan:
    1. Cut down two or three trees from Margaret Burgess Park.
    2. Dump some gravel in Margaret Burgess Park to make a ramp (they would later remove the gravel).
       
      OR, proponent’s “deal” …

       

  2. Proponent is asking Mayor Furniss and the Councillors of the Township of Muskoka Lakes to agree to “Save Margaret Burgess Park”, so the proponent would instead:
    1. Cut down over 100 trees in Portage Landing
    2. Fill Portage Landing with 15′ of blasted rock
    3. Occupy the Precambrian Shield parking lot for at least two years
    4. Occupy the south half of the Don’s Bakery Parking lot for years

We think the proponent would already be making enough of a mess of Bala (in both cases they’d also be; occupying all of Diver’s Point, driving dump trucks into the Bala north channel beside Purk’s Place, and of course, blasting the Crown land south of the Bala north falls down 60′ and filling the entire site with a 70′-wide x 100′-long poured concrete powerhouse that would rise 30′ above Muskoka Road 169).

Let the Mayor and Councillors know that the Proponent’s current plan is mess enough. We don’t want them cutting down 100 trees at Portage Landing to save a few trees in Margaret Burgess Park.

Feb 252015
 

[Martin Ford is the owner and operator of Sun and Ski Marine. He has shared the following (you can download it here) …]

I know this is a long email but it is important as it relates to the development of the Bala Falls Hydro Project. Please help if you are interested!

Hello Fellow Muskoka Lakefront Property Owners;

I know that many of you enjoy and love the town of Bala and all it has to offer. Whether it’s the beauty of the falls, the boat trips to the dock for ice cream or baked goods, jumping off the railway bridge, fishing in the Moon River, swimming at the base of the north falls, participating in the Regatta at the public docks, buying bait from Purk’s Place, or the convenience of shopping locally. I know you enjoy your waterfront and the beauty of the Muskoka Lakes.

I am writing this email to alert you without prejudice to the fact that the political landscape to fight the Bala Falls Hydro Plant has aggressively changed since Don Furniss became Mayor last fall. The momentum that was in favour of stopping this project from being built in Bala has turned and with lightning speed. We believe that if the Lakefront property owners do not get engaged right now, construction will begin this spring, which will forever change this town!

This email is being sent with a specific request to assist the town of Bala and the “Save the Bala Falls” group to fund a war chest to stop this project and to move the momentum back to stopping the hydro plant. Glenn and Chris Zavitz, lakefront property owners in Bala, are collecting the funds.

The latest rendering of this plant shows the construction of a concrete bunker, which will tower over the highway height by 30 feet and 55 feet in width. The intake for this hydro plant will be a massive new hole blasted to the right of Purk’s Place. The majority of the trees that are in this area, including the side of the United Church that surrounds the waterfalls, will be removed. Upon completion, the falls on the north and the south side will be nothing but a dribble as they draw most of the water underground to drive the turbines. The beauty of the falls and the view down the Moon will be gone forever.

What many of you are probably not aware of is that the management of the water levels will be transferred from the Ministry of Natural Resources to that of a privately owned power generating company, a profit hydro developer. That company is Swift River (SREL). Their contract to build and manage this project is a lucrative one. The Ontario Government will fund them $80,000,000 over a forty-year period for a $20,000,000 dollar investment. They will receive 17 cents per kilowatt for every click that this hydroelectric plant generates. The worst part of this scenario is that this power is going to be sold to NY State at a loss. This is a minimal output electrical project due to the small size of the falls. There are far better locations for a hydro plant across Ontario that will not destroy the local economy of Bala and wreak havoc that can never be changed. Plus there are many other advanced green technologies that would not have the same impact as a Hydro Generation Plant.

The management of the water levels is of great concern and should be understood by the lakefront property owners. The water levels during construction may cause flooding. The ongoing water levels have the potential of swinging dramatically to the point where the shallow waters will become less navigable and the risk of flooding continuously will be in the hands of a private company that generates cents per click. Do any of you on this distribution believe that a private company who generates revenue per click will care if they swing the water levels so that your boathouse becomes un-useable? Will they care that you can’t navigate from a shallow area or shallow bay like Dark Bay into Bala Bay to the main lake? I know which properties that will be most affected as I have been to many of your lakefront summer homes.

The camp kids who currently canoe or kayak to Margaret Burgess Park to portage will no longer have access to this area. The strong currents created by the turbines will ensure that navigation to the public docks in Bala by Don’s Bakery is exceptionally difficult with very fast moving water.

FROM THE ONTARIO POWER GENERATION WEBSITE

“STAY CLEAR, STAY SAFE”

“WATER NEAR DAMS AND HYDROELECTRIC STATIONS IS DANGEROUS”

http://www.opg.com/Pages/home.aspx

 

 

Canadian Safe Boating Course

Hydroelectric dams and stations, and the areas around them are:

  • NOT parks
  • NOT fishing holes
  • NOT boating areas
  • NOT swimming areas
  • NOT camping sites or picnic areas
  • NOT safe places for recreation

http://www.boaterexam.com/canada/education/hydroelectricdams-en.aspx

For your own safety near a hydroelectric dam or station, make sure that you:

  • Obey all warning signs, fences, buoys, booms and barriers. They are put there to protect you. The areas inside are dangerous, stay clear of them.
  • Stay a safe distance outside of warning signs, buoys, booms and barriers when fishing, boating or swimming.
  • Stay well back from the edge of waters above and below hydroelectric dams and stations
  • Never stand below a dam, or anchor or tie your boat there. Rapidly changing water levels and flows can take you by surprise and could swamp your boat or put you in the grip of an undertow.
  • Stay off hydroelectric dams or station structures, unless OPG has clearly indicated walkways, or observation points.
  • Stay well back of dry riverbeds below dams. They can quickly change into rapidly flowing waterways.
  • Stay well back from the edge of a waterway where footing may be slippery.
  • Don’t wade into moving water.
  • When swimming, fishing, boating or paddling in a river, be aware of the water level and check upstream frequently for any sign of increasing currents or rising water levels. If the water level is rising or the flow is speeding up, get out of the water or move your boat downstream. Even when the hydroelectric dam or station is out of sight, changing water levels and flows can take you by surprise, pulling you into an undertow, leaving you stranded away from shore or swamping your boat.
  • Set an example for children, who may not be aware of the dangers, even if they can read. State explicitly where they can and cannot go and make sure you are close to them and can see them at all times.

THERE IS A REAL DANGER TO CHILDREN AND ADULTS

It will be located on the main street of Bala.

 WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?

The Muskoka Lakes Association, the Moon River Cottagers Association, and the majority of the voting public in Ward A of this township are against the project! Additionally, the Wahta First Nations are outraged that their sacred portage will be closed down forever. There are many questions about environmental impact, noise pollution, economic devastation, and proper consultation going unanswered by Ontario and the developer. Did you know that SREL, while negotiating with the ‘new’ council, still have an on-going lawsuit against our previous mayor who was trying to stop the project?

The fight to stop the Bala Falls Hydro Plant has been valiantly fought by the local people who have organized and provided tremendous information on their web site www.savethebalafalls.com. This group has primarily been locally funded and they do not have the resources to fight the deep pockets of Swift River and their lobby groups. It has come to light that Swift River has no assets, no people, and will hand off the operation of the plant to the Towns of Bracebridge and Hunstville who will financially benefit from Bala’s local demise through Lakeland Energy. The Ontario government does not care about the town of Bala. They see this project as green energy that must move forward regardless of the fact that it does not make economic sense. What Premier Wynne does not understand is that this hydroelectric plant is being built in Bala’s front yard and that it will change the heritage falls and the historic nature and beauty of this town forever! NO ONE is listening.

Rob Stewart, an award winning film creator, has generously offered his support and he is currently developing a new film to help fight this project with an expected release the middle of March. Like many of us, Rob is a cottager who grew up enjoying the Muskoka Lakes and the town of Bala. Our aim is to distribute the film traditionally and through social media to get the exposure that this project needs to help turn the tide and to create political attention that it needs. The trailer for this project can be viewed here: https://vimeo.com/113814268

Funds are being requested to build the war chest to assist in this video production, distribution, as well as other marketing and legal means. We need your support TODAY! Glenn and Chris Zavitz, lakefront property owners, are collecting your donations on behalf of this project and the Save the Bala Falls group! Please help — we need it now! To assist with the funding, please send email money transfers with your donation to chris.zavitz@rogers.com . Glenn Zavitz’s phone number for further information is 519-591-8878.

To the lawyers in the group, please help. There are conflict of interest, water access rights and lack of public consultation issues that have plagued this project from the start. Both high and low water levels could be significant. Could this be stopped if the Lakefront Cottage owners threatened legal action to the mayor and the council members as Swift River has done?

To those of you on this list that may have political connections with the current Liberal government, we need your help! Premier Kathleen Wynne has never been to Bala and decisions are being made in a vacuum without understanding the beauty of this landscape. Perhaps if the Premier actually travelled to Bala and understood this impact the Ontario government would change directions.

It has been suggested that if evidence of climate change in the past five years and the impact to our natural environment was identified that the Ontario government may change it’s direction. This cancellation would be at a cost but not as significant as the overall development of the project. There is an individual who is working to provide this information and it will be provided to the Save the Bala Falls team.

To all of us that own lakefront property on the Muskoka Lakes YOU need to be engaged. Don Furniss, the Mayor of Muskoka Lakes, the majority of the council members and the Fire Chief Hayes are not Lakefront Property Owner friendly. They are jealous of your wealth and they view you as tourists! They are happy to take your taxes but you have no voice! THAT needs to change.

The Muskoka Lakes Mayor, and the Council members who have publicly stated their support for a hydro-dam in Bala are as follows. The YES side has six votes the NO side has four votes. The following individuals will vote for the project unless we can change their direction and vote!

 The Mayor – Donald Furniss
1208 Beaumaris Rd.
Beaumaris, ON, P1L 1W8
(705) 764-1757 home
don.furniss@muskokalakes.ca

Ward B

Allen Edwards
District and Township Councillor
Box 128
Windermere, ON P0B 1P0
(705) 769-2214 home
allen.edwards@muskokalakes.ca

Linda Barrick-Spearn
Township Councillor
1670 Windermere Road
Utterson, ON POB 1M0
(705) 706-4296 home
linda.barrick-spearn@muskokalakes.ca

Gault McTaggart
Township Councillor
Box 173
Windermere, ON, P0B 1P0
(705) 783-3182 home
gault.mctaggart@muskokalakes.ca

WARD C

 Jean-Ann Baranik
Deputy Mayor
Township Concillor
P.O. Box Box 445
Port Carling, ON P0B 1J0
705-765-1162 Home
jean-ann.baranik@muskokalakes.ca

Terry Ledger
Township Councillor
167 Medora Street
Port Carling, ON, P0B 1J0
(705) 765-5428 business
terry.ledger@muskokalakes.ca

PLEASE personally contact the Mayor and the Council members in Ward B and Ward C to express your outrage that they are supporting this project and demand they stop. They need to be called personally on the telephone. (Emails can be easily deleted). They need to be badgered day and night, and on weekends to ensure they understand your opposition to this project. You need to ask them what possesses them to support a project that is this devastating to the town of Bala and the Township of Muskoka Lakes? Ask them if they would support a project like this in the front yards of Windermere, Beaumaris, Utterson, or Port Carling? Why are they choosing to inflict pain on others in Muskoka Lakes? Perhaps with pressure, the tides will turn back and that is what we need to do collectively as lakefront property owners.

Suggested script:

Hello Councillor XXXXXX , my name is XXXXXXX and I have a property in the Township of Muskoka Lakes. I know it is late, but just as the water levels in Muskoka will be affected at all hours of the day and night, I wanted you to know about my grave concerns regarding the building of a power plant in Bala. Many have said it is Green Energy and out of the Townships hands – I disagree. Give this developer nothing, continue to lobby the Provincial Government, Stand firm that Muskoka is NOT a WILLING HOST and despite the developer’s threats to use parks during construction – don’t give in. These are tactics to threaten us (and you) into getting exactly what they want. These are idle threats, and all their permits from the Province are still not complete. Please stand firm and protect Muskoka. Protect Bala. Protect our hydro rates. Your vote matters, You can be on the side that protects Muskoka for the next 100 years – or you can be on the side that “sold Muskoka” giving it away to a private company without a vested interested. “

Please also contact Fire Chief Richard Hayes and inform him that you are concerned that emergency services in Muskoka Lakes could not handle a major catastrophe in the Township of Muskoka Lakes caused by issues at the hydro plant. His direct email is here rhayes@muskokalakes.ca and his phone number is 705-765-3156, extension 261. Fire Chief Hayes needs to hear your concerns directly and forcefully!

We are asking you to distribute this email to other local lakefront property owners whom you know and that you believe would care and be willing to help. Although some believe it is only about Bala, the reality is that this will affect Lake Rosseau, Lake Joseph, Lake Muskoka, and the Moon River! Our lakes are connected and what happens in Bala will impact all.

Please help this town protect the Bala falls! We want the historic nature of this town and its waterfalls to be enjoyed forever and by all! Without the lakefront property owner’s support this project will move full steam ahead and the beauty of this town will be gone forever.

Sincerely,

Martin Ford

Feb 112015
 

Here are some updates on the proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls.

Status
There are still many significant unaddressed issues which could prevent the proponent from receiving the approvals or financing they would need to start construction, for example:

  • While Transport Canada has provided an approval, it isn’t clear what this is for, as Transport Canada did not assess boating safety in the Mill Stream or Moon River (which would be negatively impacted by the proposed project). Also, there are public safety and land ownership issues for the alternative portage routes proposed by the proponent.
  • While the Ministry of the Environment has provided their approval, the proponent’s plans include work not covered by this approval.
  • The Ministry of Natural Resources has apparently still not provided required approvals.
  • The Wahta Mohawks have apparently not been consulted on the negative impacts of the currently proposed project, both for proposed actions by the proponent and for actions by the MNR.

We will therefore be making a short presentation to the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council this Friday February 13, 2015 at 9:45 am, in the Council Chambers in Port Carling. Please attend if convenient (apparently the proponent had requested to present, but today they decided they would not).
 

Tom Adams
Tom Adams is a knowledgable and deservedly well-respected energy critic, and is frequently quoted in the press and interviewed on television about Ontario’s energy pricing and provincial energy policies. He is a tireless researcher and recently co-authored with Ross McKitrick the report What Goes Up … Ontario’s Soaring Electricty Prices and How to Get Them Down, which was well-received and widely reported a few months ago (such as here, here, and here). Tom’s web site is here, and you can follow him on twitter here.

Tom has been concerned about the proposed Bala project for some time and he plans on visiting Bala this Thursday February 12, 2015. To show support for Peggy, he plans on camping out overnight, even though the forecast is for an overnight low of -26°C. Come out in the afternoon to say hello and see the progress of the Quinzhee construction, meet his dog, or join the get-together at the Bala Falls Pub starting at 5:00 pm.
 

The proponent’s string of broken promises and commitments they wouldn’t keep
For ten years the proponent has been saying they would:

  • Be “Creating opportunities for recreation”. But in fact they would be making nearby recreation too dangerous to continue.
  • Build a “a low-profile power house … Its roof will be below road level”. But in fact their recent drawings show it would be 28′ above road level.
  • Be “creating an excellent vantage point for visitors “. But in fact there would be no vantage point, and their 56′-wide building would block the view down the Moon River.

Many more examples of the proponent reneging on commitments are noted here.

This entire process was started by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource’s 2005 request for proposals, which reserved the right to “disqualify any Applicant whose Proposal contains … materially inaccurate or misleading information”. The proponent’s intention to not fulfill these fundamental obligations of their proposal are certainly material. The proponent should therefore be disqualified from being able to further pursue this opportunity.

Of course the proponent could claim the process is now far past the proposal stage. But here we are, ten years after the proponent submitted their proposal, and only months away from when they claim they would start construction, and only now are a few drawings being provided, so there was no earlier time that it could have been known that the proponent would not meet their commitments.
 

Township of Muskoka Lakes Community Input Session
The last of the Township’s four Community Input Sessions will be this Saturday morning February 14, 2015 at 10:00 am at the Torrance Community Centre. Please attend if you are able, as this is where the Township would like to receive input for their Strategic Plan.

For example, looking at the Township’s survey here, you may feel there is a lack of attention to issues relevant to seasonal residents (who provide a significant majority of the tax revenue to the Township), such as promoting tourism, protecting natural resources, and protecting heritage sites – which are all important to the long-term viability of the area’s economy.

Attend and ensure our elected representatives hear your concerns.
 

A Valentine’s Day card to the Bala Falls
Long-time supporter Brian Munro (perhaps you’ve seen his truck in town) has shared with us his beautiful Valentine’s Day card to the Bala Falls and made a great poster showing the message from PaddleShack, as photographed by John Wright.

SaveTheBalaFalls.com

Feb 052015
 

Firstly, we note that the MNR’s 2004/2005 site release and the proponent’s responding “Option 1” proposal were for construction only on the Crown land directly south of the Bala north dam, and this is the same site for the proponent’s current Alternative 1A proposal.

What the proponent has been promising for ten years …

In the cover letter for their 2004 Statement of Qualifications, the proponent said the hydro-electric generating stations they would build would be: “non-offensive plants in park-like settings”.

  • But we now see the entire site would be concrete, nothing “park-like” about that.

In their 2005 Proposal (that will take a minute or longer to download), the proponent said: “Swift River is aware that the Bala site has substantial beauty … and is a tourist gem for the people of Ontario. This is clearly recognized in our proposal” and “Our proposal incorporates the safe public use and enjoyment of the site, attractive landscaping …”.

  • Not quite. There would be no landscaping, given the entire site would be their concrete and steel building. This would not recognize that Bala is a tourist gem.
  • It appears there would not even be a public look-out, so therefore no public use or enjoyment of the site either.

In their 2005 Proposal, the proponent also stated they would be: “Creating opportunities for recreation”, “Community sensitive green space planning” and “Respecting our cultural heritage”. And that their proposed project: “will not generally diminish the public’s enjoyment of the area for swimming, boating, fishing, picnicking and hiking.”

  • The proposed generating station would make the existing wading, swimming, and scuba diving at the base of the usually-serene Bala north falls too dangerous to continue. This would destroy recreation, not create it.
  • The entire site would be concrete, there would be no “green space”.
  • The proponent has been trying to pressure the municipality into allowing use of the Township’s Portage Landing area to the south of the proposed construction site. The proponent would cut down all the trees, dump it full of blasted rock, and drive heavy construction equipment through it for two years. This would not respect the cultural heritage.

In their 2005 Proposal, the proponent also stated they would be: “installing a low-profile power house built mostly underground (bunker-type). Its roof will be below road level and only some 5 ft above ground level, creating an excellent vantage point for visitors …”

  • The proponent’s proposal would actually rise 28′ above the road and the tailrace gates would be 32′ above the Moon River. There is nothing “low-profile” about it.
  • Worse than that, there would be no “vantage point”. The 56′-wide industrial building would obstruct the view from the road and there would be no public look-out for visitors.

In their 2005 Proposal, the proponent also stated they would provide: “sensitive development of the site, proper and full consultation in the community”.

  • In the ten years the proponent has been pursuing this opportunity, they have held only two public meetings, both for proposals they have since abandoned. This is not consultation.

In their 2009 Environmental Screening/Review report, the proponent provided the following rendering (click on any of these figures for a larger view). Looks pretty, but is complete fiction and could not actually be a generating station. The proponent is deceiving rather than informing. For example, where are the tailrace gates (hydro-electric generating stations require these so they can be lowered to seal the tailrace when the equipment requires servicing), where are the ventilation openings, the powerhouse needs to be taller or longer for all the required equipment, where’s the door for people to get in, where’s the exhaust for the emergency diesel generator – and on and on. It was irresponsible for the proponent to even provide this lie, yet they would never acknowledge that this fantasy could not actually be built.

In their 2012 Addendum, the proponent states: “The footprint and elevation of the Alternative 1A plan presented in this Addendum illustrates the largest building size required for both configurations. Therefore, this size may indeed be reduced following detailed design prior to construction”. However, as noted here, the proponent’s current drawings show their Alternative 1A proposed generating station has a footprint 48% larger than what their 2012 Addendum said was already the “largest building size”.

  • The proponent should be required to keep the commitments made in the environmental assessment process.

In 2014 the proponent released some renderings, including the following. Some observations:

  • Beautiful trees are shown, but several are growing out of the concrete, yet another example of wishful thinking rather than reality.
  • What looks like horizontal blinds above the tailrace would be huge steel gates (there would also be a hoisting mechanism – a big steel structure over the gates, with an electric motor and gearbox in a large enclosure). These gates would be at least 10′-high and a total of 56′ wide.
  • There would be no public look-out, but there would need to be lots of fencing to keep people from getting onto the station or near the tailrace gates.

What the proponent is actually planning …

Below is a very preliminary drawing from the proponent. It is a view from above the Bala north falls, looking down and to the south. It shows many of the main components of their proposed generating station:

  • The Bala north dam extends to the left (the concrete part is too light to see, but the wood stop-logs in each sluice show clearly). The water intake to the proposed generating station would be just behind (upstream of) and to the right of the Bala north dam. The intake would have huge steel gates that can be lowered to cover the intake, and the steel gate hoisting structure above the intake would be 30′-high x 42′-wide. The proposed powerhouse building would be 28′ above Muskoka Road 169 and be 56′ wide. So this building is all one would see when driving west on Bala Falls Road approaching Muskoka Road 169.
  • To the right would be the tailrace (from which the water would flow into the Moon River) and the 10′-high x 56′-wide tailrace gate hoist mechanism would be above that. The top of the tailrace gate hoist mechanism would be 32′ above the Moon River.
  • One can just imagine how much fun kids would have trying to climb onto platform above the tailrace – which would be completely dangerous, so there would need to be ugly fencing everywhere. And you can be sure that if the fencing wasn’t effective, the proponent would need to install barbed-wire fencing.
  • This steel and poured-concrete building would fill the entire site, so there would be no landscaping possible.

That is, the proponent would not be keeping any of their committments for which they were selected and for which they received environmental approval: The powerhouse would not be below road level, rather it would be 28′ above it. There would be no public look-out, rather the building would block the view. The development wouldn’t be sensitive to the site, or respect that it is a tourist gem. This is just an

In summary …

Over the ten years the proponent has been pursuing this opportunity, they have been making promises about safety, in-water recreation, the building’s size and appearance, landscaping, and a public look-out. They do not appear to be planning on keeping any of these promises. They have not provided any credible drawings or renderings. This is dishonourable conduct and the province should not be dealing with such proponents.

Feb 032015
 

Summary
Our understanding of the current status of the proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls is that the proponent still does not have all the approvals they would need to start work. Also, we have sent letters to the government noting several important issues concerning approvals the proponent has already received, and we await responses.
 

Detail
The proponent still needs the Plans and Specifications for both their proposed construction sequence and final works to be approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. While both parties originally expected this process could be done in 60 days, it has now been over nine months. You can see some reasons for the delay here, as the work could damage the Bala north dam. There are other concerns, such as the risk of flooding Lake Muskoka.

Also, the proponent’s proposed construction sequence would not be according to their environmental approvals. We continue to wait for a response from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change about this.
 

The importance of maintaining portages
This article shows that developers at other hydro-electric generating stations in Muskoka were required to maintain existing portages. However, so far, this has not been required for the proposed Bala project. Worse still is that Transport Canada has accepted alternate portages in Bala which would be too dangerous and would trespass over private property. We continue to wait for a response from the Minister of Transport on this issue.
 

MP Tony Clement, we’re not happy
Transportation safety is a main mandate of Transport Canada, yet they have not even sent an e-mail in reply acknowledging our many concerns of public safety and land ownership. So we asked our MP Tony Clement to facilitate a meeting so we could discuss this directly with Transport Canada. After much prodding all MP Clement would do was report that he “Suggested a meeting. Thus far they have declined.”

Rather than simply defending government agencies from having to respond to the public, elected politicians should be strongly advocating for the public’s concerns, especially when a government agency is not fulfilling its mandate.

MP Clement rightly notes the province is a key decision maker for this issue, but boating safety is a federal responsibility and we have boating safety questions. In this election year, we continue to look for MP Clement to follow through on his statement “I’m not happy till my constituents are happy.” MP Clement, your constituents are not happy. Transport Canada’s approval has created confusion, which is unacceptable for serious issues of public safety and trespassing. We look forward to your standing up for Muskoka on this issue.
 

Excellent interview
Last week Allan Turnbull was interviewed on Hunters Bay Radio. He provided a clear explanation of what is wrong with Ontario’s provincial energy policy, and how it is bad for Ontario’s economy and for all of Ontario’s electricity consumers (note that at 8:17 even Arlo the station’s dog understands Allan and gets upset about the Global Adjustment). The proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls is just one example of good intentions gone wrong. Listen to the interview using the bottom link here.
 

Township of Muskoka Lakes Board and Committee Appointments
As noted here, the Township of Muskoka Lakes has openings on several Boards and Committees for citizen members. Applications from those wishing to be considered will be accepted until 4:00 pm on February 4, 2015. We realize this is short notice, but the detail of these appointments, such as the Committee mandate, composition, and term was only posted on Friday. Being involved with government is the best way to better understand the process and help shape outcomes.
 

Township of Muskoka Lakes Community Input Sessions
The Township of Muksoka Lakes would like to hear from you, and has scheduled four Community Input Sessions, in Port Carling, Windermere, Torrance – and there will even be a GTA session on Monday February 9, 2015 at 7:00 pm at the Hilton Garden Inn at 3201 Highway 7. More detail is here.

Township of Muskoka Lakes Community  Strategic Plan
Using input from the above Community Input Sessions, the Township of Muskoka Lakes is updating its strategic plan. A two-page summary of the process is here. The process includes an on-line survey, which you can access here.