Bullying, Option 1, and the Green Energy Act

There are currently two important issues which we would like to clarify.

The Green Energy Act
As noted in the lawyer’s opinion here, the Green Energy Act has provisions which restrict municipalities from being able to stop the development of renewable energy sources.

• However, these restrictions apply to land owned by a developer that wants to use their own land for renewable energy projects.
• The restrictions do not apply to land owned by a municipality.
  • Therefore, if the municipality does not wish its land to be used for a renewable energy project, then the Green Energy Act has no power to require the municipality to allow a private developer to use the land for any particular purpose.

That is, if the District Municipality of Muskoka does not want its land used for a power station in Bala, then the District’s land will not be used for a power station in Bala. The Green Energy Act cannot force the District to use the District’s land for a power station.

The “Threat” of Option 1
In a recent Gravenhurst Banner article (here, and a pdf version is here), the proponent continues to state that if the District land is not provided so they can build their Option 2 power station, then the proponent will use just the land provided to them by the Ministry of Natural Resources to build their Option 1 power station.

For reference:

• The proponent originally drew Option 1 this way, later they drew it this way. And about September 20, 2010, they released this drawing.
• For comparison, this is Option 2.
• The property ownership is shown here, and Option 1 needing District land for both the power station and the driveway is shown here.

This is an idle threat, for many reasons.

• Available Space. While the proponent claims they drew Option 1 as needing District land due to a surveying error, they would still need a driveway, somewhere to anchor the tailrace safety boom, and room for hoisting equipment. That is, the MNR land is too small for a power station of any useful size.
• Intake. For Option 1, the depth of the water at the intake is currently about 6′, which is less than 15% of the 45′ depth needed for Option 2.
  • The excavation would be substantial, difficult, and tricky:
    • The intake channel for the proposed Option 1 power station would need to be excavated 38′ down into bedrock. To ensure the intake channel is wide enough, the sides would need to be almost vertical (it would be about 43′ wide at the top, and 33′ wide at the bottom – more detail is here).
    • This 38′-deep intake channel would be less than a foot from the supports for the highway bridge and even closer to the concrete piers of the north dam.
    • This would require building a coffer dam to block half the north channel, and this would need to be completed before the north channel may be needed for flood control.
  • The path of the intake water would also need to have at least a 45° bend which would significantly restrict the intake channel.
  • These problems could be avoided if the Option 1 power station’s capacity was as small as the previous power station (which was 0.3 MW), but the proponent would not find such a small station profitable (the capacity of the proposed Option 2 power station is 14 times greater than this – 4.3 MW).
• Tailrace. The discharge of the water from the tailrace would make it too dangerous for recreation at the base of the north falls, and for the homes and cottages downstream of the north falls to dock their boats (that is, Option 1 would impinge on the riparian rights of the downstream property owners, more detail here).
• Environmental Screening Report. The proponent would need to begin the entire environmental screening process again, and do much of the work and studies again (effect on fish spawning and entrainment, effect of directing the water at the south bank of the Moon River, traffic disruption, north channel obstruction during construction, building design, and on and on).
  • This would take more than a year, would cost more money for the studies, would result in a less-profitable power station, would again encounter significant opposition from the public, and may well not be allowed by the Ministry of the Environment anyways.

In summary, if the proponent could not build their proposed Option 2, then they could not, or would not, build Option 1.