Completion bonds are frequently required for construction projects to provide assurance that work will be completed as agreed. However, the proponent refuses to provide such assurance. Here are some examples of what could therefore happen:
Construction Mess
- As shown here, during construction the proponent would need to construct a 300′-long coffer dam in the Moon River and a 175′-long coffer dam in the north channel. This would basically be many, many tons of rocks and other materials.
- And, as shown here, the proponent would need to dig a 40′-deep trench across District Road 169.
If the proponent or their contractor went bankrupt, or if a technical problem was encountered, or there was a major dispute, or there was a financing problem, then the proponent could just abandon the project and the public would need to pay to have the site made safe and restored.
Damage
As shown above, the proponent would need to blast or otherwise excavate a 40′-deep trench across the highway.
- This trench would be directly adjacent to the District Road 169 bridge over the north channel. If the construction work damaged the bridge or its supports, the proponent may not have the resources to repair it. Note that proponent has no assets, no employees, and no operating business, they are a company formed just to pursue this opportunity. The proponent would be using outside investors (who would be eager to get a share of the hugely government-subsidized rate for the power for the next 40 years) to pay for the construction. If the proponent and investors decided not to provide the funds to pay for any such repairs or unexpected costs, but instead decided to limit their losses and abandon the project, the public would be stuck with having to both repair the bridge and finish the project (that we don’t want anyways).
- Worse than that, the aging north dam is also close to the required blasting/excavation. If the dam was damaged – perhaps even to the point of failing – one could hardly imagine the destruction, costs (and lives lost) if all of Lake Muskoka suddenly drained into the Moon River.
- The risk to the highway bridge and north dam would be massively greater for Option 1, as the excavation would be within inches of both of them.
Again, the proponent refuses to protect us against such problems they may cause.
Flooding
To excavate and build the intake for the proposed power station, a temporary coffer dam would need to be built in the north channel, as shown above. To examine the obstruction which would be caused by this coffer dam, a line was drawn across a scale drawing of the north channel, and dimensions taken to construct this profile showing the bottom of the north channel (as if you were in the water at the north dam, looking upstream, and seeing how deep the bottom is across the width of the channel). These measurements show that the cross-sectional area of the north dam is about 118 m2 and the area available for water flow around the coffer dam would be about 70 m2, so the coffer dam would obstruct about 40% of the flow in the north channel.
If there was an unexpected significant storm (or construction was delayed and the coffer dam needed to be in place during the spring freshet), then the south channel may not have enough capacity to handle the flow and flooding upstream could occur.
For the newly proposed Option 1, the coffer dam would need to block four of the six sluices of the north dam, but because the north channel is very shallow north of the north highway pier, 85% of the water flow through the north channel would be obstructed for most of the construction period. This would create even more risk of flooding (and this type of coffer dam could not be quickly removed as the proponent has claimed for their proposed Option 2). This is yet another reason why the proponent would not, and could not build Option 1.
Liability
As shown here, the intake for the proposed power station would be on Township property (the grey colour). Any upstream drowning would occur here, and this would add to the Township’s liability. The proponent should have insurance or otherwise indemnify the Township against such financial exposure.
Completion
What if the proponent didn’t finish the structure as promised (chain-link fencing instead of something more attractive) or if they didn’t landscape it as agreed. The only way to ensure all work is completed as agreed would be if a performance bond was posted.
Conclusion
For all these reasons, the proponent’s current stance of refusing to provide a completion bond is unacceptable as it would expose the local government, and indeed all us taxpayers to their risk. A completion bond and insurance coverage to cover all the above should be a requirement for this proposed project.