The proposed project would make all this too dangerous to continue …

Mar 212015

Over the years, the proponent has made several statements about the maximum output of their proposed generating station:

  • The proponent’s 2005 proposal stated the capacity of their “Option 1” generating station as follows: “The project is feasible for installed capacities in the range of 3 to 4 MW. Swift River Energy Limited has decided that the preferred installed capacity is 4 MW.”
  • When the proponent submitted their 2009 Envirionmental Screening/Review report, which described their “Option 2” plan, they stated: “Swift River Energy Limited Partnership (SREL) is proposing to construct a 4.3-MW hydroelectric power facility”.
  • When the proponent submitted their 2012 Addendum, which described their “Alternative 1A” plan, they stated: “The energy output will remain between 4 and 5 MW.”
  • In information presented to the MNR in March 2014, they stated the capacity would be 4.45 MW.

That is, since the proponent’s commitments about their proposed station’s size and appearance in their 2005 proposal (for which they were selected through a competitive process), it has been the proponent’s choice to twice increase the capacity of their proposed station. This not only would increase the size of the required turbine, but everything else would also need to be larger: the generator, transformer, intake, tailrace, gates, ventilation openings, and so on. The flow through the generating station would be greater, so it would be more dangerous, and it would leave less water to go over the falls.

The proponent has decided to do this for the same reason any developer decides to build larger, because they hope to make more money. Except in this case, it would mean a larger concrete building at the Bala falls, and less water over the Bala falls. That is, the greedy developer wants more for themselves and less for Bala.

As shown here, the proponent’s 2005 proposal stated the roof of their proposed building would be below the level of Muskoka Road 169, but their current plans show it would actually tower three storeys above the road.

So the proponent’s own self-serving choices have resulted in their breaking important committments. This should be the proponent’s problem, not Bala’s.

  2 Responses to “Proponent’s greedy choice: bigger and uglier”

  1. how does one ever get the truth when we are lied to on many levels.

  2. Sad, ugly and why? How does this benefit Bala?

    I agree with the comment about the divers. For years they’ve been part of the Bala landscape along with wading, swimming, sunsets and ice cream, market day, Perk’s penny/nickel candy, water ski show- think about the traffic, cottage shopping, Don’s, bazaars, cranberry festival and so much more.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>