Save the Bala Falls

Summary
If you have not yet sent your e-mail to the Premier or asked your family, friends and neighbours to send theirs, these need to be sent before Tuesday next week (January 24, 2017).

If you have sent your e-mail but didn’t receive a reply from sending us a copy, please send a copy to info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com. We need copies of e-mails sent so we can be sure they are hand-delivered.
 

Detail
The best way to show the Premier our continuing strong concern is by the number of people that send an e-mail. Now is the time to ask your family, friends, and neighbours to each send an e-mail.

So, if you have not yet sent the e-mail explained in our previous e-Newsletter:

1. Send it before Tuesday January 24, 2017.
    
2. We need as many people sending e-mails as possible; each member of your family separately, your Muskoka friends and neighbours, anybody that wants to be sure that unsuspecting tourists are not drowned.
    
3. Follow-up with a phone call to each to remind them their e-mail needs to be sent by Tuesday.
    
4. Send each e-mail to:
   1. The Premier, at KWynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org, (click right now to get that started)
   2. With a copy to MPP Norm Miller at Norm.Miller@pc.ola.org
   3. And copy your home MPP (addresses are here)
   4. And copy info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com – we will print and hand-deliver these
       
5. Each e-mail can be just a sentence or two. In addition to "Dear Premier" and your name and home address, any one of the following is all you need:
   1. The proponent for the proposed Bala generating station would not comply with their environmental approval, as their own information shows they would make the Moon River dangerous outside of their downstream safety boom. Please reply telling me how you would ensure the proponent would not be allowed to renege on such an important public safety commitment.
       
   2. The MNRF’s safety procedures require that the public be warned before flow is increased to the Moon River, but the proponent for the proposed Bala generating station has stated they would not provide this warning. Please reply telling me how you would ensure – and not just "expect" – that they would comply with the MNRF’s safety procedures.
       
   3. The proponent for the proposed Bala generating station has already shown their plans are unacceptably dangerous, so I request the proponent be required to show how they would operate safely before any further approvals are provided. Please reply whether you agree with this requirement.
       
   4. Transport Canada’s safety procedures require that the safety boom upstream of the proposed Bala generating station be relocated farther upstream, but this would prevent Purk’s Place from renting boats. Please reply whether you will require this issue to be resolved before any further approvals are issued.
       
   5. Transport Canada’s mandate does not include the Moon River, so they have not assessed the dangers that would be created downstream by the proposed Bala generating station. The provincial Ministries therefore do not have any authoritative input on the public safety dangers that would be created. I request that before any further approvals are issued, the proponent be required to show how they would operate their proposed station safely. Please reply whether you agree with this requirement.
       
   6. I understand and agree with the MNRF’s "Stay Clear, Stay Safe" educational campaign. But the proponent’s own information shows their proposed generating station at the Bala falls would make the water dangerous more than 300′ from their station, both outside of the downstream safety boom and in front of people’s private docks. Please reply how the public in these locations would be informed of the dangers.
       

   Phone a few people now, explain the need for them to send an e-mail, forward this e-mail to them, and phone them again in a day or two to follow-up.
    

Premier’s New Year’s Levee
Each year, the Premier holds a New Year’s Levee with federal MP Rob Oliphant, with whom she shares the Don Valley West constituency. Several of our supporters attended so that we could have a moment to talk directly with the Premier about the unaddressed concerns for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls.

You can see here a photograph of Mitchell Shnier spending his entire time with the Premier talking, and here is the letter hand-delivered to the Premier.
 

Media contacts
If you have any direct media contacts, please e-mail us at info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com, we’re always interested in getting our message out to more people.

The District Municipality of Muskoka owns the Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel and the proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station could damage this bridge, both during the proposed construction and the proposed operation. For example:

1. During the proposed construction, the proponent would need to build an upstream cofferdam to keep the water from their proposed intake excavation. They have proposed two two types of cofferdams, the only one that would conform to the MNRF’s required cofferdam lowering plan would require boring 1′-diameter holes, 5′-deep directly adjacent to the support piers for both the MNRF’s Bala north dam and the District’s highway bridge. 
    
   We don’t know if the District has been informed of these risks to their bridge, and that is why this entire process is wrong. Such impacts should have been disclosed by the proponent as part of their environmental assessment, so all stakeholders would be informed of negative impacts and their mitigation.
    
2. During the proposed operation, the support piers for the District’s highway bridge would be subjected to water speeds and directions for which it may not have been designed. 
    
   For example, while the maximum flow through the Bala north dam is 218 m³/s, so clearly the bridge could withstand this flow. However, the maximum flow through the proposed generating station would be 96 m³/s and these flows could occur simultaneously, for example if the Bala south channel had to be closed for maintenance work. In addition, the direction of flow would change due to the location of the intake. The highway bridge support piers may not have been designed for this.
    
   On December 3, 2016 we therefore sent this letter to the MNRF asking if these impacts had been considered. We have not received any response.

All four front-page stories in today’s Globe and Mail (click on the image below to see) concerned the federal government announcing their decisions to reject one proposed oil pipeline project and to approve another.

The photograph above shows Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself making the announcement, backed by his Ministers of; Transport, Fisheries, Environment, Natural Resources, and Justice. The Prime Minister stated: “If I thought this project was unsafe for the B.C. coast, I would reject it. This is a decision based on rigorous debate on science and evidence. We have not been, and will not be swayed by political arguments, be they local, regional or national.” That is, the Canadian federal government stated that through science and evidence they determined the proposed project would be safe.

Contrast that with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) who state: “it would be the responsibility of Swift River Energy Limited to ensure appropriate public safety measures are in place”. That is, the Ontario provincial government has no idea whether the proposed Bala project could or would be safe. They just hope the proponent can figure it out. Hope is not a plan. Hope is not protecting the public’s interest.

The MOECC relies on an approval they issued over three years ago, even though the proponent would not comply with that, for example:

• While the proponent committed to the MOECC that the only dangerous areas would be within their proposed safety boom, the proponent’s own information shows deadly-dangerous water outside of their proposed safety boom.
• While the proponent is required to comply with the MNRF’s safety plans which include warning the public before increasing flows to the Moon River, the proponent has stated they would not do this.

Until the Bala proponent has shown that they could operate their proposed hydro-electric generating station safely, we request that no further approvals be provided.

Current summary

• The proponent still does not have all the approvals needed to construct their proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls.
• There are major issues of public safety still unaddressed.
   

Our Fall 2016 update
Read it here.
 

Ontario announces it has enough power generation
On September 27, 2016 the Ontario Liberal government announced that as Ontario has an adequate electricity supply for the next ten years, they were cancelling the planned procurement of additional renewable power generation – saving Ontarians $3.8 billion. Minister of Energy Glenn Thibeault said it only makes sense to “make common sense adjustments”. View the video of the announcement here and press release here.

While this announcement would not directly affect the proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, it does show the government now accepts and admits that new electricity generation based on renewable energy is too expensive and will not be needed for the foreseeable future.

For the proposed Bala generating station, we have shown the unaddressed public safety concerns (some here). If the proponent continues to refuse to show how or if they could operate their proposed Bala generating station safely, we request the governent not provide any further approvals, as this proposed project can be cancelled without cost or penalty.
 

Ontario announces electrical power trading agreement with Québec
Earlier this month, the Ontario government announced an agreement with the province of Québec which includes Ontario purchasing 14 TW•h (that is 14 million megawatt-hours) of hydro-electricity over a seven-year period. As the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls would produce up to 20 GW•h of electrical power per year, this agreement will provide Ontario with one hundred times the power that would be produced by the proposed Bala generating station.

The Montréal La Presse newspaper (translated here) reports that for this agreement, Ontario would pay 5 ¢/kW•h, which is less than half the 13 ¢/kW•h to 17 ¢/kW•h which Ontario would be paying the Bala proponent for the heavily-subsidized power their proposed generating station would produce – even when it is not needed.
 

Highway bridge rehabilitation work
If you drive through Bala you’ll see that the rehabilitation work has begun on the District Municipality of Muskoka’s two Muskoka Road 169 bridges (over the Bala north channel and Bala south channel). This work; is unrelated to the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, is expected to be completed in the spring, and must be completed before the proponent could begin any of their planned work. The District’s Road Closures, Construction and Restrictions web page has this report on the contract.
 

Proposed wind turbines near Collingwood
For over six years, a company has been pursuing the construction of eight 476′-high wind turbines near Collingwood. Among the concerns expressed by the community are that serious harm to human health would result as these wind turbines (each taller than a 45-storey building) would be located too close to two nearby aerodromes, the dangers being due to both direct aircraft impact and due to the air tubulance caused by these proposed wind turbines. (Aerodromes have fewer staff and facilities, and are typically used by smaller airplanes than traditional airports.)

Despite years of detailed concern and opposition from the community, in February 2016 the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change approved this controversial proposed project. As a result, a local property owner, a local Councillor who also owns one of the aerodromes, the Town of Collingwood, the Township of Clearview, and the County of Simcoe all appealed the MOECC’s approval to Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal.

A total of 15 experts testified at the nine-day hearing which was during May and June of this year. Earlier this month the Tribunal released their decision that the appellants had met the high test required to show that serious harm would occur.

This is a very significant finding, that the MOECC’s approval did not adequately consider dangers to the public. The Tribunal is allowing further submissions on how these dangers would be addressed, and the company has stated it is now considering their next steps.
 

Sad anniversaries

• In less than two weeks, it will be a full year since the proponent has updated their web site (and that update removed most of the information they previously had posted).
• It has been eight years since the proponent has held a public meeting.
• The proponent has been pursuing this proposed project for more than 11 years.

This is a floundering proposed project that finally needs to be put out of its misery.
 

Thank you volunteers
SaveTheBalaFalls.com volunteers were out in Bala all day both on the Thankgiving weekend and the Cranberry festival weekend talking to the public, answering questions, and providing information. There were thousands of visitors to Bala, and we heard loud and clear, again and again, that; NO ONE likes Kathleen Wynne, NO ONE wants a hydro plant in Bala, NO ONE likes Hydro One bills, and NO ONE trusts politicians – people are informed and upset. Conversely, we now know; EVERYONE loves Don’s Bakery brownies, EVERYONE appreciates SaveTheBalaFalls.com’s efforts on all fronts, and EVERYONE says they want to help.

One of our volunteers summed it up: “People are VERY pissed at this government! – It isn’t right, we don’t need the energy, we don’t want the high energy prices and we don’t want the Government’s blindness to hurt Bala with that Hydro Plant. “

Our volunteers found it very compelling and confirming to work the front lines and hear first-hand the opinions that really do matter. It was busy, and we’ll keep at it.
 

Donations to support our work
As the end of the (tax) year approaches, keep in mind that you can make tax-deductible donations to help us continue to work to ensure the government realizes and addresses the extreme dangers which the construction of the proposed Bala generating station would create. Your receipt for income tax purposes is provided immediately when your donation is made on-line, details are here.

SaveTheBalaFalls.com

Why is the provincial government supporting this looming disaster of a proposed project – without even asking the proponent to show they could operate it safely

As the proponent would eventually need to figure out if their proposed project could be operated safely anyways, why does the MNR not require this proof now.

• It would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of an extremely-popular in-water recreational area, and this proponent has never developed a hydro-electric generating station. This proponent has not shown they deserve this blind-faith trust that they could create an acceptable situation.
• This concerns confirmed deadly risks, due diligence requires this be planned properly before any construction could begin.

The proponent and MNR just make the wishful statement that people shouldn’t be in the water there. But the facts are that:

• There are both private and public docks closer than to any other known hydro-electric generating station.
• The area is a navigable waterway so people have a right to be in the water. How would these people be informed of the extent of the dangerous waters. The proponent’s own information shows the water would be dangerous far outside of their proposed safety booms and directly adjacent to the Township’s Portage Landing. The public would have no warning or way of knowing when there would be treacherously-turbulent water, even though the MNR’s own Public Safety Measures Plan requires notification of such a change of flow in this area.

The MNR started this proposed project properly, protecting the public by stating the existing recreational actitivities and the public’s use of the area was important. The proponent had a responsible reply to this, as their proposal stated their proposed project would: “… not generally diminish the public’s enjoyment of the area for swimming, boating, fishing, picnicking and hiking”.

Buf for the 11 years since then, this inexperienced proponent keeps changing their plans and hopping from one bad idea to another, only making short-sighted changes in the hope of increasing their profits. They have shown no regard for the commitments they’ve made or for the area’s businesses or economy. Their evasiveness and decisions have infuriated the public, they have lost all social licence.

Some examples of the proponent’s complete disregard for the community:

• They changed their proposed design to increase the flow and danger to the public.
• They changed the orientation of the planned treacherously-turbulent flow to be towards and closer to the in-water recreational area and docks.
• They changed from the safer run-of-river to a cycling operation, so their treacherously-turbulent flow would start without warning or local operator at about noon on summer days. This dangerous change would not abide by the MNR’s requirement that people in the water be warned before the flow to the Moon River is increased.
• The water would be deadly dangerous outside of their proposed safety booms even though they have told the public it would be safe there.
• They increased the planned size of the building, though they previously said they would not.
• They changed to a construction sequence where their upstream cofferdam would risk damaging both the Bala north dam and the highway bridge.
• Their proposed construction requires that the Township suspend the two Heritage protection by-laws so they can cut down all the trees and dump their blasted rock onto the site that is supposed to be protected.
• Their plans now include building a portage that would encourage people to canoe directly beside and through the treacherously-turbulent flow they would create.
• On December 9, 2015 they had all the trees on the proposed construction site cut down. This took only a day or two and they certainly could have delayed this until they had all their permits.
• After the proponent spent more than a year negotiating the lease of land they desperately need from the Township of Muskoka Lakes to enable their proposed construction, two days after signing this lease the proponent was already disputing a clear environmental requirement in it.
• The public look-out would require people to look down the Moon River by peering through big steel I-beams and hoist winches.
• They have not updated their web site in the nine months since they removed most of the information from it. They do not reply to e-mails sent asking reasonable questions about their plans.