Save the Bala Falls

Updates on the proposed plan to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls.

The MNR and their Water Management Plan are Out of Control

Photo Credit: Susan O’Connor of Lake Joseph

This past winter, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNR) could have and should have lowered the Lake Muskoka water level by 16″ more than they did, so they contributed to the resulting flooding and damage, such as shown in this photograph. More detail is here.

This same group within the MNR is ignoring our concerns that the proponent’s plans to construct a proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls would have too high a probability of flooding Lake Muskoka. The MNR is also not accepting their responsibility for public safety, and are making ridiculous statements – which can’t be ignored as the result would be drowning unsuspecting tourists.
 

Our booth at the Cottage Life Show

Some of our many volunteers at the 2016 Spring Cottage Life Show

We had a great three days at the Cottage Life Show – which was so busy they had to briefly close the entire International Centre’s parking lot even on the Friday. We had the opportunity to introduce and explain the situation to a huge number of people, our hand-out brochure is here. We are still entering the many new e-Newsletter subscriptions and Memberships received at the show, and will be sending out introductory information to our many new supporters soon.

At the show, we also learned that some people who think the proposed Bala generating station should proceed don’t understand that the proposed Bala generating station would:

• Create over ten times the flow of the Wilson’s Falls generating station, whose operator confirms the 2008 drowning of a 16 year-old-boy there in 2008 was caused by their station.
• Be started, automatically and remotely, with no warning or operator present, at about noon on summer days, just when people would be in the water a few feet away.

And that due to the public and private docks nearby, swimming and wading could not be prohibited in the area.

We’re asking the provincial government to not provide any further approvals until the proponent has presented a plan showing how they could safely operate their proposed generating station.
 

MPP Norm Miller

As a result of a great meeting with our MPP Norm Miller:

• He was able to read our Petition to the Ontario legislature, on April 4, 2016. You can view the video here, the Hansard record is here, and our Petition is here.
• He presented two written Order Paper questions to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (see questions 654 and 657, near the bottom here).
   

Ontario Rivers Alliance
The Ontario Rivers Alliance advocates for healthy river ecosystems in Ontario. They have included an article about SaveTheBalaFalls.com’s work in their April 2016 Newsletter here.

Summary
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNR) has the responsibility to lower the water level of Lake Muskoka in advance of the spring freshet. This year the MNR lowered the water level of Lake Muskoka by even less than they did in advance of the major flooding of Lake Muskoka in 2013, and so the MNR contributed to the spring 2016 flooding and damage caused to private property on Lake Muskoka.

Sadly, and alarmingly, this water level managment is done by the same group within the MNR who came up with the unworkable plan to avoid flooding Lake Muskoka during the proposed construction of a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls. And this same MNR group is now attempting to claim they would have no responsibility for public safety for the proposed generating station they’re eager to approve even though it would be impossible to operate safely at that location.
 

Detail
The Muskoka River Water Management Plan (MRWMP) specifies that during the spring the water level of Lake Muskoka should be between 224.6 and 225.75 metres above sea level (this is a range of about 14″). This is shown by the two horizontal blue lines in the graph below (click on it for a larger view).

As the snow melts and runs into the upstream rivers and lakes, the water level of Lake Muskoka rises according to factors such as; the amount of snow, the rate at which it melts due to higher temperatures and rain, and whether the ground is still frozen or can absorb and slow the flow.

The MNR has the responsibility to lower the water level of Lake Muskoka throughout the winter (this is called the winter draw-down) in anticipation of these higher spring freshet flows. This work includes coordinating with others, such as Ontario Power Generation who own and operate the Moon Dam which is critical for handling high flows from Lake Muskoka. The lower red line in the graph below shows the MNR’s actual maximum winter draw-down for Lake Muskoka each year from 2003 through 2016. The green line above that shows the subsequent highest water level of Lake Muskoka each spring.

As shown in the graph below, Lake Muskoka has flooded three times in recent years:

1. In 2008 the water level reached 7.2″ above the maximum level, which was somewhat the MNR’s fault as they could have drawn-down Lake Muskoka water by 2.8″ more in advance.
    
2. In 2013 Lake Muskoka reached 15.8″ higher than the maximum level. As shown, in advance of this, the MNR could and should have reduced the level of Lake Muskoka by 12.6″ more than they did, and this would have reduced the flooding. The MNR later determed 2013 was the worst flooding of Lake Muskoka in 100 years (see our 2013 articles here and here). One would expect the MNR would now know to fully draw-down Lake Muskoka in advance of spring.
    
3. In 2016, Lake Muskoka reached 11.3″ higher than the maximum level, but the MNR’s winter draw-down was completely inadequate, as it could have been drawn-down in advance by 16.3″ more than they did.
    

The MNR not doing what they can to better reduce flooding could be due to:

1. Through retirements and poor staff training and capability, they do not have the competence to handle this responsibility.
   • This would explain their ridiculous justifications and irresponsibily poor planning for the proposed Bala generating station.
      
2. Water level control decisions in Muskoka are too heavily influenced by hydro-electric power generating companies. For example, the MRWMP Steering Advisory Committee (SAC) has many members from companies that operate hydro-electric generating stations, and the higher the water, the more power generated, and the more profits they make. So there is a financial incentive both for the water levels in Muskoka to be higher than prudent, and for the MRWMP to permit this.

   As the construction of the proposed Bala generating station would result in the Lake Muskoka water level being controlled by a for-profit company, even though they would need to conform to the MRWMP, as is shown in the graph above they would still have the discretion to not lower water levels as much as they should to reduce flooding.

   • That is, the proponent would receive a financial incentive to cause flooding of Lake Muskoka and this would conform to the MRWMP.
      

Conclusions

1. The spring 2016 flooding of Lake Muskoka is further proof that the MNR either does not care or does not have the staff training and competence to create a plan that would require the proponent to not allow flooding Lake Muskoka during the construction of the proposed generating station. More worrisome is that the MNR doesn’t understand and accept their public safety obligations and would allow the construction of a generating station which would be impossible to operate safely in that location.
    
2. In the short term, the MNR needs to more openly discuss why they did not more fully draw-down Lake Muskoka in 2013 and 2016.
    
3. In the longer term, the MNR needs to modify the MRWMP to so that Lake Muskoka is fully drawn-down by March 1 each year. Other changes may also be required, such as Ontario Power Generation agreeing to open their Moon Dam sooner.
    
4. But the main change is that there needs to be more public involvement in the execution of, and future planning for the MRWMP.

Summary
For their environmental approval, the proponent showed both the MoE and the public that the Bala north channel would not be fully obstructed during the construction of their proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls. Allowing this partial flow would reduce the chance that Lake Muskoka would be flooded during the proposed construction period.

However, without informing the public, the proponent later changed their construction plans to fully obstruct the Bala north channel from June through February. As a result, there would be more than a 20% probability that the thousands of properties, docks, and boathouses on Lake Muskoka would be flooded due to the proponent’s construction plans – for which they do not have environmental approval.

We have met with the MoE about this and their response is the proponent has received environmental approval, this change is not environmentally-significant, and the MNR has some environmental responsibility too, so we should bring this issue to the MNR’s attention.

We then wrote detailed letters to the MNR, who have replied they will:

• Not require the proponent’s construction plans to avoid flooding Lake Muskoka.
• Not even meet with us to discuss this issue.

This is not the “Open Government” Kathleen Wynne promised after becoming Premier (Toronto Star article here).

Detail

• As shown here, in their 2009 Environmental Screening/Review report the proponent showed that during the proposed construction they would block only about half of the Bala north channel.
• As shown here, in their 2012 Addendum the proponent showed they would block about ⅔ of the Bala north channel.

And that is what they received approval to do from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MoE). Of note is that this approval states: “Swift River Energy Limited must implement the Project in the manner it was developed and designed, as set out in the Environmental Screening Report …”

However, since then, and without environmental approval, the proponent has changed their proposed construction plans so their upstream coffer dam would fully obstruct the Bala north channel for the nine months of June through February during their proposed construction.

• While one would expect this lack of flow would negatively impact the fish habitat at the base of the Bala north falls, the MoE doesn’t care.
• But one would expect that everyone else would care that this would create a high risk of flooding Lake Muskoka during the proposed construction. The background is that historical flow data shows that ten times in the past 45 years the flow through Bala was more than the Bala south channel could carry during these nine months, so by fully obstructing the Bala north channel the proponent’s construction plans now have more than a 20% probability of flooding the thousands of properties, docks, and boathouses on Lake Muskoka.

Again, the MoE tells us they don’t care.

We have been concerned about this issue of the proponent’s construction plans causing flooding of Lake Muskoka for many years, and have written five detailed letters to the MNR about this. Each time the MNR replies they will consider this as part of their assessment and approvals process. We have sinced learned the MNR intends to address this flooding risk by requiring that the upstream cofferdam have a “removable portion”, along with the following two-step plan:

1. If the MNR determines there is a “Flood Watch” they would send an e-mail to the proponent ordering them to be “at the ready”. The proponent then has 24 hours to “mobilize the equipment and persons necessary to remove the removable portion of the cofferdam.”
   
2. If the MNR then determines that the Bala south channel will not be able to handle the required flow they would send an e-mail to the proponent “ordering the immediate removal of the upstream cofferdam”. The proponent is then to remove the top 9′ of a 105′-width of the cofferdam.

Unfortunately the MNR’s plan would be unworkable, so last month we began the following exchange with the MNR, starting with a detailed letter explaining that the plan has problems – for example, it could not be implemented for six of the nine months the upstream coffer dam would be in place:

1. On February 8, 2016 we sent an e-mail to the MNR (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]) which explained (even with a diagram) why their plan to avoid flooding Lake Muskoka could not be implemented.
    
2. On February 25, 2016 the MNR replied (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]). But their letter does not address the reasons why their plan is unworkable. The MNR is apparently in denial, and they just repeat that they have a plan. Unfortunately an unworkable plan is not a plan.
   So the summary is that we have been raising this same risk of flooding issue for years, and the MNR has repeatedly replied over the years that they will consider this concern. But now that we see the MNR’s plan it shows that despite years of being asked to address this issue, they have not.
   And there is another problem with the MNR’s plan – it does not have environmental approval. While the actual environmental concerns are part of the problem, the other problem is that only the MoE’s environmental assessment process requires notifying the public and accepting public comment. The result is the MNR is allowing the proponent to risk flooding Lake Muskoka and the MNR is attempting to hide this unfortunate truth from the public.
    
3. On February 17, 2016 we sent a letter (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]) to the MNR, detailing some of the unmitigated negative environmental impacts that would be created by the proponent implementing the MNR’s plan. It makes quite a farce of the environmental assessment and its public consultation process for the MNR to instruct the proponent to ignore the proponent’s environmental commitments and approval.
    
4. On February 26, 2016 the MNR replied (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]), but did not address my concerns that the proponent has no environmental approval to implement the coffer dam lowering plan. Further, the MNR makes a completely meaningless and misleading statement that there is only a 1% chance that the north channel would need to carry 163 m³/s for the maximum possible flood. What is important, and what my letter raised, and what the MNR attempts to distract the Minister’s office from understanding is that there is more than a 20% chance that the Bala south channel could not handle all required flow, and due to the MNR’s unworkable plan thousands of properties, docks, and boathouses on Lake Muskoka would be flooded.
    
5. On March 1, 2016 we sent a letter (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]) to the MNR with this attachment. Additional risks and reasons why the MNR’s plan is unworkable were provided. As this exchange of e-mails was clearly not resolving anything, we requested to meet with the MNR.
    
6. On March 17, 2016 the MNR replied (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]) insisting they have qualified staff, stating the MNR’s approvals are “not subject to public consultation”, and refusing to meet with us.

Conclusions
The MNR:

1. Insists their staff are qualified, but have come up with an unworkable plan in their attempt to address the risk of the proponent’s construction plans having more than a 20% probability of flooding Lake Muskoka.
    
2. Won’t meet with us to discuss this, and they have not found any fault with our reasons why their plan is unworkable.
    
3. Are therefore allowing the proponent to risk flooding Lake Muskoka, and won’t inform the public of this, or accept public comment.

The province will protect turtles and moose, but not people

The quick summary
We continue to explain to the Ministry of Natural Resources that the proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls:

1. Would risk flooding Lake Muskoka during the planned construction.
2. Would be too dangerous during the planned operation.
3. Can therefore now be cancelled by the MNR, without paying costs or penalty, as the proponent committed during the procurement process that their proposed project would not cause the above.

We have met with the MNR and look forward to their addressing these concerns. Until then, we have requested that the MNR not provide any further approvals until an acceptable safety plan has been presented to the public.
 

The current situation
As currently planned, the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls would be too dangerous for the location, given the area’s:
 • Shoreline ownership.
 • Nearby public and private docks.
 • Public’s uses and rights to use the shoreline and water.
 

How we got here
The proposed project was initiated with a Ministry of Natural Resources’ procurement process which included the release of a well-written Request for Proposals in 2005. This RFP included the following requirement:

“For the North Bala Dam, demonstrate consideration of the extensive aesthetic, recreational, social and economic (i.e. tourism) values in the area of the proposed development.”

As a result, the proponent’s 2005 Proposal included the commitment that their proposed project would:

“not generally diminish the public’s enjoyment of the area for swimming, boating, fishing …”

However, the MNR now appears to believe that to deal with the extreme danger the proposed generating station would create, that the MNR could either somehow eliminate all in-water recreation in the area (which would be an impossible task), or that they could transfer all responsibility for public safety to the proponent. For example in this letter they state: “it would be the direct responsibility of Swift River Energy Limited to ensure appropriate public safety measures are in place as they relate to flows above and below a waterpower facility” – and as currently designed, operating the proposed generating station safely would also be an impossible task.

That is, the MNR is apparently attempting to claim they have no responsibility for the unresolvable situation they have created by not enforcing the requirements of their 2005 RFP.
 

Our December 15, 2015 meeting with the MNR – major unaddressed issues
The Ontario provincial government is comprised of three categories of people:

1. Elected politicians, such as the Honourable Bill Mauro, Minister of Natural Resources, and Norm Miller, MPP Parry Sound – Muskoka.
2. Political office staff whom the elected politicians hire to assist with communications and policy. These people have job titles such as Legislative Assistant, Policy Advisor, Issues Management, and Press Secretary, and all report to the Ministry’s Chief of Staff.
3. Bureaucrats, who are the civil servants who work in the Ministries and implement the procedures and policies for routine matters, and who receive political direction for special and unusual situations.

Realizing that the proposed Bala project has become a political, rather than solely a bureaucratic issue, on December 15, 2015 we had the opportunity to meet with the Chief of Staff and a Legislative Assistant for the MNR, where we made the following points:

1. Public safety. The MNR has stated that their approvals process will consider public safety.
2. Transport Canada. The MNR cannot rely on Transport Canada’s approval under the Navigation Protection Act for public safety, as Transport Canada has no responsibility for boating safety in the Moon River, and Transport Canada has no expertise or mandate for in-water recreation such as swimming, wading, and Scuba diving.
3. Other hydro-electric generating stations. While there is a hydro-electric generating station at the Bracebridge Falls, the situation there is completely different in that; there is no nearby in-water recreation (nobody lives or even touches the water within 800′ of that generating station), there are no private docks, the public docks there are protected by a 110′-long concrete breakwater, and Bracebridge has a much more diversified economy.
   The owner of the nearby Wilson’s Falls generating station has confirmed that the turbulent water exiting their generating station caused the 2008 drowning of a 16 year old boy there. The proposed Bala generating station would have more than ten times that flow and would be automatically- and remotely-started at about noon on summer days, so would be even more dangerous. This is proof that the proposed Bala generating station would be deadly dangerous.
4. Aquatic Safety Assessment. We provided the MNR with a copy of the Lifesaving Society’s Aquatic Safety Assessment report, which concluded that the proposed Bala generating station would create extreme dangers and that an acceptable safety plan must be presented before any further approvals are granted.
5. Upstream safety boom. Using Transport Canada’s own method of calculating the required distance upstream for the upstream safety boom, we showed that it would need to be relocated upstream of Purk’s Place. This would both prevent use of the portage there, and would prevent Purk’s Place from renting boats – and we note that a specific requirement of the MNR’s RFP was: “continuity of business in the local area”.
6. Unprecedented. Visiting 32 similarly-sized hydro-electric generating stations in Southern Ontario shows that it would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of a very popular in-water recreational area.

Given the requirements of the MNR’s 2005 RFP and the commitments the proponent made in their 2005 Proposal (for which they were awarded the opportunity to pursue this proposed project through a competitive process), we then showed that the proponent would be reneging on these commitments.

We then showed that as the proponent is reneging on their commitments, due to the provisions of the MNR’s 2005 RFP, the MNR can cancel this proposed project, without paying any costs or penalty.

In our meeting with the MNR, we provided written detail for all of the above, in the following two documents which we left with them:

• A letter summarizing our points (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]).
• A compilation of the documents confirming all our claims (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]).

We followed-up with the MNR a month later (which allowed time for the winter holidays) and the MNR’s Chief of Staff replied on January 20, 2016:

“We are working on getting you an update on the status of the safety plan, as discussed. I don’t think there is a need to set up a meeting with you until you have had a chance to see our update as we have no new information to share.”

Several weeks after that we learned through other channels that the MNR’s Chief of Staff left the Ministry, and we still have no update or other response from the MNR concerning our meeting or materials left with them. We continue to work on having our concerns addressed.
 

Our letter to Minister Mauro – you can cancel this with no costs or penalty
A year ago we wrote a letter (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]) to the MNR noting that due to the provisions of their well-written RFP, the MNR could cancel this proposed project without having to pay any costs or penalty. This is because the proponent would renege on important commitments they made in their Proposal, for which they were selected as the proponent through a competitive process.

We recently learned that as a result of our letter, last May the MNR reviewed their 2005 RFP and in a May 14, 2015 letter concluded that the MNR could not cancel. However, the MNR did not review the right RFP! The MNR inadvertently reviewed a draft rather than the issued RFP, and the differences are significant. As a result, it appears the MNR arrived at an incorrect conclusion.

On March 9, 2016 we therefore sent the following package of information to the Honourable Bill Mauro, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, to detail that in fact the MNR could cancel this proposed project without paying costs or a penalty:

• A letter (click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]  detailing that the MNR’s internal analysis was incorrect, and referencing the following four attachments of supporting documents – all of which are MNR’s own documents.
• The MNR’s May 14, 2015 letter (click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]).
• The MNR’s Draft RFP (click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]).
• The MNR’s Issued RFP (click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]).
• A letter from the MNR to the Township of Muskoka Lakes confirming the MNR would ensure the proponent honours their commitments (click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]).

We await a response from the MNR.
 

Why will the province protect turtles and moose, but will not protect people

• As reported here, a proposed wind turbine project at Ostrander Point (which is west of Kingston) has been cancelled as it would threaten the turtle habitat there.
• As reported here, a proposed wind turbine project in Thunder Bay has been cancelled as it would threaten the moose habitat there.

So given; that it is proven that hydro-electric generating stations are deadly to people, that it would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station so close to the public and private docks in Bala, and that the public has a right to safe boating in the Moon River, why is the MNR not protecting the public, and not even requiring the public be shown an acceptable safety plan.
 

Town Hall Meeting
We plan on holding a Town Hall meeting at the Bala Community Centre on Saturday May 21, 2016 at 1:30 pm. More details to follow.
 

Water Docs Film Festival
The fifth annual Water Docs film festival is in Toronto from Monday evening March 21, through Saturday March 26, 2016. It is to celebrate World Water Day and Canada Water Week, and is centred around documentary films, both feature-length and shorts, and includes discussions with special guests and filmmakers.

On Friday March 25, the Rob Stewart / Jonah Bryson video Fight for Bala will be shown, and SaveTheBalaFalls.com will be present before and after to answer questions. While there is a charge to attend other days, all the events are free on the Friday (which is Good Friday). Some events are at the University of Toronto downtown campus, but most events – including the Friday events and the showing of the Fight for Bala video – are at the Ada Slaight Hall at Daniels Spectrum, at 585 Dundas Street East, Toronto, M5A 2B7.

The full schedule and all details are at WaterDocs.ca
 

Cottage Life Show
In addition to the Water Docs film festival, we will also be at the Cottage Life Show, which is Friday April 1 to Sunday April 3, 2016, at the International Centre, 6900 Airport Road, in Mississauga. Our booth is 225, which is in Hall 1 (this is the building closest to Airport Road).
 

Memberships
As you see from some document links above, we are restricting some material to Members of SaveTheBalaFalls.com. Details on becoming a member are at our web site’s Membership tab. If you have any questions, contact us as Membership@SaveTheBalaFalls.com.

SaveTheBalaFalls.com

As it was too likely that providing updates during the legal action would somehow work against us, we have not updated the SaveTheBalaFalls.com web site or provided any e-Newsletter updates for the past few months. Now that is finished, we can get back to our usual communications …

Legal Action update
To facilitate their proposed construction of a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, the proponent has requested to lease three parcels of land owned or controlled by the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

In November 2015, SaveTheBalaFalls.com initiated legal action against the Township of Muskoka Lakes as the Township refused to respond to our questions concerning this proposed lease. The proponent claimed they would be affected by this legal action and so they insisted on receiving Party status, so they too became part of this legal action.

The case was heard on December 14, 2015 in Bracebridge, and Justice Wood issued his legal decision (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]) on December 24, 2015. While we were disappointed that Judge Wood dismissed our case, we were pleased that there was opportunity for the lawyers to present the facts and be heard.

When a legal action is dismissed it is common for the Applicant to pay the opposing side’s legal costs, and Justice Wood’s costs decision (Members click [this content is only available to SaveTheBalaFalls.com members, click on the Membership tab above to learn more]) did in fact require that SaveTheBalaFalls.com pay the Township’s legal costs. Such costs are due within 30 days of the decision, and SaveTheBalaFalls.com will be fully paying this as required.

The proponent appeared to be abusing their Party status by piling three lawyers onto the case (resulting in high legal costs), while they did not actually add any facts or questions to the case. We were very pleased that Justice Wood clearly noted this in his costs decision, and as a result did not award any costs to the proponent.

As was our right, and due to outstanding concerns we had, on January 14, 2016 SaveTheBalaFalls.com initiated an Appeal of Justice Wood’s legal decision. Upon receiving further advice, such as that 80% to 90% of Appeals fail, we subsequently decided to abandon this Appeal, as that money would be better spent more directly pursing our main concerns. The steps to finalize abandoning this Appeal were agreed by all parties just earlier this week, which is why we can finally send this update today.

The SaveTheBalaFalls.com legal action was initiated as it appeared the Township of Muskoka Lakes was not following by-laws, procedures, and Acts required of them, and they would not respond to our questions about addressing this. The legal action required a huge amount of time from many people, and while it certainly would have been better if the Judge did not dismiss our case, what we learned will be helpful in the future (for example, see below), and we can now focus on our main concerns; that the proponent would not honour their commitments for which they were awarded this opportunity, and that the public has not been shown how this proposed generating station could be operated safely.
 

January 2016 meetings of the Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes
At the January 15, 2016 monthly Council meeting of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, Mayor Furniss attempted to initiate a vote on the above proposed land lease; without it being on the Agenda, without notification to the public, without any opportunity for the public to know any details of the proposed lease, and without any opportunity for the public to provide comments. All this of even more of a concern as apparently the term of the proposed lease could be extended, at the sole discretion of the proponent, to 20 years.

As a result, concerned Councillors left the Council meeting, and as quorum was then lost, the vote could not proceed.

A special Council meeting was then scheduled for January 26, 2016 at which the public was given the opportunity to delegate, and the Agenda included a brief summary of the proposed lease. Of note:

• The many delegations raised excellent points, for example that the Bala business community has not been notified of which parts of which parking lots would be unavailable for customer parking for what periods of which years. Given that the proposed lease apparently would result in most of the Precambrian Shield parking lot being unavailable to the public for several years, and even for up to 20 years, one would expect that the Township would provide this information to the Bala business community. The Township giving away important parking lots for up to 20 years without telling the business community would be like selling the family car without telling your spouse. Does Township Council realize where taxes come from. And the Township hasn’t even stated what the proponent’s paltry proposed payments (equivalent to realty taxes from about nine residences) would be applied to – would these payment even benefit those most impacted. We don’t know because Township Council refuses to discuss this.
   
• Bala businesses have formally requested Township Council to consult with them on this matter but these requests have been ignored. Instead of providing this information, Township buried only select details in the Council Agenda released only a few days before the January 26, 2016 vote.

Township Council is extremely polarized on this issue, and the majority decided to ignore the concerns raised by the public and voted to approve authorizing the Township to sign the propsed lease. The Mayor has stated that the public will be able to see the lease only after it is signed, the lease has not yet been made available to the public.

While we are disappointed that Council voted to approve signing this lease, we are even more disappointed that Council would not even consider writing a letter to the Ministy of Natural Resources asking that an acceptable safety plan be presented to the public, a request we made in our January 26, 2016 delegation to Township Council.

We also do not understand why Township Council did not take the opportunity of the proponent requesting this lease to require that the proponent withdraw its $3,000,000 lawsuit against the Township. Why does the majority of the Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes continue to not represent and defend the public interest, but insted provide the proponent with whatever they ask for.
 

Show your support – now you can be a member of SaveTheBalaFalls.com
While SaveTheBalaFalls.com has always acted as a conduit for information on the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls, as Justice Wood noted, SaveTheBalaFalls.com has no members.

Previously we did not see membership as a priority, but now we have learned that having members can confirm the broad public interest of our concerns. Not having a membership program may have contributed to the Judge’s determination that, for our previous legal action, we were not considered a Public Interest Litigant and therefore we had to pay the full amount of the legal costs claimed by the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

So here are some details of the SaveTheBalaFalls.com membership program:

• One reason for providing memberships is to prepare for future possible legal action as it would help demonstrate the broad public concerns we represent. Therefore, we need as many members as possible, so please let everyone in your family know – all we need is a unique name and valid e-mail address for each member, and your agreement with our membership statement. We will not disclose these e-mail addresses, nor use them for any other purpose.
   
• Memberships will also help us raise money, and cost $20 each.
   
• So that we will be able to state that all our members share our main concern, part of becoming a member requires you to agree with the statement “I am concerned that the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls would be too dangerous.”

• A benefit of becoming a member will be access to all information posted at SaveTheBalaFalls.com, as in the future some new information will only be available to members.
   
• The sign-up process is at the Membership tab at SaveTheBalaFalls.com.

Cottage Life Show
To raise awareness of our public safety concerns, SaveTheBalaFalls.com will have a booth at the Cottage Life Show, which is Friday April 1 to Sunday April 3, 2016, at the International Centre, 6900 Airport Road, in Mississauga. Cottage Life Show details are here, we will provide more details in the next weeks.
 

Donations
Just as we have been battling a poorly-planned hydro-electric generating station project proposed for an inappropriate location, the people of Thunder Bay have been battling a poorly-planned wind turbine project also proposed for an inappropriate location. There are many parallels:

• The majority of the local community has been battling these proposed projects for ten years.
• Both proposed project proponents are and are funded by the same Anthony Zwig.
• For both proposed projects the proponent has sued the local municipality (though not successfully) for millions of dollars.

But two very interesting facts about the proposed Thunder Bay project are:

• In the summer of 2014 the government of Ontario stopped the proposed Thunder Bay project by cancelling their Feed-In Tariff contract (article here), then last fall the Ministry of the Environment denied their environmental approval (article here – though in response the proponent has sued the Ministry of the Environment for this (article here).
   
• As noted in this article, the Thunder Bay community has raised and spent about $150,000 fighting this proposed wind turbine project.

So while we our fundraising over the past year has enabled us to pay all necessary professional and legal fees, we need to do it again. Whatever you donated last year, we need your donation again, and more. We have a great team doing solid work, but as the good people of Thunder Bay know, funds are needed to protect the community.

Donations can be made; on-line by credit card or PayPal, or by Interac bank transfer, or by cheque and mail. And you can receive a charitable donation tax receipt, all details are here.
 

SaveTheBalaFalls.com
As always, if you have any questions or comments, we’re at info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com, and remind your friends and family to sign themselves up for our e-Newsletters using the link at the top-right at SaveTheBalaFalls.com