Save the Bala Falls

Due to the many dangers that the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls would create, for many years we have been asking that the risks to in-water recreation be assessed by a competent authority, but this has not happened.

So we commissioned the Lifesaving Society, who do have this expertise, to study and report on the situation. You can read their Aquatic Safety Audit report here. As noted in our summarizing cover letter:

1. The report was written by an independent third-party with expertise in outdoor in-water recreation, and with understanding of the context for the concern and of the local situation.
    
2. Relevant quotes from the report include (emphasis added):
   • “The proposed installation of a hydroelectric generating station adjacent the Bala North Falls dam would create extreme new dangers, to both upstream and downstream in-water recreation.”

   • “In whole, this development would create an unusually and extremely dangerous situation, and therefore requires a commensurate level of planning to be presented to agencies, stakeholders, and the public. This process should be started and completed before any construction proceeds, to both ensure it would be practical to implement, and so that any required changes could be incorporated into the design of the proposed station.”
      
3. Our summary is that:
   • The expert input is that before any construction is allowed to commence, the proponent for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls must be required to provide plans showing both how their proposed generating station could be operated safely and that it would be practical to implement these plans.
      
   • The proponent’s current plans are unacceptably dangerous.
      
   • Therefore, the proponent’s current proposal must be stopped until they can show the public that it could be operated safely.

Summary
The Township would have some responsibility for injuries and fatalities due to the extreme dangers which would be created by the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls. As detailed below, the Township’s resulting liability would be reduced or eliminated by the Township taking no-cost actions to show they are attempting to reduce this risk.
 

Detail
As we presented to the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council at their September 18, 2015 meeting:

1. It would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of a recreational area. But rather than the proponent presenting plans to deal with this extreme danger, the proponent has instead made changes so the operation of their proposed station would be even more dangerous.
    
2. As an example that this danger is real, in 2008 a 16 year old boy drowned at the Wilson’s Falls generating station (this is a few km north of Bracebridge) while attempting to swim past that station’s tailrace discharge. The proposed Bala station would:
   • Have a maximum capacity of more than TEN TIMES the Wilson’s Falls generating station’s tailrace discharge flow.
   • Run at this maximum capacity an average of 21 days every summer.
      
3. We have asked that the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment require the proponent to provide an assessment of the dangers which their proposed generating station would create, but this has not happened. We therefore commissioned the Lifesaving Society to provide an Aquatic Safety Audit report. You can read this report and background information here.
    
4. While one might expect that the years of provincial approval processes would ensure that the proposed project would be safe enough, this has not happened.
   • For example, the proponent and province believe that somehow all in-water recreation upstream and downstream of the proposed generating station could be stopped with some signs or fencing. This would not happen. For example, the proposed station would use a cycling operation, so there would be no flow through the proposed station on more than ⅓ of summer days – until about noon, when the station would automatically start without warning, and with a flow more than double that which caused the Wilson’s Falls drowning.
     And people get to the in-water recreational area at the Bala north falls from areas that cannot be fenced, such as from the Town Docks on the Moon River.
      
5. As shown below, people reach the in-water recreational area at the base of the Bala north falls from Township-owned or -maintained property, as shown on the image below (click on it for a larger view).

The proposed Bala generating station would be remotely- and automatically-controlled and would start operation without warning. Legal action for injuries and fatalities would be to those with liability, and it could and would be argued that the Township would have some liability as it would be through Township-owned or -maintained land that people accessed the water – made unpredictable by the proponent’s proposed project.

Part of determining liability is what acts of commission or omission the Township takes to reduce their liability. For example, the municipality could take action to reduce and eliminate their liability, as follows:

1. The District Municipality of Muskoka not permit the shoulder of their Muskoka Road 169 to be widened and not permit the proponent’s proposed intake excavation or dump truck traffic under the Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel. These actions would show the municipality would not be facilitating the construction of this dangerous proposed generating station.
   The Township should therefore request that the District:
   • Withdraw their permission for shoulder widening (easily justified due to the proponent withholding from the District the important information that the MNR does not own the riverbed land under the District’s bridge).
   • Not permit the proponent to excavate or trespass under the District’s Muskoka Road 169 bridge.
      
2. The Township not lease their Portage Landing land and parking lots, as the proponent would use them to facilitate the proposed construction.

These actions would be at no cost the municipality, and would remove liability from the Township.

Summary
The District Municipality of Muskoka owns the riverbed below their Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel. The proponent would need to:

• Blast and excavate this riverbed between the support piers of this bridge for the intake for the proposed hydro-electric generating station
• Drive heavy construction equipment between these support piers to remove blasted rock from the proposed construction site.

This bridge is crucial infrastructure, as the detour around it is 50 km. There would be no benefit to the District allowing this use of their land – only the risk of damage to the bridge, and of the resulting:

• Delays to emergency vehicles and school buses.
• Added costs and inconvenience for deliveries, residents, and visitors.
• Costs to repair the bridge.

The District should not permit this blasting, excavation and trespassing on their land, as there would be no benefit to the District or public, just risk.
 

Detail
In 1998 when the King’s Highway 169 was downloaded from provincial ownership and responsibility to the municipality to become Muskoka District Road 169, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario transferred ownership of the; road, adjacent land, and bridges to the District Municipality of Muskoka. This transfer included ownership of the riverbed below the Muskoka Road 169 bridge over the Bala north channel.

As shown in the drawing below (click on it for a larger view), the intake for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls requires blasting and excavation of the District’s riverbed land below this bridge (as outlined in blue). The proponent would also need to trespass over the District’s riverbed for their dump trucks to remove the blasted rock from their 60′-deep excavation for the proposed generating station.

As shown below, this bridge is supported by two wide piers, each extending 5′ to 11′ below the water surface, for a total pier height of 10′ to 16′. To construct the intake required, the proponent would need to excavate between these piers to deepen the riverbed by as much as 8′.

If you were standing on some rock and I said I had to dig down 8′ between your feet, you might wonder if the rock you’re standing on would crumble and cave-in to the excavation. Similarly, the proponent’s proposed excavation between these piers could undermine these piers or otherwise move them slightly and damage this 50 year-old bridge – the District has scheduled a major rehabilitation for this old – and crucial – bridge in a few years.

The proponent has reported that blasting operations will require traffic to be stopped for up to 90 minutes. And if they damage the bridge, repairs would take months and the detour is 50 km, which would cause huge delays and costs to area businesses and would be very disruptive to school buses, deliveries. Of most concern is that emergency response vehicles could not pass.

It was previously thought that the MNR owned the riverbed below this bridge, and therefore the District could not prevent its excavation. So the most the District could do in attempting to protect their crucial infrastructure was to require the proponent to provide a $2,000,000 Letter of Credit to compensate the District for any damages to their bridge. This District Council resoultion was passed in January 2015. The proponent knew at this time that the MNR did not own this riverbed, but the proponent kept this information from the District and public.

So what we know know is:

1. The District Municipality of Muskoka owns all the riverbed directly below their bridge over the Bala north channel.
    
2. The proponent’s proposed excavation could damage the District’s bridge, preventing its use for months. The $2,000,000 Letter of Credit the proponent would be required to provide before such excavation would not compensate area businesses for lost customers and increased time and costs for deliveries, nor members of the public for their lost time and travel costs. The costs to delayed emergency vehicle response could not even be calculated. And the $2,000,000 might not even cover the costs of required bridge repairs. This would be a disaster.
    
3. The District can just say no. There is no benefit or requirement for the District agreeing to risk damage to their bridge, and certainly there is no benefit to area businesses or the public either.
    
4. The Committee of the Whole of the Township of Muskoka Lakes passed a resolution on September 22, 2015 requesting that the District not permit excavation of their riverbed below their bridge. However, this resolution needs to be approved by the Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, then considered by the Council of the District Municipality of Muskoka, likely with input from their Engineering and Public Works Committee.

The District should not permit this excavation of, or the proponent’s dump trucks driving on, the District’s riverbed below their bridge, as there would be no benefit to the District or public – just risk of inconvenience, delays, and added costs for emergency vehicles, deliveries, residents, and visitors.

Summary

To facilitate their proposed construction, the proponent for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls needs to lease the Township of Muskoka Lakes’ Portage Landing. We understand the proponent would then clear-cut all 100 trees there, and drive heavy construction equipment through it for years.

The concern is the Mayor and Councillors do not yet know the terms of this lease, yet at this Friday’s Council meeting they will likely be voting on a Resolution authorizing it be signed.

Come out to the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting this Friday morning to show we want to know:

• How the Township will ensure that Margaret Burgess Park would not be impacted – as the proponent has committed, but not honoured (the proponent has already prevented use of Margaret Burgess Park last Canada Day).
• That the Township would not have to pay to restore their Portage Landing lands if the proponent goes bankrupt.

We’ll send another e-Newsletter in a few days when the Township announces at what time this issue will be discussed.
 

Detail

Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting, Friday September 18, 2015
The proponent for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls plans the largest possible building, which would extend to within inches of all four property boundaries. To facilitate the construction for this difficult situation they created, the proponent has requested to lease the Township of Muskoka Lakes’ Portage Landing lands, which are directly south of the proposed construction site.

The Township of Muskoka Lakes staff have been negotiating this lease with the proponent and the next Council meeting may include voting on a Resolution authorizing the Township sign this lease.

This Council meeting would be at 1 Bailey Street, Port Carling, this Friday September 18, 2015, sometime after 9:00 am. We will send an e-Newsletter with more details when the Township provides this information in the next few days.

Remarkably, the Mayor and Councillors have not seen this lease and do not know its details. Come out to this Council meeting to see if the Township will protect the public’s interest by ensuring we first all know the following:

1. Impact to Margaret Burgess Park. The proponent has said that if they can use the Township’s Portage Landing to facilitate their proposed construction, then they would not impact Margaret Burgess Park. They certainly did not honour this earlier this summer when they decided the Moon River Property Owners’ Assocation could not hold their 5^th annual Canada Day party in Margaret Burgess Park.
   • We need to know how the Township will be assured the proponent would honour their commitment and how it would be enforced, given that the Township does not own or control Margaret Burgess Park.
      
2. Impact to Portage Landing. The proponent would clear-cut over 100 trees from the Township’s Portage Landing, even though it has been designated for protection under the Ontario Heritage Act.
   • The public needs to hear what the proponent would be allowed to do to this site and how the heritage attributes would be protected.
      
3. Restoration of Portage Landing. The public needs to know details of the proponent’s restoration of Portage Landing and how this would be assured.
   • The Township should require the proponent provide a Letter of Credit to ensure the site would be fully restored even if the proponent goes bankrupt.
      
4. Payment and Terms. The public needs to know …
   • The payments, terms, and schedule required from the proponent.
   • How it would be assured that these funds would benefit Bala and not the rest of the Township.
   • That the proponent would be required to provide a Letter of Credit to ensure payment even if the proponent goes bankrupt (which is a huge concern, as the proponent has no assets, no employees, and no operations). Given; the potential costs to restore Portage Landing, the lease payments required, and the disruption to Bala, we suggest the Township require a $1,000,000 Letter of Credit from the proponent.
      
5. Parking Lots. This lease would include the proponent fencing-off and having complete control over the south half of the Don’s Bakery parking lot and half of the Precambrian Shield parking lot. They would fill these with construction equipment and materials for years.
   • Losing this valuable parking space would negatively affect the area’s businesses and economy, yet the proponent has not provided any details of fence locations, schedule, or mitigation measures for this.
      
6. Duration. Given the previous multi-year mess in Port Carling where a stalled construction project was left for years to be resolved, the proposed Bala project could also be a disaster. While the proponent has some approvals to start their proposed project, they do not have all approvals to complete it. So Bala could also be left with years of treeless mess.
   • The public needs to know how long this construction could take, and the power and funds the Township would have to restore Portage Landing to be safe and attractive if left with a mess.
      
7. Maintenance of Margaret Burgess Park. As the Ministry of Natural Resources has given the proponent responsibility for Margaret Burgess Park, we need to know what commitments they would make to keep it safe and attractive, including cutting the grass, cleaning up litter,  ensuring picnic tables are safe, and trimming trees.
    

Minister of the Environment Murray needs to know …
The danger would be unprecedented and unmitigated

Summary
It would be completely unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station this close to; public and private docks, in-water recreational areas, and private residences.

Yet rather than mitigatting this extreme danger, since receiving environmental approval, the proponent has changed their plans so their proposed generating station would be even more deadly.

Now is the time to e-mail Minister of the Environment Glen Murray, copying Premier Wynne and Minister of Natural Resources Mauro (click here to start the e-mail), and tell them:

• It would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station this close to a recreational area – the Bala north falls is the most popular in-water recreational area in the entire Township of Muksoka Lakes.
• The proponent has no plans to make this safe – instead of mitigating this risk, they have actually made their plans more dangerous since they received environmental approval.

We realize that we’ve been suggesting you write more e-mails lately, we do this because the government carefully monitors how widespread concerns are, and more e-mails to the government means more attention from the government. No need for great detail – we’re doing that – the need is for everyone to send e-mails, as brief as you’d like. So send this e-mail now (and ask for a reply), and ask your friends and family to do the same.

Click below to see our current two-page flyer.

Detail
It would be unprecedented
As detailed here, visiting 32 similarly-sized hydro-electric generating stations in southern Ontario shows that:

• NONE have public or private docks nearby. Yet Bala does – a boat rental is directly upstream, and there are constantly-used public docks both upstream and downstream.
• NONE have in-water recreation nearby. But Bala has a portage directly upstream, people playing the the Bala north falls downstream, and Scuba diving, canoeing, and kayaking both upstream and downstream.
• NONE have residences nearby. Bala does, less than 70 m away.

While the proponent’s environmental reports never explained how this could be safe, AFTER receiving environmental approval, the proponent has:

• INCREASED the size of their generating station.
• INCREASED the minimum flow through their generating station.
• INCREASED the cycling flow through their generating station.

While it would be unprecedented to build a generating station so close to people in the water, instead of mitigating this extreme danger, the proponent has increased the danger – and has stated they would not have any warning before each time they start their proposed generating station even though this would create treacherously and deadly turbulent flow directly adjacent to people swimming.

This diagram shows that not only would the treacherously turbulent water exiting the proposed generating station be far outside the downstream safety boom. It also shows that boats drifting south from the Town Docks on Bala Bay (perhaps due to the wind or a stalled engine) would be drawn to the proposed station’s lethal intake.

There’s more that makes no sense …
 

Claiming that there already shouldn’t be any swimming there
The government believes there already should not be anybody swimming in the water at the base of the Bala north falls. This makes no sense:

• While the MNR has their standard warning sign posted on the Bala dams (as they try to do on all their 400 dams), this warning applies only to the immediate area of the dam:
  • The icon noting no swimming (which is one of four on the left side of the sign) is too small to see from where people swim (such as at the base of the Bala north falls), as you can see here and here. In fact, the MNR has a detailed publication describing the required text height for this sign, given the distance at which it needs to be read. So if you can’t read an icon, it doesn’t apply where you are. The MNR has therefore shown that they accept swimming at the base of the Bala north falls.
  • The MNR’s own Public Safety Measures Plan for the Bala Dams (that’s an 8 Mbyte download, so will take some time) acknowledges and accepts the existing swimming at the Bala falls (and the MNR has never enforced that people should not be swimming). So the MNR has documented that swimming is acceptable at the Bala falls.
  • There are no actual “No Swimming” signs in the area.
     
• The fact is, the Bala north falls is a recreational area. For over 100 years:
  • Purk’s Place and its predecessors have rented canoes just upstream of the Bala north dam.
  • The Lake Muskoka end of the Bala Portage has been just upstream of the Bala north dam, and the Moon River end has been just south of the Bala north falls.
  • People have been wading and swimming at the base of the Bala north falls.

By far, the most popular and visited in-water recreational area in the entire Township of Muskoka Lakes is at the Bala north falls, that is why this in-water recreation is fundamental to the area’s economy, and why the proponent must provide a plan of how they would keep the area safe.
 

Attempting to justify the proposed station as there used to be a generating station there
The government believes that since there was a generating station operating at the proposed construction site 60 years ago, it justifies the proposed generating station. But we need to tell the government that the proposed generating station would:

• Have 11 TIMES the flow (this is as much more as a hurricane is to a summer breeze, or a riot control water cannon is to the water flow to your house).
• Be in an area visited far more now than it was two generations ago.

Claiming the proposed generating station will create green energy jobs
There have been many recent newspaper stories (such as this, this, and this) that renewable energy projects actually have a net loss of jobs after construction is complete, mainly due to the increased cost of electricty. But in Bala there would be the additional direct negative impact that there would be only a trickle of water at the falls, that in-water recreation would be too dangerous to continue, and there would be a huge concrete building towering over the road and obstructing the view down the Moon River. The result would be a net loss to Bala.
 

What you can do
Send an e-mail to the Minister of the Environment Glen Murray, copying Premier Wynne and the Minister of Natural Resources (click here to start the e-mail) and let them know that the proponent should be required to explain their plans to keep the public safe BEFORE they are permitted to begin construction. Include your name and e-mail address, and and ask for a reply.
 

Our next Fundraiser
We’ll be out Saturday September 5, 2015, of the Labour Day long weekend, more details to follow.
 

Donations to our Legal Challenge Fund
Details for on-line (or mailed) donations are here. And as always, if you have any questions or comments, we’re at info@SaveTheBalaFalls.com.
 

SaveTheBalaFalls.com