Save the Bala Falls

Premier Ford, you promised …

On February 27, 2018, Doug Ford visited Bala and said (more transcript is here):

My friends, this project is another example of a long list of Liberal pet projects that would cost this province dearly. Projects like this are hurting our province and costing taxpayers billions of dollars, all to benefit the political insiders, the political elites, that have been running this province for years…

This tells me there’s a serious problem here. This project stinks of political interest and insider deals…

As Premier, I would conduct a full investigation into this project, and make sure the local residents are armed with the facts. As Premier I will get answers, and I can assure you, I will get answers. I will drill down and find out who is part of the big scam…

And as sure as I’m standing here, I’m going to come back, and each and every one of you can hold me accountable. I will be back here in the same spot, and we’re going to stop this project.

Premier Ford, you made a promise, people voted for you because of it. People expect: “Promise made, promise kept”. We want to help you keep your promise.

Murdered in 45 seconds

SaveTheBalaFalls.com realizes that we must be credible, factual, and professional in the hope that our concerns will be accepted by government decision-makers. We realize that some may initially think that the title of this item is exaggerated, but we believe that after reading the article most will agree the title is well-justified. We look forward to reading your comments, which can be submitted below the article.

We chose that title as the fact is, if someone tipping out of a canoe at Purk’s Place docks ends up inside the upstream safety boom, within 45 seconds the current would quickly carry them downstream to the proposed hydro-electric generating station’s intake, where they would be pulled under water, and – whether wearing a life jacket or not – would be held under water by the hundred tons per second of water rushing past them, and they would drown (click on the graphic below for a larger view).

More detail is in our article entitled: “Murdered in 45 seconds”, which you can read here. As for all our articles, you can submit comments below the article (the comments are shown after we review them to ensure they aren’t spam).

The proposed project would be so dangerous that it would not comply with the environmental approval

For their environmental assessment, the proponent both acknowledged the current in-water recreation and clearly showed that the only dangerous areas would be within their proposed safety booms. However, the proponent’s own flow simulation shows the dangerously-fast water from their proposed hydro-electric generating station would extend more than 160′ outside of their safety boom. As a result:

• The proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls would not comply with the environmental approval.
• Seeing the downstream safety boom, people would be deceived into thinking that is the only dangerous place, but the proponent’s own information shows the water would be just as dangerous outside as inside of it.
• The public would not be warned before the proposed station’s operation would start – often at about noon on summer days – even though the MNRF’s procedures require such notification.

As the proposed project would not comply with the environmental approval, we request the MOECC to so notify the proponent.

Click below for an overview diagram, read more in this article, our July 2016 e-Newsletter is here, our August 2016 e-Newsletter is here, and more detail is in the articles to the right.

Unaddressed Public Safety Concerns

Our main concern about the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls is public safety, which the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has stated they will consider as part of their upcoming assessment of the proponent’s application for Plans and Specifications approval for permanent works under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. Here are eight particular concerns:

1. The situation at the Bracebridge Falls would not apply
   The MNR assumes that because Bracebridge Generation Ltd. operates the Bracebridge Falls generating station that the proponent using Bracebridge Generation could operate the proposed Bala station safely. However, in Bracebridge:
   • There is a 110′-long concrete breakwater directing the flow away from the municipal docks. Bala would have no such protection.
   • The Bracebridge swimming area is 800′ away. But in Bala people would be swimming just a few feet away from the treacherously turbulent water exiting the proposed station.
   • The flow from the Bracebridge station is less than ⅓ of what it would be in Bala.
      
2. The MNR incorrectly believes Bala’s in-water recreation could be stopped
   • The fast and extremely dangerous water exiting the proposed Bala station would continue at least 300′ downstream of the proposed station. The MNR’s warning sign on the Bala north dam would not apply that far and people couldn’t even see it at that distance. Photographs are posted here.
   • There are nearby public and private docks from which people have the right to enter the water and would expect that a “neighbour” has not made the adjacent water deadly.
   • Due to the private shoreline ownership downstream, fencing and “no swimming” signs could not be posted in the required locations to indicate areas of danger.
      
3. Transport Canada’s approval is inadequate
   The MNR is depending on Transport Canada’s approval issued under the Navigation Protection Act, however:
   • This did not consider swimming, scuba diving and wading, as these are not within Transport Canada’s mandate or expertise.
   • This did not assess impacts to boating downstream, as the Navigation Protection Act excludes the Moon River from Transport Canada’s consideration.
   • Transport Canada assumed summer flows would be only 21 m³/s, as this is the average flow in July and August. However, the proposed Bala station would operate at full capacity about 21 days every summer – resulting in flows more than four times this.
     • Considering only the average flows from the proposed Bala station would be like building your house without a roof because it usually doesn’t rain.
        
4. The drowning due to the Wilson’s Falls generating station
   In 2008 a 16-year-old boy drowned as a result of attempting to swim past the fast and turbulent flow from the Wilson’s Falls generating station (this is a few km north of Bracebridge):
   • While it is rare for people to be swimming at, or even visiting, Wilson’s Falls, Bala is an extremely popular in-water recreational area.
   • The flow from the proposed Bala station would be more than ten times that from the Wilson’s Falls generating station.
      
5. The required cycling operation would make this even more dangerous
   Due to the required cycling operation, the proposed Bala station would start, automatically and without warning, at about noon on about ⅓ of summer days – just when people would be in the water only a few feet away.
    
6. It would be unprecedented to build a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of an extremely popular in-water recreational area
   Visiting 32 hydro-electric generating stations in southern Ontario shows that:
   • None are located in the middle of an in-water recreational area, with directly adjacent boating, swimming, and scuba diving.
   • None have public and private docks as close.

   That is, it would be unprecedented to locate a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of a recreational area, yet the proponent has not shown how they would, or even if it would be possible to, operate the proposed Bala station safely.
    

7. The Royal Lifesaving Society says a safety plan is needed now
   Despite these many in-water dangers, the proponent has not had a competent authority assist with required measures. So we commissioned the Royal Lifesaving Society, who are Canada’s lifeguarding experts, to assess the situation, and they found: “… this development would create an unusually and extremely dangerous situation, and therefore requires a commensurate level of planning … [which] 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.”

8. It would bankrupt Purk’s Place
   As shown by their Public Safety Measures Plan, the Ministry of Natural Resources uses a calculation from Transport Canada to determine the location required for the upstream safety boom. The location and dangers of the intake for the proposed Bala station would require the upstream safety boom to be relocated farther upstream. As a result, boats could not reach Purk’s Place docks, and this would shut down a key part of this important local business.

We have met directly with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry about these unaddressed public safety concerns and look forward to their reply and continued discussion.

Please keep this above concerns in mind when writing letters or explaining the current situation to others.

Some of our supporters …

Our concerns are shared by; 85% of the community, the Muskoka Lakes Association, the Moon River Property Owners’ Association, the Acton Island Association, the Wahta Mohawks First Nation, and the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario.

All our work is by volunteers, but sometimes we encounter expenses, such as for Freedom of Information requests. Donations are appreciated, details are here.

What is all this about

For over ten years a proponent has been pursing an opportunity to develop a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls (Bala is 25 km north-west of Gravenhurst and about two hours north of Toronto).

Anybody can visit Bala, and fish, or swim, or wade in the usually-serene Bala north falls for free. Even the parking is free. You can have a picnic in Margaret Burgess park, and there are restaurants, boat rentals, and interesting stores in within walking distance.

But the proposed generating station would change all that. Most of the public waterfront would be used by or made too dangerous by the proposed generating station. There would be fencing everywhere, 94% of the water would go through the proposed generating station leaving only a trickle over both Bala falls. There would be years of construction, and the proponent would clear-cut all the trees from the Heritage-designated Portage Landing just south of the proposed construction site. The proponent refuses to compromise, and has actually increased the size of the proposed generating station and changed to the far more dangerous cycling mode of operation.

We well understand that hydro-electric generating stations can be a very good source of energy as they don’t produce nasty emissions or waste, but there are many other environmental concerns.

In this situation, the problem is that despite years of asking, the proponent for the proposed station at the Bala falls will not answer our questions, such as:

1. Would the proposed station be safe. This includes safe for the in-water recreation that has been part of Bala for over 100 years, such as swimming and boating upstream and downstream. And would it be safe for fish and not harm the fish habitat.
2. Would the proposed station be beautiful, as this area is. The few drawings and renderings provided by the proponent have all had such major omissions and errors that they mislead rather than inform. And the proponent has not been able to confirm there would be no barbed-wire fencing or that there would not be warning sirens sounded daily.
3. Would there be enough water over the north and south falls that people would continue to be drawn to Bala (nobody would come to see where the falls used to be). The proponent refuses to compromise and both falls would be reduced to a trickle throughout most of the year. This would be ruining the economy of Bala to provide a $100 million dollar subsidy to a private developer.

Here’s how you can help Save the Bala Falls …

1. Subscribe to our e-Newsletter (click on the link near the top-right of this page).
2. Become a Member of SaveTheBalaFalls.com, click here to learn more.
3. Follow us on Twitter at @SaveBalaFalls, we’re also on Facebook at Save the Bala Falls.
4. Learn about the issue (the most recent articles are on the right, at the top).
5. Make a donation here.
6. Contact us if you have any questions or comments.
7. Add a comment to this web site (comments are posted once approved).

As noted in our previous e-Newsletter, the dangerous hydro-electric generating station being built in Bala is all the Province’s doing; they provided the land, the approvals, and would unnecessarily pay a highly-subsidized rate (more than $100,000,000 over the 40-year contract) for power produced.
 

Indemnification
As the Township of Muskoka Lakes has always been an unwilling host, if there are any legal actions brought against the Township due to injuries resulting from the operation of this dangerous industrial facility, then the Province should pay 100% of any legal, punitive, and other costs. We presented this to the October 16, 2019 meeting of the Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, and after significant discussion Council directed Staff to gather input from legal Counsel, the Township’s insurance company and others over the next month. Media coverage by Muskoka Post here, and MuskokaRegion.com here.
 

Obstruction to boating
As detailed here, another significant issue is that the proponent’s “safety plan” would actually create new dangers. In addition, the proponent’s works preventing people from safely using the adjacent docks would have negative economic impacts. We presented this to the November 13, 2019 meeting of the Council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

For this meeting, the Township Staff prepared this report which notes:

1. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has not yet transferred to the proponent the responsibility to operate the Bala dams (and therefore to control the water level of Lake Muskoka).
    
2. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks has still not provided the Permit to Take Water to the proponent, so the proponent cannot operate their hydro-electric generating station.
    
3. The MNRF has not yet approved the proponent’s Amendment to the Muskoka River Water Management Plan, so the proponent cannot operate their hydro-electric generating station.
    
4. The proponent will “attend the December 11, 2019 meeting of Council to explain the safety features that are/will be incorporated into the safety measures …”. This will be very interesting to hear as the proponent will make:
   • Uselessly narrow statements, such as that their upstream safety boom would be angled and therefore allow self-rescue. This is like bragging that your car is safe because it has bumpers while ignoring that it has no doors or seatbelts. The proponent needs to consider the whole of the mess they are creating and have their safety plan approved by an organization with the required expertise.
   • Incorrect statements such as that their safety plan conforms to the Canadian Dam Association’s Guidelines for Public Safety Around Dams, but it would not as these Guidelines require that safety booms delineate hazardous areas but the proponent’s own information shows their generating station would create flows of more than three times what Transport Canada says is safe for kayaks, and these fast flows would extend outside of the proponent’s proposed downstream safety boom.
      

The Resolution
The Township had indeed done their preparation over the past month and at the November 13, 2019 Council meeeting unanimously passed this very thorough Resolution, which states that the Township of Muskoka Lakes continues to be an unwilling host for this generating station, and requests that the Province:

• Continue to operate the Bala dams and control water levels as the Township has no assurance that the proponent would do this in the best interest of the public (note that the Muskoka River Water Management Plan is all about accommodating hydro-electric power generation, not safety for the public).
   
• Not permit the operation of the hydro-electric generating station from May 1 to November 1 each year.
   
• Require the proponent to compensate both Purk’s Place and the Township for negative economic and recreational hardship caused by the relocation of safety buoys and the operation of the Hydro Generating station.
   
• Indemnify the Township of Muskoka Lakes due to adverse impacts on safety due to the changed flows.

This is a great example of this Mayor Harding and the rest of Council stepping-up to protect the businesses and area’s economy, and ensuring public safety for the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

Media coverage by MuskokaRegion.com here.

The proponent’s non – “safety plan”
Apparently embarassed by how ineffective it will be, the proponent has not publicized that they have posted their Bala Generating Station Public Safety Measures Plan on their web site, here.

While this Plan may be very useful as it provides a handy form to report incidents such as drownings (helpful checkboxes include “Location of Incident: Upstream”, “Incident Type: Fatality (not suicide or homicide)”, and “Person(s) doing at the time: Canoeing / Kayaking …”) – imagine the time and hand-writing this will save!, the Plan does not present any safety measures that will adequately protect the public for this unprecedented situation of building a dangerous hydro-electric generating station in the middle of an extremely popular in-water recreational area.

For example:

• A Québec Coroner investigating a drowning due to a hydro-electric generating station there found that it appeared that the upstream “safety boom” contributed to the danger by tipping the people’s canoe due to the force of the flow of water against it.
• In the past, during the summer the fast water through Bala has been directed through the Bala south channel, so the Bala north channel is calm, as you can see in this video taken June 19, 2019 which shows a flow of 150 m³/s down the Bala south channel. However, the operation of the Bala generating station would result in flow of 2/3 of this through the Bala north channel on more than 20 days each summer.
• People being tipped out of their canoe by the Bala upstream “safety boom” would be carried by the fast water and be at the unattended Bala generating station’s intake trash rack within 45 seconds and would be held under water and that would be their end.

The proponent’s “safety plan” does not resolve this or other dangers such as treacherously turbulent water from their generating station extending outside of their downstream safety boom.

The public will rightly expect that it would be safe to use the Township of Muskoka Lakes’ docks, including the Township’s docks that are directly adjacent to the Bala north channel. But using these docks would have new risks created by the operation of the Bala generating station. So it is likely that legal actions initiated due to injuries resulting from the operation of the Bala generating station would include actions against the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

As the Bala generating station project has been entirely driven by the Province of Ontario (providing the land, the approvals, and payment for power that would be produced), we feel the Province should take responsibility for these dangers created and fully indemnify the Township, including paying 100% of any costs incurred in defending against any legal actions.

We will therefore be Delegating at the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council meeting tomorrow, October 16, 2019, asking that the Township request this indemnification from the Province.

For their 2009 environmental assessment, the proponent claimed in-water recreation would be safe outside of their safety booms, and in 2013 the Ministry of the Environment (now called the MECP) gave their approval for the construction. Yet we have since learned that:

• The proponent’s own information shows the operation of their generating station would make the water outside of their downstream safety boom dangerously fast and turbulent.
• People upstream of their dangerous industrial facility would be drowned just 45 seconds after tipping out of a canoe.

That is, when they provided environmental approval, the MECP did not have the information from the proponent to know whether their proposed project could be safely operated. As noted in our previous e-Newsletter, the proponent still requires a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) from the Ministry of the Environment before they are allowed to operate their generating station.

As both the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act confirm that the MECP has the responsibility to protect human life, we have asked that the MECP not issue this PTTW: “until an unbiased organization with in-water recreation safety expertise has confirmed that the proponent’s Public Safety Plan would adequately protect the public.” The Township of Muskoka Lakes has also requested this generating station not be allowed to operate due to the dangers it would create.

While the proponent apparently submitted their application for a PTTW in November 2018, on June 10, 2019 the Ministry of the Environment replied to us that: “At this time, the application is still under review by the ministry.”

The proponent has still not publicized their safety plan or answered any of our questions on how or if they could safely operate their dangerous industrial facility, so we look forward to the MECP doing the right thing and protecting the public by not allowing operation of this dangerous industrial facility.

However, it appears that the proponent is again resorting to political interference and lobbying, as on June 5, 2019 Simcoe North PC MPP Jill Dunlop posted this video with Ontario Waterpower Association president Paul Norris announcing that she was about to table a Private Member’s Bill which would eliminate the PTTW requirement for projects such as in Bala (video here, June 13, 2019 press release here). The Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA) is an industry group promoting development of hydro-electric power in Ontario, and attempting to eliminate such protection for the public is clearly their political agenda as can be seen by this session in their upcoming annual industry conference.

While we’re all for government efficiency, it would be wrong to depend on only the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s approval under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act as this only requires that the MNRF examine the design of the generating station itself, not whether it could be safely operated. For example, the MNRF has:

• Stated they do not have the legislative authority to require the proponent show they could safely operate.
• Made ridiculous statements about public safety – showing they do not have public safety expertise.
• Sent many letters (such as this), stating that public safety is the proponent’s responsibility.

In summary, only the MECP, and not the MNRF, has the specific responsibility for protect human life for projects that have negative environmental impacts. The long-standing requirement for hydro-electric generating stations to receive a PTTW enables the MECP to fulfill this responsibility – and is not an “unnecessary and duplicative regulatory burden” as MPP Dunlop claims. The PTTW also enables to MECP to ensure that hydro-electric generating stations do not contaminate the water passing through with lubricating oils and other deleterious substances.

It would therefore be wrong for the government remove the requirement for the operation of hydro-electric generating stations to require a PTTW, and we request our MPPs to not support this Bill 128, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act. We have requested to meet with MPP Jill Dunlop but as of June 16, 2019 have not received a reply.

Here is an update on the dangerous hydro-electric generating station being built at the Bala falls.

As our current "government for the people" (as they frequently remind us) has been ignoring our e-mail campaigns lately, we will not be suggesting you send any e-mails now. Instead, better to just provide an update as we continue to inform the government how lives and millions of dollars could be saved by not allowing this mistake of a project to operate.
 

Photographs showing the dangers
We have posted photographs here (if the web site doesn't load, refresh your screen) of the current appearance of this dangerous industrial facility, including showing what the deadly intake looked like before it was hidden by water.
 

Court update
The proponent's second Court appearance on the 13 charges of violating the Township of Muskoka Lakes Noise Control by-law was April 10, 2019. While this is an on-going problem requiring immediate attention, due to the Township of Muskoka Lakes lawyer's need for more than a month to review any possible additional materials from the proponent, the Court and lawyers had to select July 10, 2019 as the date for the next Court appearance. And this third appearance is not for a trial, it will only be to update the Court, for example on whether; a settlement has been reached, further time is required, or to request a date for a trial.

Furthermore, the Township has declined to send a Notice of Default to the proponent, despite the fact that the Township has determined that the proponent has not complied with its by-laws and the Township's land lease therefore requires a Notice of Default to be sent. More detail here.

We are disappointed at this ineffective response from the Township of Muskoka Lakes, which more serves the interests of the proponent than us tax-paying residents.
 

Permit to Take Water
Before they are allowed to operate their dangerous project, the proponent must have a Permit to Take Water issued to them by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. As the MECP has the responsibility to protect human life, and the proponent has not provided any detail on how, or if, they could operate safely, the MECP should not issue this permit.

We have sent several letters, such as this and this, asking that this dangerous industrial facility not be allowed to operate, but have not received any response from the MECP to our requests for an update, even though this is literally a life-and-death issue.

And on the topic of whether this industrial facililty could be operated safely at this location, a few months ago the proponent formed a new corporation ("Swift River Operations Limited"). While their development company ("Swift River Energy Limited") has five officers/directors, this new Operations company has only one (Anthony Zwig gets to be president, secretary and a director), apparently nobody else wants the liability of being an officer or director. What does that say about whether the proponent really believes this thing could be operated safely.
 

Environmental Compliance Approval, Noise
The MECP has very specific limits allowed for noise from stationary sources such as hydro-electric generating stations.

With their 2009 Environmental Screening/Review report, the proponent submitted an Acoustic Assessment report which; did not include all the noise sources, did not use actual manufacturer's data, and assumed their building would be a windowless structure with 8"-thick concrete walls.

However, this deadly booby-trap would in fact:

• Have many windows and doors, and also large openings for ventilation, which would allow even more noise to escape.
• Have several components which would generate significant noise, such as the speed-increasing gear box and the ventilation fans.
• Not have the benefit of the masking noise of the falls, as it would remove more than 94% of the water from both Bala falls.

And we all know how well sound travels over water.

We understand that before operation would be allowed, the proponent must have an Environmental Compliance Approval for the Noise that would be produced by this industrial facility. We understand the proponent has not yet submitted the finalized Acoustic Assessment report which the MECP requires as part of their consideration in issuing this ECA.
 

The dangers remain unaddressed
As we have been telling the government for years, it would be unprecedented and irresponsibly dangerous to build and operate a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of an extremely popular in-water recreational area. We have detailed how just 45 seconds after tipping out of a canoe at the only boat rental in the area, people would be sucked into this dangerous industrial facility’s intake and held under water, and that would be their end.

So we are most alarmed to read this February 6, 2019 letter from the Minister of the Environment and this March 7, 2019 letter from the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, that:

• Instead of addressing this life-and-death issue, they talk about things we never asked, such as water levels, water quality, and fish habitat.
• They make vague statements such as: “Diver’s Point will continue to be unaffected by the project operation and will continue to be a safe location for recreational activity”. People Scuba dive from Diver’s Point, which would become deadly as it is just 70 m upstream from the facility’s intake, so is Minister Phillips saying people can continue to Scuba dive from Diver’s Point, or just play soccer on it.

It is wrong for the government to ignore life-and-death issues and it is wrong for the Ford government to make Ontarians pay $100M to a Liberal mega-donor to operate this death trap. Especially as we have provided the government with several ways to ensure safety without having to pay cancellation costs.

On February 27, 2018 now-Premier Ford came to Bala and promised: “As Premier, I would conduct a full investigation into this project, and make sure the local residents are armed with the facts. As Premier I will get answers, and I can assure you, I will get answers. I will drill down and find out who is part of the big scam”.
 

The economics make no sense for Ontario
This death trap would produce the most power when Ontario doesn't need it (that is, in the spring and fall when there is the most water and the least demand for electricity). And it would produce the least power in the summer when it is most needed (when air conditioners are running, but there is little water flow in Muskoka).

Yet the proponent would be paid more than 17 ¢/kW•h for this power even when it isn't needed, even though there are two hydro-electric generating stations downstream that could produce it for about 4 ¢/kW•h. It appears that Doug Ford is "part of the big scam".

The Ford government has no obligation to issue the Permit to Take Water for this death trap.

If the Ford government does issue these these two permits they would be committing Ontarians to pay a subsidy of more than $100M (that is, more than one hundred million dollars) over the 40-year term of the contract. This would build in more costs to Ontario's electricity system far into the future, even though the Ford government has promised to reduce electricity costs by an additional 12%. This makes no sense.

The Ford government is cutting budgets from education, health care and autism therapy, and it will continue to spend more than it receives in taxes for at least another four years, further increasing Ontario's deficit. Yet the Ford government would pay millions of our dollars for power that isn't needed.

If the Ford government wastes our money by issuing these last two permits instead of starting to fix Ontario's electricity system, then Doug Ford you have found who is part of the big scam, look in the mirror.