Summary
Recent letters from the provincial government make incorrect statements, we have therefore sent this Open Letter to Premier Wynne.

Detail
As a result of our sending this January 8, 2014 letter and this February 4, 2014 letter to Premier Wynne, we received this response from the Minister of Natural Resources, which is similar to a letter sent by the Minister of Natural Resources. These responses contain incorrect statements, and therefore arrive at unjustified conclusions.

We have therefore detailed our concerns in this Open Letter to Premier Wynne.

Summary

The proponent has begun an e-mail and local newspaper advertising campaign in which they claim to be ready to listen to us, and they portray the proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls as ready to proceed. The truth is:

1. The proposed project still needs many major approvals from all four levels of government.
2. Despite many requests and opportunities, the proponent has never answered crucial questions about the extreme dangers they would create.

The only input they want is through a very restrictive survey, which basically asks whether we think the dangerous thing should have aluminum siding or not.

If you’re curious about the proponent’s survey, but don’t want to be forced to provide your e-mail address and other personal information to them, you may prefer to:

1. View their survey questions at the links below (no need to provide your personal information).
2. E-mail your Township of Muskoka Lakes Councillor, letting them know they have your support to require the proponent to first address the crucial public safety questions.

Background

For eight years, the proponent for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls has ignored and never actually answered the most important questions, such as:

• Why has the proponent not had a competent authority assess the extreme dangers they would be creating for families and other visitors in the water at the base of the Bala north falls, as the treacherously turbulent water would begin flowing – without warning – at about noon most days of the summer, just when people would be only a few feet away.
• As detailed here, the construction would risk flooding Lake Muskoka; what insurance would the proponent have to protect private property and public infrastructure.
• How would people safely dock their boatsatercraft at the Town Docks on the Moon River, given the fast water and unpredictable operating schedule of the proposed generating station.
• After insisting on and receiving complete control over the; members of, agenda for, number of meetings held, and the minutes written, why has the proponent completely ignored the input from the Scenic Flow Committee and not allowed the committee to finish the work it was agreed they’d be doing.

So instead of dealing with the important issues such as drowning people, preventing the Town Docks on the Moon River from being safely used, flooding Lake Muskoka, and insurance coverage, the proponent instead wants to make it look like they have community support through their survey about whether this hopelessly dangerous industrial plant should have aluminum siding or not. And the proponent appears to be trying to force the Township of Muskoka Lakes council to allow use of Township property by threatening to destroy Margaret Burgess Park.

This is not a “done deal” – major approvals are still required from all four levels of government.

The survey

The proponent wants the public to complete an on-line survey, which:

• Requires you to provide your name, street address, and e-mail address, with no commitments on how the information would be kept private, for what purposes it may be used, and how you can change or remove your e-mail address and other personal information from their system.
• Requires you to rank all the options they present, and does not allow you to instead suggest an alternative. For example, there’s no way to respond that all options are ugly and inappropriate. So the proponent could use the forced responses to claim there is community support.
• Does not let you keep a copy of your answers, and once you close your browser you cannot later complete the survey, or review or edit your answers. And with no access to the raw survey results, who knows what the proponent may claim they say.

Listening for only what they want to hear

By clicking on the links below you can view the proponent’s survey questions, without having to provide your personal information (and without responding to the survey):

1. Questions 1, 2, and 3 – Here’s where the proponent would require you to give them your contact information before you can proceed with the survey.
2. Question 4 – Here you would be forced to assign each of their five “design concepts” a ranking of 1 through 5. You cannot assign any ranking to your optional own suggestion (which must be described in less than 35 characters).
3. Questions 5 and 6 – Here they show you pictures of these other buildings and make you rank your three favourites – never mind that the proposed site is completely different, the proposed station would be a 100′-long poured-concrete cube, would have a flat concrete roof which trucks could park on, and so on.
4. Questions 7, 8, and 9 – Next they ask if you’d want a lookout.
5. Question 10 – For the last question they ask which you’d prefer during construction (excuse this paraphrasing):
   • They occupy and destroy Margaret Burgess Park (north of the north falls) and build a construction bridge over the north falls.
   • They cut down most of the trees, dump in blast rubble, build a dump truck ramp, and otherwise destroy the Township land south of the proposed site and also occupy the Precambrian Shield parking lot so the weekly Farmer’s Market, Cranberry Festival and other visitors to Bala cannot use it.
6. End To thank us, they show a historic photograph of the generating station that used to be on the site, neglecting to mention that their proposed station would be more than 16 times that size – as much larger as a 5-bedroom house is compared to a garden shed.

What to do

Rather than being manipulated by the proponent, you may instead wish to let your Township Councillor and Mayor know they have your full support to continue to work to require the proponent to show this proposed project would be safe, and beautiful, and there would be enough water over the Bala falls to continue to draw visitors.

Our Councillor contact details are here, and the Ward map is here.

Mystery Supporter

Just south of the Webers on Highway 11 is this huge billboard sign greeting northbound traffic …

Thank you to our mysterious supporter who wishes to remain anonymous!!!

SaveTheBalaFalls.com

Some people, including Premier Kathleen Wynne, justify their support for the proposed hydro-electric generation station at the Bala falls by noting there was previously a generating station on the Crown land south of the Bala north falls.

Yes, the Bala #2 generating station was there 42 to 90 years ago (from 1924 to 1972), but it was tiny – 16′ x 16′ (256 ft²), the size of a two-car garage. Whereas the proposed station would be over 100′ long, and have an area of over 6,361 ft² – 25 times the footprint. This is as much larger as a 5-bedroom house (1,320 ft²) is compared to a small 7′ x 7′ garden shed.

And the Bala #2 station had a capacity of 298 kW (400 hp), compared to the 4,300 kW proposed – 14 times the capacity. The flow of water out the tailrace would therefore be 10 to 12 times that of the Bala #2 station (depending on the efficiencies of the stations). This is as much faster as a tornado is to a summer breeze.

Not only does the above figure (click on it for a larger view) show how much larger the proposed generating station would be, it also shows that the flow of water out of the Bala #2 generating station was directed away from the in-water recreational area at the base of the Bala north falls. But the proposed generating station would angle this much greater flow not only towards the in-water recreational area, but also interfere with docking at the Town Docks on the Moon River and also at the three private docks which are closer than that.

Clearly, the generating station previously on the Crown land is no justification for the significantly larger station proposed, and the extreme dangers it would create.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and proponent have not had a competent authority assess the new risks that would be created, nor have the local volunteer fire department and other emergency responders been consulted to determine the resources, budget, and training which they would need.

As a result of unaddressed concerns about public safety for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls, on September 11, 2013 we sent this letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne.

In response, on October 22, 2013 the MNR responded with this letter, and on December 16, 2013 the MNR provided this additional letter. Remarkably, the province plans on giving the proponent complete responsibility for the safe operation of the proposed generating station – which is an impossible task.

The MNR also claims that instead wading and playing the water at the base of the Bala north falls, visitors instead go to Jaspen Park – which is ridiculous for many reasons. People visit Bala for the unique experience of the Bala Falls.

The province further claims that public safety and scenic flow were addressed in the proponent’s environmental screening report, which simply is not true. And we are informed that the MNR provided Location Approval under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act on June 24, 2013.

Accordingly, on December 9, 2013 we sent this letter to the Premier.

We also noted that the Premier appears to be receiving invalid justifications for the proposed project, and that the proposed project would illegally obstruct the traditional and historic Portage on the Crown land, so on January 8, 2014 we sent this letter to the Premier.

The summary is the province still has not addressed concerns about flooding, public safety, or obstructing the Portage.

According to an October 22, 2013 article in the Toronto Star, a subsidiary of Oakville Hydro (all of which are entirely owned by the Town of Oakville) is considering buying Swift River Energy Limited. That is, not only would the fine people of Oakville then be paying perhaps $25,000,000 to be and own the proponent for the proposed hydro-electric generating station in Bala, but they would also be assuming liability for any fatalities or other problems resulting from this  project.

So that Oakville has the opportunity to fully understand the situation, on November 3, 2013 we sent this letter to the Mayor of Oakville.

Within hours, we received a reply from Mayor Burton’s office that “the town is not involved in the project”. As this contradicts the information in the Toronto Star article, we asked for clarification, but have not received a reply.