Save the Bala Falls

We have all heard that the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala North Falls is controversial, and divisive, and green energy, and why don’t we all just support it and get on with it already.

Well, why don’t we take this a step further and to really support it, why not look into becoming an investor in the proposed project.

A guideline is that typical hydro-electric generating stations cost about $5M per MW to build, so this should require about $25M in construction financing. And with a 40-year contract with the Ontario government providing guaranteed income well above the rate existing power generators receive, it could make business sense to be an investor.

But any business investment will have risk. Let’s look at some financial risks for the proposed Bala project.

1. The construction would be difficult (that is, more expensive) as the entire Crown land site would need to be excavated at least 50′ deep and the site is surrounded by:
   • A highway in full operation, without a speed limit reduction.
   • A river that will quickly and continuously seep into the excavation (due to the previous powerhouse’s tailrace) and there’s nowhere near to locate the huge settling tank to treat the water before discharge back to the river.
   • Township land that would need to remain safe for tourists throughout the construction period.
     
     
2. The materials handling would be a more difficult than typical as there is very little land nearby to store and transport both construction equipment and excavation fill.
   
   
3. Site access would be difficult as this would require a temporary construction bridge over the historic Bala Falls and that construction vehicles access this through Margaret Burgess Park. I would imagine potential contractors would roll their eyes thinking of the logistical problems (that is, costs would be greater). And I would think the public would be outraged when this destruction of the historic falls becomes widely known.
   
   
4. This proposed project would create dangerous water currents. And this would be a bad time and a place for a generating station with this operation (that is, daily cycling operation) just metres from where families splash and play at the base of the falls:
   • Just as people (certainly displaying poor judgement) have continued to jump off the railway bridge into the north channel, people have always, and would continue to recreate in the water at the base of the north falls.
   • But any injuries or fatalities would most likely result in the proponent being sued as their project would have been the cause of the increased the danger (despite years of warnings exactly about this by the public during the environmental assessment). Perhaps investors could be hidden or indemnified from such legal actions, but having money to invest would be attractive to those looking for people to sue.
   • Note that the Township of Muskoka Lakes would be less likely to be sued as they have repeatedly noted the danger to in-water recreation due to this proposed project (see questions 21 through 36 which were posed to, but never satisfactorily answered by the proponent).
     
     
5. It is now widely agreed that recent weather patterns have more volatility (see here and here), and the proposed construction would require most of the north channel to be obstructed for many months. As the flow capacity of the north channel is needed during high flow events, this would increase the risk of flooding Lake Muskoka.
   
   
6. The construction blasting and excavation would be directly adjacent to, and create a significant risk of damaging both, the highway bridge supports and the north dam. If such damage occurred, it could:
   • Be expensive to repair.
   • Immediately require construction be halted, possibly permanently.
   • Cause great disruption to the local businesses and emergency vechicle travel.
   • Cause fatalities.

That is, this would not be a routine construction project. There would be risk of significant construction delays and increased costs due to the difficult and unusual site. And there would be many risks of causing personal injury and public and private property damage during construction and operation.

So, even with the temptation of government-guaranteed income, this investment opportunity would not be an acceptable financial risk to me.

On May 30, 2012, the proponent released an environmental assessment Addendum in which they present their new proposal as “Alternative 1A”.

The proponent has never referred to an “Alternative 1A” before this, yet the proponent’s “Consultation Record” in this Addendum repeatedly refers to their public communications – since 2008 – using the term “Alternative 1A”, as if they’ve been telling us about their new proposal for years.

The proponent is doing this to attempt to trick the Ministry of the Environment into believing there has already been public consultation on the proponent’s new proposal – the proponent is doing this in the hope the Ministry of the Environment will accept their Addendum instead of restarting the environmental assessment process as should be required for a new proposal.

Meaningful public consultation is a crucial and fundamental part of the environmental assessment process, and for the proponent to unilaterally and retroactively rewrite the public record to suit their own purposes shows the proponent’s arrogance and contempt for both the public and the process.

We have therefore sent this letter to Ministry of the Environment.

We are concerned that first the proponent, and now the Ministry of the Environment, is not actually answering the fair and relevant questions being asked by the public. The principles of natural justice provide for a fair hearing.

Furthermore, as the judge of submitted environmental assessments, the Ministry of the Environment appears to be conflicted as they also administer the province’s noise regulations – and they are accepting incorrect noise calculations from the proponent.

Accordingly, we have sent this letter to the Ministry of the Environment.

On May 31, 2012 the proponent released an Addendum to their 2009 Environmental Screening Report in an attempt to fulfil their environmental assessment requirements for their New Proposal which could apparently be built solely on Crown land.

According to the regulations, an Addendum is allowed for “minor modifications to projects, and to require consultation on changes that are environmentally significant.” For the following reasons, we believe this is not a “minor modification”, and in fact this is a New Proposal which has never been presented to the public before, as it would have a:

• New site – as it would no longer use municipal land (it is important to note the proponent’s original 2005 proposal and the information presented at their 2007 public meeting required municipal land for Option 1).
• New location and orientation (the dangerously turbulent water exiting the tailrace would be more than 60′ closer to the base of the north falls and would be angled substantially more towards the shore and the base of the north falls, as compared to the Option 1 as previously presented to the public).
• Different technology (possibly using two vertical turbines rather than a single horizontal turbine, this would kill more fish).
• Different operating regime (the cycling operation now proposed was not discussed in their Environmental Screening Report).

All of these changes have significant negative impacts on; public safety, appearance, traffic delays, risks to the north dam and highway bridge, risk of flooding Lake Muskoka, use of areas such as Margaret Burgess Park and the Precambrian Shield parking lot for storage of construction materials, and so on.

As noted above, there should have been public consultation for such changes, but the proponent has not offered this.

So that we all can fully evaluate these major changes, we requested an extension to the deadline of June 29, 2012 for public comments on this New Proposal, but the proponent has refused. We look forward to responses from the Ministry of the Environment concerning the public’s comments on the proponent’s New Proposal.

The results to an on-line poll during late October 2011 on the Cottage Country Now web site were as follows:

Question: Was Muskoka Lakes council right to continue to fight Swift River on their hydroelectric project in Bala?

Results:

• No, it’s green energy and the way of the future: 3%
• Yes, that’s why they were elected: 93%
• To a point, but once approvals were in place they should have worked with them: 4%

 We note that:

•  The poll was presented along with a related article that was the top item on their web site, and was available for over a week. The poll therefore had exposure to a very broad and interested audience.
• The percentage agreeing with “Yes, that’s why they were elected” was always in the range of 90% to 94% from when there were fewer than 200 votes to the final total of at least 1,725 votes. This shows that the poll results are statistically valid and do indeed represent the larger population.
• This confirms that the vast majority of the public – 93% – agree with the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council that the proponent for the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls has not adequately addressed the major issues, and the proposed project should not proceed.
• Mayor Alice Murphy, running on a clear platform concerning the proposed project in the October 2010 municipal election, received more than 50% more votes than all those running against her combined – including the incumbent – for the position of Mayor of the Township of Muskoka Lakes. This again shows the vast majority of the public support the Mayor’s and indeed all of Council’s actions. Our elected representatives are representing us, and doing an excellent job of it. This is why we like living in Canada; we have a government and process that works (at least at the municipal level – we’re still waiting to find out about the provincial and federal level).

For many complex issues, people are often evenly split. Consider the 2000 United States presidential election where George W. Bush received 47.9% of the vote compared to 48.4% for Al Gore. Or the 1995 Quebec referendum where 50.6% voted no and 49.4% voted yes. This Bala Falls issue is complex, yet there is clearly a “landslide” of public opposition to the proposed project.