Save the Bala Falls

In September 2010 the proponent posted an 11-page Briefing Note – August 17, 2010 on their web site. In it, there is so much misinformation presented that we are compelled to respond. Particularly egregious statements by the proponent are quoted below on the left, with our response on the right in blue.

We understand that this is major information overload to wade through this detail, but if we are to Save The Bala Falls and expose what the proponent is attempting to do, the details are crucial.

From the project’s inception, we have bent over backwards to be transparent about our plans, and to solicit and incorporate community comments and concerns into the design and planning for this facility …
… We have had innumerable meetings with …
We are proud of our efforts and we are especially pleased that these efforts have made for a substantially better project.

Perhaps the proponent bent over backwards, but only to defend their frustratingly vague plans. As detailed in Section 2.9.2 of our Technical Response, the only change the proponent has made to their project was a carefully-orchestrated (by convincing local politicians that both the proponent and the politicians were doing the community a favour) introduction of the proponent’s Option 2, and this for the self-serving benefit of justifying a larger power station.

The original Option 1 Plan proposed that the facility would be contained in an above ground structure located entirely on crown land abutting Bala’s North Dam and waterfall. The Option 1 Plan would not require the use of, or rights to, any adjacent properties …

The proponent had many people believing their threat that if the District land is not available to build Option 2, then the crown land is all they need to build Option 1. This diagram exposed what the proponent would later blame on a “surveying error” – that Option 1 (as originally described from 2005 through to September 2010) would not fit on just the crown land (more detail is here and here).

… the District of Muskoka passed a Resolution to enter into an agreement with SREL, to provide a small parcel of District-owned land …

Now, instead of bending over backwards, they are bending the truth here (read the resolution for yourself). It states that the District only agreed to consider use of the land, subject to environmental concerns – and these include safety, tourism, and the local economy. And we’ve shown the proponent has not provided adequate responses in these and other important areas (so they don’t take their obligation to the community seriously).

It is this Option 2 Plan (an underground facility …

This time they’ve bent the truth so far they done and broke it. The proponent keeps repeating this big lie as if it will eventually come true. Their own drawing shows their poured concrete building would rise 18′ above the Moon River, and it would be over 33′ wide. This is like a two-storey house right at the shoreline, there is nothing “underground” about that.

Page 2 of 11, Another Big Lie – their rendering of Option 2.

The proponent continues to show this fictional rendering. Some of what is wrong or missing is shown in our marked-up version. And note that none of our concerns involve landscaping. We need to know what would be under the landscaping.

Concerning the proponent’s proposed Economic Impact Study …

1. To assess the economic and tourism impact during construction, the proponent has e-mailed this survey to selected business owners. The only disruption to business presented are the road closures, for example, the survey self-servingly neglects to mention:
   • That the view over the Moon River at the north falls will be of; a massive 270′-long rock and plastic coffer dam, with dead fish on the enclosed dry riverbed, a huge construction crane with a 100′ boom, safety fencing, and on and on.
   • There will be a huge, ugly, and noisy temporary bridge with a significant up and down ramp which – apparently, but unbelievably – won’t require a traffic speed reduction even though it will be very unfamiliar to drivers (I’ve never been on such a thing) and goes through an active construction site.
   • That the beautiful Bala Falls road will be a dead end for the duration of the construction project, with a construction trailer, porta-potties, materials storage, and heavy construction equipment. The survey has lots of words attempting to bribe local businesses with the expectation of selling a few more sandwiches (while the town is destroyed), but very few words to describe the appearance of Bala during construction.
2. To assess the long-term economic and tourism impact, the survey continues:
   • That the summer flow at the north falls will continue, but they neglect to note that the summer drought conditions flow will be year-round, and they neglect to note this applies to the important south dam as well. People come to Bala to see the falls, not where they used to be.
   • The proponent only describes the fake park they intend to build on top of their concrete cube of a power station. But don’t mention the noise and vibration there, the safety issues upstream and downstream, the fencing, and on and on. Yet they expect people to list their concerns in a little text box that they cannot even save and edit at a later time, or keep a copy of. People come to Bala to see the natural beauty of the area, not to see a concrete cube with rocks piled up the side.

… forming a Community Advisory Committee to help us work out the detailed design for this natural area.

The proponent continues to attempt to lure the unsuspecting public into this lose-lose situation. There is no way to disguise a 33′-wide, 18′-high concrete cube right at the shore of the Moon River. It will be ugly, and trying to spread the blame by including the public in this impossible task is attempted trickery.

The proponent then continues with what they perceive are some “Fictions”, let’s examine some of these:

… [the proponent] expects that the District of Muskoka will honour its commitment made in a District Council Resolution (2008) to enter into a lease agreement.

As described above, there was no committment, and certainly if the proponent is not providing needed information and has manipulated the situation, the District should not continue to support this disaster.

… [the proponent] is fully prepared to pursue its rights to develop the Option 1 Plan on the crown land only.

The threats continue, but as detailed here, we don’t believe the proponent would or could build Option 1.

While some additional work may be required, the technical and economic viability of the Option 1 Plan abutting the North Dam’s waterfall was confirmed during the Ministry of Natural Resource’s Site Release process back in 2005.

“Some additional work” – well that is a multi-million-dollar understatement. Option 1 would require rebuilding the north dam as well as the highway bridge (and this work would have huge disruption and timing implications), all while producing less power and therefore being less profitable than the proponent’s beloved Option 2. Option 1 just won’t happen.

Fiction: The scenic falls will be dried up to just 1 cubic metre per second of water, a “mere bathtub amount”.

Despite their confusing bafflegab, the north falls and the south falls would be just a trickle. The proponent conveniently forgets; that the view of the south falls is also important, that even this August 2010 the water ran over the top of the north dam, and that the view of the falls is important outside of the summer season. They would like us to believe that taking 94% of the water won’t affect tourism, recreation, and the view.

Fiction: That the project would shut out public access to hundreds of metres of shoreline. FACT: This is simply not true … (blah blah blah).

While the proponent conveniently provides their diagram confirming that indeed hundreds of metres of public shoreline would no longer be safe for the public (in the diagram, this is anything adjacent to the yellow area), the proponent neglects to mention; that their project would make the calm waters in the north channel become dangerously fast (so more likely requiring fencing), and that the water south of their proposed building would be at the base of a tall retaining wall for the driveway with no public access shown (so the restricted areas are in fact greater than they show).

• So the proponent can’t blame all the problems they are causing on the Ministry of Natural Resource’s public safety efforts.
• The simple fact is the proponent would be creating new dangers and this results in newly dangerous and inaccessible public shoreline.

FICTION: The dangerous flows around the power station would virtually prohibit those activities now enjoyed in the area surrounding Bala’s North Dam. FACT: Transport Canada, the governmental agency responsible for assessing the suitability …

There are more recreational activities than boating, and the proponent neglects to respond to the loss of these.

FICTION: Advertisements are being placed by the OPP and OPG warning the public to stay away from hydro stations and surrounding shorelines and waterways. These warnings and fines will only serve to scare away tourists. FACT: These critics ignore the fact that these warnings pertain to dams, whether or not they have power stations associated with them and will continue to apply to Bala’s two dams irrespective of the proposed small hydro project.s.

Firstly, listen to the public service announcements for yourself here (at the right side, click on “Watch 2010 PSA” and “Watch 2008 PSA”)

The safety concern is hydro dams and power stations, due to the danger of the changing and unknown flow of water through them. This is not a concern now, due to the stop logs being manually changed, but would be a concern with the proposed project which would be remotely operated.

FICTION: The centuries old portage route between Lake Muskoka and the Moon River would be obliterated by the massive water intake grate for the turbine … FACT: The “centuries old portage route” is not a …

The point is the traditional, safest, and best places to get your canoe or kayak into and out of Bala Bay and the Moon River are exactly where the proposed power station’s intake and tailrace would be. And the alternate locations available all involve significantly more danger and difficulty.

• This is just another example where there is no mitigation.
• The proposed project would greedily take what it needs for itself, jam concrete and new fences into the most beautiful places, create new dangers for this small town, and rip the heart out of Bala’s economy and tourism.

Our comments (in blue) on the proponent’s August 20, 2010 letter to the editor (quoted verbatim) of the Weekender newspaper, which they entitle “Bala Falls Fact vs Fiction”…

The Bala Falls Small Hydro Project has become a bit of a celebrity over the last 3 years, attracting community and media attention. Like most celebrities (loved or hated), people seem to turn not to FACTS to form their opinions, but to RUMOUR and speculation, perpetrated on websites with other agendas, and biased media reports.

OK, let’s talk truth, the whole truth.

This phenomenon has resulted in a multitude of FICTIONAL descriptions of the project and unfounded fear fact. An example is that the north falls will “dry up to a trickle”. The FACT is that flows over the north falls will be identical to what has been experience all summer.

Not quite. For example, this past August weekend, due to the recent rain, water frequently ran over the top of the north dam. This would not happen if the proposed power station was in place.

And the proponent neglects to mention that so long as their proposed power station can handle it, the water through the south channel would be a maximum of 1 m³/s ALL YEAR. This photograph shows the south dam with a flow of 2 m³/s – half of this (that is, the 1 m³/s proposed) is indeed a trickle, which is all that would flow when it would be up to 80 m³/s without the proposed power station. This photograph shows the south channel with a flow of 2 m³/s – again, half of this would indeed be a trickle.

And just because the flow over the falls may be lower in the summer, this lower flow would not be acceptable year ’round – where’s the fiction in that. People do come to Bala in other seasons and the higher flow is important then too.

The latest FICTION is that if the Municipality reverses it’s previously passed resolutions to support the lease of a small portion of District land to SREL, that SREL will be forced to cancel the project. The FACT is that SREL’s original Option 1 Plan was located entirely on provincial crown land, and while it would result in a smaller project, it will also be significantly cheaper. The original resolutions were passed in 2008 to move the project 35 m away from the north falls, and create a sunset view deck and park atop of a buried powerhouse – in response to council suggestions. The land lease also provides a vehicle for the municipality to benefit from the project through associated lease payments.

First, the Township (see page 15 of the minutes) and District (see page 2 of the minutes) only agreed to consider (and subject to certain conditions) the use of District land for this purpose.

Second, the proponent’s proposed Option 1 would not fit on just the crown land (even though they keep telling us all they need for Option 1 is the land the Ministry of Natural Resources has agreed to provide) – see this drawing. And even if it did, there wouldn’t be room for the driveway and other site needs.

Third, nobody said that the proponent would be forced to do anything. We’re saying the proponent would not build their proposed Option 1, as it would:

• Be so unprofitable, as it would generate little power due to;
  • The shallow intake (currently only 6′ deep, compared to the 45′ proposed for Option 2) – and excavating deeper would be very difficult because the intake would be directly adjacent to the north dam and the highway bridge.
  • The obstructed intake (due to the highway bridge supports), and also due to the required sharp change of direction of the water flow.
• Be expensive and much more disruptive to build than Option 2, because the north dam and highway bridge would likely need to be completely rebuilt.
• Be difficult to situate on the site, as there is no room for the driveway or for hoisting equipment.
• Impinge on the District’s riparian rights, both due to the dangerously fast water exiting the tailrace just beyond the shoreline, and due to the need to anchor the safety boom.

SREL has bent over backwards trying to address the Municipality’s concerns including completing the requested Heritage Study and the recently initiated Economic Impact Study. We have also discussed the possibility of assisting the Township with its project initiatives such as a new snowmobile bridge.

The proponent is only trying unilaterally push ahead with their plan without accomodating the local needs. The proponent has not made any significant changes to the project to accomodate tourism or the local economy, or made any information available as requested.

The proponent just keeps repeating the evasive answers from their environmental screening report.

The truth is: the falls would become a trickle, we still don’t know anything about the appearance of the structure, the water intake through the north channel would become a threat to the long-time existing recreational activities upstream, we have no information on what organizations would have what responsibilities for rescues or emergencies, or even on what steps or time would be required to shut down the unattended power station in an emergency, and on and on (more detail here).

And this snowmobile bridge. Let the proposed hydro-electric power station project be judged on its own merits, trying to bribe us with a bridge is just trying to distract us from what is really going on.

We are now having our engineers clarify the misinterpretations brought up at the last council meeting. It would be irresponsible for the Township to reverse its position on the Option 2 Plan prior to obtaining the information they just recently requested. The question is NOT “Is the Township for or against the Project?”, but “Does the Township refer the Option 1 Plan (above ground facility abutted to the North Bala Falls) or the Option 2 Plan (buried house, 35 m away from falls, with a park atop and lease payments to the District)?”.

The proponent claims they are battling FICTION – yet the proponent continues to state the structure would be “buried”. This is simply not true:

• The proposed concrete building would be at least 33′ wide and rise at least 18′ above the Moon River, this is not “buried”.
• This is as tall as a two-storey house – built right at the shore, centred on Burgess Island, at the head of the Moon River, in full view of everyone on the water, on either shore, or viewing the falls from the shore’s main viewing area. How can this be called “buried”.

And about that “park atop”: Clear-cutting all the trees on Burgess Island and then building a powerhouse which would be a concrete cube with rocks piled up the side, with three 13′ x 13′ removable hatches on the top (through which one would hear the factory-like hum of machinery), and then planting some little shrubs to make a garden like those on Toronto condominium underground parking garages does not a park make.

Contrary to the FICTION being tossed around, the FACT is that the Option 1 Plan was feasible in 2005 when we first started this project, and is only more attractive with the Green Energy Act. I would suggest that a more constructive debate for the Township Council would be “how can we ensure that the lease payments for Option 2 Plan are used for the benefit of Bala instead of being spread throughout the District”.

It appears that the proponent is trying to get the Township to fight the District. More attempts at distraction. A posting concerning the Green Energy Act and Option 1 is here.

As detailed here, at least 50% of the flow of the Niagara River must go over the Niagara Falls during the days from April through October.

That is, even with the United States and Canada having to share the water, the countries were still able to agree that a significant amount of water is needed over the falls to support tourism and the local economy.

But the Bala proponent would only allow 6% throughout most of the year. We should insist on much more, as the flow over the falls is what brings people to Bala.

A special meeting of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council was held August 11, 2010, and this report was presented.

The report has three sections:

• The last 11 pages is the proponent’s March 18, 2010 response to questions raised by the Township in their request to have this project elevated to require further study.
• The 8 pages before that is a legal opinion sought by the Township concerning whether the province of Ontario’s Green Energy Act impacts the Township’s jurisdiction over this project.
• The first 20 pages is a staff report to Township Council commenting on the proponent’s 11-page March 18, 2010 response.

The Gravenhurst Banner published this article (a pdf version is here) about the meeting.