The Proponent’s “Facts” versus the Truth – Part 1

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.