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 …
- 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.
- 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.