The proponent got to where they are today by lying

Summary

1. We have learned from information received through the provincial government’s Freedom of Information process that contrary to commitments the proponent made for their environmental approval, the minimum flow through their proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls would be more than double the flow that caused the 2008 drowning of a 16-year-old boy at the nearby Wilson’s Falls Generating Station.

   This minimum flow through the proposed Bala generating station would begin, without warning at about noon, on about one-third of summer days – just when people would be most likely to be in the water.
    

2. To fool the government into believing there was meaningful consultation with the public on the trickle of flow the proponent would allow to continue to flow down the Bala falls, the proponent convened a farce of a “Flow Distribution Committee” process.

   At the same time the proponent was making flow commitments to their Flow Distribution Committee, the proponent was telling the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry there would be less flow and more danger than they were telling the Committee. That is, the proponent lied to the Flow Distribution Committee, and at the same time they lied to the government on what they told the Flow Distribution Committee.
    

Detail
To prevent the public from having any meaningful say in how much flow would remain over the Bala north and south falls, in 2010 the proponent convened a Flow Distribution Committee. Flow Distribution means determining for various times of the year and available flows, how much water would continue to flow over the Bala north and south falls, the remainder of the flow being directed through the proponent’s proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls.

The proponent:

• Determined the Committee’s members, speakers, and agenda.
• Used the meetings to unilaterally tell the Committee what the Flow Distribution would be.
• Produced the minutes without regard to disagreement from the committee on what was actually said.
• Claimed this meaningless farce was consultation.

As background, the flow over the Bala falls is sometimes called “Scenic Flow”, which denigrates its importance to the area’s tourist-driven economy.

• Did you know that by international agreement, half of the flow through the Niagara River must go over the Niagara Falls (rather than being through the Canada and US hydro-electric generating stations there) as it is is widely accepted how important tourism is to that area’s economy. The Bala proponent would allow only 6% of the flow to remain over the Bala falls.

Here is the problem …

1. The proponent’s commitments. As you can see from the proponent’s presentation at the final meeting of their Flow Distribution Committee, which was September 17, 2014:
   • Page 5: The proposed generating station’s minimum flow would be 14 m³/s (just as they committed in Section 6.2.2.1 of their 2009 Environmental Screening/Review report).
   • Page 9: They would provide greater “Concession Flows” over both Bala falls on six long weekends (such as the Canada Day long weekend) – as if these are the only important tourist times in Bala (what a misunderstanding of the local situation).
      
2. These commitments were final. As you can see from their September 30, 2014 Press Release, this is the “Final Scenic Flow Plan”, and they almost break their arm patting themselves on the back for these few days of Concession Flows.
    
3. But at the same time the proponent was providing conflicting information to the MNRF. On August 15, 2014 the proponent submitted this Water Management Plan Amendment to the MNRF. Note that:
   • Page 5: The new statement: “Concession Flows to be provided only when in-flows are available i.e. > 26 m³/s”.
     • The problem is that less than a third of summer days have flows of greater than 26 m³/s, so they usually would not actually provide these Concession Flows.
   • Pages 6 and 7: The new statement that the generating station’s minimum flow would be between 26 and 30 m³/s.
     • Note that the nearby Wilson’s Falls Generating Station caused the drowning of a 16-year-old boy in 2008, that station’s maximum flow was 10 m³/s.

So we now know that the proponent lied, as they told their Flow Distribution Committee:

1. They would provide additional flow over the Bala falls on long weekends, but at the same time they were telling the MNRF they would do this less than a third of the time.
2. Their generating station would have a minimum flow of 14 m³/s , but at the same time they were telling the MNRF the minimum flow would be between 26 and 30 m³/s.
   • So on the one-third of summer days when the proposed Bala generating station would start, without warning at about noon, the flow would be more than double that which is already known to have caused a drowning.
      

The Freedom of Information process
One of the few ways we have of knowing when the proponent lies is through the Freedom of Information process, where any member of the public can request internal government e-mails and other documents. There are two problems. Firstly, the process is expensive, often costing more than $1,000, depending on the number of documents and the time the government estimates it will take to gather them.

But the bigger problem is the proponent doing everything they can, at any expense, to delay and frustrate the process. Here’s the timeline of one request:

1. June 5, 2015. Submitted an FoI request for MNRF documents concerning this proposed project, from January 6, 2015 to June 2015.
2. June 17, 2015. Received fee estimate from MNRF of $1,420.
3. January and August 2016, received some documents. Some the MNRF reported they could not release for various privacy reasons.
   March 2016, proponent objected to the release of many documents which the MNRF had agreed could be released. This initiates a Mediation process through the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario to determine whether these Contested Records should be released.
4. December 1, 2016. Proponent still objects to the release of the Contested Records. This initiates an IPC Adjudication process.
5. January 31, 2017. Proponent’s two lawyers at Loopstra Nixon LLP, Barristers & Solicitors submitted 55 pages of Representations to the IPC Adjudicator on why they claim the Contested Records should not be released, including a threat that the proponent will initiate legal action if the IPC orders these Contested Records be released and noting: “This would inevitably involve a significant expenditure in terms of legal fees and court resources.” The proponent even discloses they contemplated legal action in their communications with the MNRF. Threats, threats, threats.
6. February 24, 2017. IPC provides SaveTheBalaFalls.com with 47 pages of questions, instruction, and precedent giving us the opportunity to dispute the proponent’s claims.
7. March 7, 2017. SaveTheBalaFalls.com provides 84 pages of Representations (with some follow-up in May 2017) citing examples and precedents of why the proponent’s claims are not valid.
8. May 16, 2018. IPC Adjudicator provides 56-page Decision agreeing with us and the MNRF, and rejecting all of the proponent’s claims. The Decision orders that all the Contested Records be released no earlier than June 15, 2018 (giving the proponent a few weeks to initiate their threatened legal action) and no later than June 20, 2018 (as the MNRF sometimes takes months to get documents released).
9. Of special note is that the Adjudicator agreed to apply the “Public Interest Override”, finding that the benefit to the public of receiving the documents was more important than the need for secrecy claimed by the proponent.

The result is the documents requested through the Freedom of Information process are now more than three years old and we still don’t have all of them.

If this is how Tony Zwig wants to waste his daddy’s money, so be it. We’ll keep at it.