Summary
The other reason Premier Ford gave at his August 29, 2018 press conference for reneging on his promise to cancel the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls is it would “leave a big hole in the ground”.
While this is true, the problem would almost solve itself as both the proponent’s Lease of Portage Landing from the Township of Muskoka Lakes and the proponent’s Construction Lease for the now-excavated MNRF land require the proponent to restore these sites at the termination of their leases.
In addition, the proponent has:
- Provided a $100,000 Letter of Credit to the Township of Muskoka Lakes. This amount was selected as adequate to pay for the work and materials required to change the Township’s Portage Landing into an accessible park.
- Already paid more than $125,000 to the Township of Muskoka Lakes to lease Portage Landing and these funds could be used to fill-in the “big hole in the ground” and towards landscaping the site.
Further details are below.
Detail
When Premier Ford responded to a question at his August 29, 2018 press conference he gave two reasons for reneging on his promise to cancel the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls. The first reason the Premier claimed was it would be too expensive (this is not true, details here).
The second reason was that would “leave a big hole in the ground”. This is true, but this is a problem that almost solves itself due to the agreements already in place, as follows …
There would be two parcels of land to restore:
1) Township’s now-treeless Portage Landing land
The south part of the mess is the Township of Muskoka Lakes’ Portage Landing, which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, so must be restored accordingly. The proponent’s 2016 lease of this land from the Township of Muskoka Lakes requires (in Section 6, Restoration):
At the end of the term of this Lease whether renewed or terminated, the Tenant at its expense, shall forthwith commence and diligently carry out the following restoration/improvement of the Premises:
- At the option of the Landlord, either (A) [Portage Landing] will be restored to a condition similar to the existing condition at the date of this Lease … or (B) the land will be re-graded to improve public access creating a public parkette including walking paths and/or stairs down to the water’s edge with tiered landscaping … such option to be exercised by the Landlord in writing delivered to the Tenant within 60 days of receipt by the Landlord of detailed landscaped plans for Option B which plans were developed with prior consultation with the Landlord’s staff and the Landlord’s heritage consultant …
- New plantings would include native, landscape quality trees, grasses and shrubbery;
- The restoration/improvement will be designed so [as] to meet the historical attributes … as outlined in the heritage designation document.
- The restoration/improvement will be completed within 12 months of said end of the term of this Lease.
The Tenant will pay for all such rehabilitation, restoration and improvements including design, materials and construction.
The Tenant shall provide the Landlord … with financial security by way of letter of credit … as security for the Tenant’s obligations to complete such rehabilitation, restoration and improvements … with the final amount to be … established between the Landlord and the Tenant acting reasonably, but in no case shall the financial security be less than $100,000.00.
Section 3 of the Lease notes that the proponent made a one-time $125,000 payment for this lease, and in addition, as of June 2018, is paying monthly rent of $5,200.
Therefore, the Township of Muskoka Lakes already has a $100,000 Letter of Credit from the proponent which was determined adequate to change the Township’s Portage Landing to be a parkette. And the Township has the $125,000 one-time Lease payment (plus a few monthly $5,200 payments) which could be applied to …
2) Province’s “big hole in the ground”
The north part of the mess is owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and this is where the “big hole in the ground” is.
As land tenure, on May 11, 2015 the proponent received a Licence of Occupation from the MNRF, and on November 24, 2017 this was replaced with a Construction Lease from the MNRF. This Construction Lease requires the following of the proponent (Section 2.(d), Plans/construction, and Section 9, Removal of assets on termination of lease):
(i) … all work on the premises must be in accordance with the approved description of the work and the approved sketch or plan of the work;
(iii)(a) comply with the provisions of all applicable legislation and regulations made thereunder and of all environmental, zoning and building laws and all other statutory requirements including health, fire, and other environmental regulations relating to the premises;
(iii)(b) obey all orders, directives and requests made by municipal and other public authorities to carry out repairs or effect changes to the premises in order that they will comply with applicable health, environmental safety, fire, zoning, building and other requirements authorized by law;
Upon the expiration or earlier determination of this lease, other than upon entry into a long term Waterpower Lease Agreement between the parties hereto:
(a) the premises shall be left in a clean and safe condition, and where a notice to remove is given by the Lessor to the Lessee, restored as much as possible to its original state;
(b) unless notice to remove is given by the Lessor to the Lessee, upon the expiration or earlier determination of this lease, all buildings, structures, improvements or other assets remaining on the premises automatically become the property of the Crown unless expressly rejected by the Lessor, or his delegate, and in either case, the Crown has no obligation whatsoever to pay compensation for them;
(c) where the Lessee fails to remove the buildings, structures, improvements or other assets where notice to remove was given by the Lessor to the Lessee or fails to restore the premises to a clean and safe condition within 12 months from the expiration or earlier determination of this lease, the Lessee will pay to the Lessor a sum of lawful money of Canada sufficient to cover the costs, if any, incurred by the Lessor in selling, disposing of or destroying the buildings, structures, improvements or other assets and in restoring the premises to a clean and safe condition; and these costs shall be a debt due the Lessor and may be recovered at the suit of the Lessor in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Therefore, it would be the proponent’s responsibility to make the site safe and restore it. And if they wouldn’t do this …
- The excavation is about 75′ wide x 110′ long, and while this “big hole in the ground” was once as much as 32′ below the level of the Moon River (and 62′ below road level), the proponent has been helpfully filling it in with concrete and re-bar steel for their proposed generating station. Estimating that about 20′ would still need to be filled-in with rock fill, this would require about 6,000 cubic yards (yd³) of material to level the site with existing ground level.
- Individual 14 yd³ tandem truck loads of 2″ crushed granite cost $350, delivered and dumped. So the 6,000 yd³ of rock fill needed would cost about $150,000, delivered and dumped. In a large quantity, and if instead the blasted rock recently removed from the site was used, the cost would be much lower.
- So the $125,000 the Township has already received as a Lease payment would be more than enough to make the site safe. Maybe $100,000 more would be needed to nicely landscape the site, as that is perhaps what restoring the Township’s Portage Landing would cost.
- Given that at least $70M would be saved by stopping this proposed project, spending $100,000 for landscaping would be quite a bargain.
Clearly the “big hole in the ground” is not a big problem. As the province – and all Ontarians – would save $70M by stopping this proposed project, spending $100,000 to finish landscaping the mess would be money well spent.