{"id":7391,"date":"2016-03-14T16:22:28","date_gmt":"2016-03-14T20:22:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/savethebalafalls.com\/?p=7391"},"modified":"2016-03-25T08:56:56","modified_gmt":"2016-03-25T12:56:56","slug":"e-newsletter-march-13-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/savethebalafalls.com\/?p=7391","title":{"rendered":"e-Newsletter \u2013 March 14, 2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

The province will protect turtles and moose, but not people<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The quick summary<\/strong><\/span>
We continue to explain to the Ministry of Natural\u00a0Resources that the proposed project to build a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Would risk flooding Lake Muskoka during the planned construction.<\/li>\n
  2. Would be too dangerous during the planned operation.<\/li>\n
  3. Can therefore now be cancelled by the MNR, without paying costs or penalty, as the proponent committed during the procurement process that their proposed project would not cause the above.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    We have met with the MNR and look forward to their addressing these concerns. Until then, we have requested that the MNR not provide any further approvals until an acceptable safety plan has been presented to the public.
    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    The current situation<\/strong><\/span>
    As currently planned, the proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls would be too dangerous for the location, given the area’s:
    \u00a0\u2022 Shoreline ownership.
    \u00a0\u2022 Nearby public and private docks.
    \u00a0\u2022 Public’s uses and rights to use the shoreline and water.
    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    How we got here<\/strong><\/span>
    The proposed project was initiated with a Ministry of Natural\u00a0Resources’ procurement process which included the release of a well-written Request for Proposals in 2005. This RFP included the following requirement:<\/p>\n

    \u201cFor the North Bala Dam, demonstrate consideration of the extensive aesthetic, recreational, social and economic (i.e. tourism) values in the area of the proposed development.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    As a result, the proponent’s 2005 Proposal included the commitment that their proposed project would:<\/p>\n

    \u201cnot generally diminish the public\u2019s enjoyment of the area for swimming, boating, fishing …\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

    However, the MNR now appears to believe that to deal with the extreme danger the proposed generating station would create, that the MNR could either somehow eliminate all in-water recreation in the area (which would be an impossible task), or that they could transfer all responsibility for public safety to the proponent. For example in this letter<\/a> they state: “it would be the direct responsibility of Swift River Energy\u00a0Limited to ensure appropriate public safety measures are in place as they relate to flows above and below a waterpower facility”<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 and as currently designed, operating the proposed generating station safely would also be an impossible task.<\/p>\n

    That is, the MNR is apparently attempting to claim they have no responsibility for the unresolvable situation they have created by not enforcing the requirements of their 2005 RFP.
    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    Our December 15, 2015 meeting with the MNR \u2013 major unaddressed issues<\/strong><\/span>
    The Ontario provincial government is comprised of three categories of people:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Elected politicians<\/strong>, such as the Honourable Bill Mauro, Minister of Natural Resources, and Norm Miller, MPP Parry Sound \u2013 Muskoka.<\/li>\n
    2. Political office staff<\/strong> whom the elected politicians hire to assist with communications and policy. These people have job titles such as Legislative Assistant, Policy Advisor, Issues Management, and Press Secretary, and all report to the Ministry’s Chief of Staff.<\/li>\n
    3. Bureaucrats<\/strong>, who are the civil servants who work in the Ministries and implement the procedures and policies for routine matters, and who receive political direction for special and unusual situations.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Realizing that the proposed Bala project has become a political, rather than solely a bureaucratic issue, on December 15, 2015 we had the opportunity to meet with the Chief of Staff and a Legislative Assistant for the MNR, where we made the following points:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Public safety<\/strong>. The MNR has stated that their approvals process will consider public safety.<\/li>\n
      2. Transport Canada<\/strong>. The MNR cannot rely on Transport\u00a0Canada’s approval under the Navigation Protection Act for public safety, as Transport\u00a0Canada has no responsibility for boating safety in the Moon\u00a0River, and Transport\u00a0Canada has no expertise or mandate for in-water recreation such as swimming, wading, and Scuba diving.<\/li>\n
      3. Other hydro-electric generating stations<\/strong>. While there is a hydro-electric generating station at the\u00a0Bracebridge Falls, the situation there is completely different in that; there is no nearby in-water recreation (nobody lives or even touches the water within 800′ of that generating station), there are no private docks, the public docks there are protected by a 110′-long concrete breakwater, and Bracebridge has a much more diversified economy.
        The owner of the nearby Wilson’s Falls generating station has confirmed that the turbulent water exiting their generating station caused the 2008 drowning of a 16 year old boy there. The proposed Bala generating station would have more than ten times that flow<\/strong> and would be automatically- and remotely-started at about noon on summer days, so would be even more dangerous. This is proof that the proposed Bala generating station would be deadly dangerous.<\/li>\n
      4. Aquatic Safety Assessment<\/strong><\/em>. We provided the MNR with a copy of the Lifesaving Society’s Aquatic Safety\u00a0Assessment<\/em> report<\/a>, which concluded that the proposed Bala generating station would create extreme dangers and that an acceptable safety plan must be presented before any further approvals are granted.<\/li>\n
      5. Upstream safety boom<\/strong>. Using Transport\u00a0Canada’s own method of calculating the required distance upstream for the upstream safety boom, we showed that it would need to be relocated upstream of Purk’s Place<\/a>. This would both prevent use of the portage there, and would prevent Purk’s Place from renting boats \u2013 and we note that a specific requirement of the MNR’s RFP was: “continuity of business in the local area”<\/em>.<\/li>\n
      6. Unprecedented<\/strong>. Visiting 32 similarly-sized hydro-electric generating stations in Southern\u00a0Ontario shows that it would be unprecedented<\/a> to build a hydro-electric generating station in the middle of a very popular in-water recreational area.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Given the requirements of the MNR’s 2005 RFP and the commitments the proponent made in their 2005 Proposal<\/a> (for which they were awarded the opportunity to pursue this proposed project through a competitive process), we then showed that the proponent would be reneging on these commitments.<\/p>\n

        We then showed that as the proponent is reneging on their commitments, due to the provisions of the MNR’s 2005 RFP, the MNR can cancel this proposed project, without paying any costs or penalty.<\/p>\n

        In our meeting with the MNR, we provided written detail for all of the above, in the following two documents which we left with them:<\/p>\n