Balance for Bala

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is considering an application from Swift River Energy Ltd. (SREL) to use Bala Falls for hydroelectric generation.

In 2005, under the OLD MNR Site Release policy, the MNR identified that hydro-electric generation may be possible at Bala Falls. They also identified that for various reasons the site may be particularly attractive and therefore issued a request for proposals, rather than accepting applications on a first come first served basis. This process resulted in the MNR offering a small piece of crown land near the North Bala Falls to the only applicant that submitted a proposal (SREL). It is apparent that the MNR site was too small to optimize the resource. In 2008, a request was made for additional land owned by the municipality (who have not issued a request for proposals). Members of the public believe that this request should be rejected by the District of Muskoka because of competing stakeholder values. The Ministry of Environment (MoE) is currently reviewing the SREL submission for completeness. Utlimately the MoE could refuse the approval presented by SREL. Then what? Is the province and the private sector really going to leave the resource alone?

Water is a public resource. Members of the public are quite concerned about the negative impacts of a hydro project at Bala Falls. Yet, the provincial government seems supportive of the idea of a new hydro facility in Bala. There may be a way to harness the resource with minimal negative impacts. All reasonable options (including the NO option) must be thoroughly considered. The application by SREL does not contain a feasibility study of the alternative concept shown in this website. Therefore, in an effort to study the "preferred alternative" to the privatization of Bala Falls, we are pursuing funding options to study the feasibility of what may be a less destructive alternative. If it is determined that a less destructive concept is feasible and does not impair the value of Bala Falls, then the resource may be developed in a socially responsible manner. Failure to develop the south channel may result in private development of Bala Falls and there is a significant risk that the public may not like the result of a private undertaking.

The Municipal Land under consideration may be put up for tender if the MoE does not refuse the proposal by SREL. That being the case, we should be ready with a competing proposal and bid.

The municipality or a renewable energy co-operative could have expressed an interest in the site in 2005. This was not done, mainly because it is a bad idea to use the north site for hydro-electric generation and this is not in the best interest of the public.

We do not need or want to use the north site as it is too important to the community of Bala. Instead we would like to study the south channel. We hope that the District Municipality of Muskoka will withhold permission to use the municipal land until our proposal is considered.

The MNR has stated that it may be risky to construct an intake structure in the South Channel because it is the main spillway for Lake Muskoka. We believe that a Professional Engineer would be able to design an intake structure and construction strategy that would eliminate the risk of impairing flood control. Independent analysis is a must - but it does not come cheap.

We can access grant monies to study the feasibility of a "community friendly" alternative. These funds are needed for an independent analysis of the South Channel alternative.

There are significant reasons to use the south channel as a not-for-profit undertaking instead of using the North Site to enhance the profits of a private company. We need donations and political will to ensure our alternative is thoroughly vetted. Without an independent evaluation of the south channel, we may never know the truth about the feasibility of the South Channel.

There are a variety of opinions regarding using Bala Falls for hydro generation:

· Some members of the public think the best alternative is no industrial hydro development of the Bala Falls.

· Others support the idea of hydro development of the Bala Falls and seem apathetic about the impact.

· Some members of the public accept that a hydro development at Bala Falls is likely and they hope it is done in a way that protects competing public values.

Many members of the public are highly critical of Swift River’s decision to apply to use public land at Bala Falls north. A significant number of submissions have been filed with the Ministry of Environment in opposition to the proposal.

We are concerned about the effectiveness of such submissions and demonstrations. Also concerning is what might happen if the Swift River proposal is approved. Accordingly, we seek to provide a constructive alternative to the Swift River proposal that is in keeping with public policy directives.

There may be a way and a mean of creating renewable energy at Bala Falls without ruining the place and without destroying what others value. Member of the public do not want the government to allow anyone, especially private interests, to ruin Bala Falls, a provincial icon.

There is approximately $2.6 million worth of renewable energy available at Bala Falls on an annual basis.

Not-for-profit hydro generation is a socially responsible method of using public resources.

Provincial government policy encourages not-for profit community renewable energy projects. Therefore efforts have been re-energized to establish an alternative proposal by Bala Energy Co-operative. We offer a constructive solution that protects the public value of Bala Falls.

What the government is doing to encourage not-for-profit energy projects:

* $0.006 per KwH premium paid on the purchase of community energy through Feed-in Tarriff program
* Considering allowing access to Infrastructure Ontario funds through IO Loan Program
* Considering guaranteed capacity allocation to the hydro distribution system through OPA
* Considering guaranteed access to local resources through MNR Site release program
* The Ontario Legislature exempted renewable energy co-operatives from the application of "the 50% Rule." The province recognizes that the old rule would effectively prevent renewable energy co-operatives from functioning in Ontario.
*To further support community projects, the OPA will be launching the Community Energy Partnerships Program this spring. This program will provide additional funding to cover project development costs.

The current proposal may not receive approval due to over-riding public values and other environmental and safety concerns. Members of the public want ensure that if the government approves of hydro generation at Bala Falls that any development is done in a socially and economically responsible manner. The Bala Energy Co-operative proposal for the south channel is the best way to achieve both.

What is wrong with the current proposal?

The public was led to believe the concept that the SREL proposal was a done deal and that if DMM refused SREL’s request for district land then SREL would proceed on the Crown Site. These hollow claims are viewed by members of the public as without credibility. It is important to note the Screening Report does not detail how SREL planned to complete the project on the Crown Site. The truth is neither proposal is possible without the use of Municipal land.

The public was led to believe that this project is GREEN energy. How can we consider this project a green project when it comes with such a high cost to other public values?

The public was led to believe that this project might include a snowmobile bridge. A bridge is not wanted by members of the public. A floating causeway would be more appropriate and environmentally responsible. If it is necessary, it should be funded as a community project and not in trade for other public values.

The public was led to believe that the "much maligned" option 1 would restrict access to the North Falls. This is true for both Option 1 and Option 2. Regrettably, the screening report does not detail the full extent of the safety exclusion areas and is vague regarding the loss of public shoreline access.

The public was led to believe that Option 2 would be "parklike" It is true that the site is currently treacherous and in need of rehabilitation. However, the site is already a park. The ESR is silent about what the "manufactured park" might look like or if it can even be called a park.

Much has been said about a generator that once operated on the Crown Site which was decommissioned in the fifty’s. This is like comparing apples with oranges. The original generator cannot be compared with the current proposal because it was a fraction of the size, had no exclusion areas and was a lot safer for the public.

Hydro power is not the answer to the provincial strategy to eliminate coal. There are only few possible sites identified by the MNR for new hydro in the province. The remaining sites are in designated parkland and by law cannot be developed. Bala Falls by rights should also be designated parkland for its future tourism value. In light of the changing energy landscape, Bala's most treasured site, should be left untouched. Bala is being caught in a green energy gold rush. This resource should not be auctioned off, 'in perpetuity', to a private company, who could sell these rights to anyone, including offshore investors. The current proposal does not make sense.

In October 2008 DMM resolved to "consider" allowing the use of District land for the proposal after completion of the screening process.

Hopefully councilors have had the opportunity to review the screening report.

After reading the report on option 2 it is clear that SREL has very limited options on the "much maligned" option 1. The use of either site will have a significant impact on public values and both would require the use of district owned land.

It is clear that Option 2 is also "maligned". The site is NOT the preferred alternative because it is just as restrictive from a public access perspective.

Research has shown the the South Channel is a more socially responsible way to tap the energy at Bala Falls. Members of the public put these suggestions to SREL but they have been unilaterally dismissed by SREL. (Click here to see a published report on this subject)

It is clear that a “manufactured park” is completely out of character with the natural beauty of Bala Falls. The SREL plan is very problematic from a safety perspective. Alternatives suggested by members of the public appear to be virtually harmless to public values, much safer and could be considered a better fit with the goals of the Green Energy Act.

Accordingly, council should consider the request to allow the use of district land and council should unequivocally refuse the request.

Refusal of the request should include a request that the province designate the crown site as parkland. The municipal site could be transferred to the township or a community group for creation of a park to be developed under the stewardship of the community.

The next staff report should clearly include an outline of the process that council will use to consider the SREL request. The question of allowing use could be considered as part of a Task Force or Public Advisory Committee.

Members of the public have requested a task force to review the risks associated with refusing the request for permission to use DMM land by SREL. A task force report would consolidate issues and comments from the public and provide a thorough vetting of all issues for council members.

The only thing green about the current proposal is the excessive amount of YOUR cash that will be given to the private investors who want to make tens of millions from this public land and water resource.

The provincial election is coming soon! Candidates must be challenged to explain their actions (or inactions) on this important issue. Candidates must explain how the loss of flow in Bala Falls, loss of associated revenue and other impacts are good for Muskoka.

Just because energy is renewable does not make it "green". Renewable energy projects with high social and environmental impacts are not green. Mitigation measures are not the solution to achieving socially responsible energy projects.

What is this Save The Bala Falls?

Member of the public are encouraged to consider the public values and concerns expressed by all stakeholders.

Advertisement: What is SLAPP?

Environmental Defence is on a campaign seeking legislation to prevent Strategic Litigation Against Public Protest

Muskoka Community Energy

There is an alternative