Bala debate snagged by conflict rules

Bala Falls Hydro Project faces opposition in Muskoka Lakes as Swift River Energy seeks a municipal lease for a 4.5 MW power station; assessment delays and access concerns intensify debate over crown land alternatives.

Municipal conflict of interest rules have complicated a dispute over a proposed hydroelectric development in the heart of Muskoka.

At the heart of the issue is the future of Bala Falls, which some Bala residents and cottagers say will be marred by the proposed hydro development.

But Muskoka Lakes Township Mayor Alice Murphy – who swept into office in October pledging to preserve the falls – has been forced to stay on the sidelines, even as green policy trade-offs spark similar debates elsewhere, as she seeks legal advice over whether she can participate in debate on the falls.

Two other members of the 10-member council are also seeking legal advice, a scenario reminiscent of the Enersource governance saga in Ontario energy circles, over their eligibility to debate the proposed development by Swift River Energy Ltd.

Swift River’s preferred plan is to lease municipal property to house its power station. Technically, the lease would be from the District of Muskoka, but strong opposition from Muskoka Lakes, which is a member of the district council, similar to how transmission route choices can draw fire from communities, might derail it.

While Muskoka Lakes council has put off debate on the power project until January 10 while awaiting legal advice, Ontario’s environment ministry has also missed a deadline in its approval process.

The ministry was supposed to have ruled by December 22 whether further environmental studies or hearings are needed, and amid turbine noise complaints elsewhere, but has said it cannot make a decision until the New Year.

The 4.5 megawatt development became a heated issue in October’s municipal elections, echoing larger interprovincial hydro disputes that fill headlines, as some Bala residents argued the hydro development would reduce the flow of water over the scenic falls, and bar public access to stretches of shoreline.

But at the first meeting of the new council, with deputations poised to present their views on the project, Murphy said she is seeking legal advice about whether she can participate because her property overlooks the top of the falls.

Murphy said in an interview that she believes her interest in the falls and in the hydro project is similar to the interest of other township residents.

“My view is that there’s a commonality of interest, in terms of any potential pecuniary interest, with that of the electorate,” she said.

The township’s economy is “totally driven by cottagers and tourists,” so every voter has a direct interest in protecting waterfront areas, a concern seen again in the Muskrat Falls ratepayer agreement debates across Canada, Murphy said.

Karen McGhee, the engineer in charge of the project, said Swift River intends to proceed, a stance echoed when Yukon Energy defended a hydro contract in another case, with the project whether it gets access to municipal land or not.

The company prefers to lease municipal land, because it can build a less obtrusive power plant and provide public parkland, she said in an interview. But if its access to municipal land is blocked, it can locate its buildings in a more obtrusive site on Crown land.

“Some of the councillors believe if they stop the municipal lease they’re going to stop the project,” said McGhee.

“It would be a real shame if they did this and we were forced into an option that is not as preferable to the public. It seems like they’re trying to play a game of chicken here.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News