We, the undersigned residents, property owners, taxpayers and supporters of the Muskoka watershed, strongly support the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) timely focus on amending the 2006 Muskoka River Watershed Management Plan (MRWMP) to address recurring flooding. We also respectfully request the District Municipality of Muskoka (DMM) to vote “No” on its proposed Official Plan Amendment 61 (OPA 61). A full investigation of underlying watershed management issues by the MNR is merited before imposing unstudied burdens on property owners and small businesses via OPA’s additional restrictions.

We Urge the MNR  and the District to:

1. As part of the MNR’s review of the MRWMP, evaluate its changes to pre-2006 operating protocols, including its raising of pre-freshet target lake levels and operational guidelines provided to power generation operators through high water events. Undertake independent, unbiased, and transparent hydrological studies that, among other analyses, perform “counterfactual” studies of post-2006 flood conditions in major flood years (e.g., 2013, 2016, 2019, 2026) under pre-2006 management protocols. Incorporate cost benefit analyses that examine flood mitigation measures—numerous of which have been identified—vs the estimated environmental costs and recurring economic losses from flooding incurred by property owners and local businesses.  

2. Pause OPA 61 flood-mapping restrictions until the underlying causes of flooding, the accuracy of the mapping and the assumptions used to establish flood elevations have been independently reviewed, and the full economic impact of these measures is understood.

3. Make flood-risk reduction and public safety the overriding priorities during freshet conditions rather than rigid adherence to operating zones or commercial power generation objectives.

The Problem in a Nutshell

1. The record since 2006 raises serious questions about the operational effectiveness of the MRWMP. Since its implementation in 2006 Lake Muskoka has experienced 9 floods – a 43% occurrence rate. In the 40 years prior, 4 floods—a 10% rate—occurred.

2. The MRWMP was a logical attempt to coordinate Muskoka’s watershed management across a complex system of dams, power generation facilities, and natural features of a large watershed. Did the balance of competing interests fairly incorporate the interests of any unintended consequences on the environment, property owners, and Muskoka’s heritage? Can new technologies be utilized to better anticipate and mitigate changing climate conditions?

3. Target lake levels prior to the spring freshet were increased by approximately 8-9 inches across five major lakes, largely to improve fish spawning. This greatly reduced available water storage—by an estimated 16 billion gallons—prior to anticipated high water. Reduced storage translates into longer and more severe flooding. Also, what has been the negative impact on fish habitat resulting from increased flooding, soil erosion, and sediment/turbidity impacts on habitats?

 The Consequences of the Problem

1. The environmental and economic consequences have been shifted onto property owners.
Shoreline residents face repeated flooding, erosion, property damage and loss of property use, while having little meaningful recourse against the Province or power companies and remaining subject to an inflexible water-management system.

2. Flooding has effectively been normalized.
The MRWMP established “Normal” and “Upper” operating zones that permit water elevations exceeding the safe elevation of thousands of pre-existing shoreline structures.

THE SOLUTION

We call upon the MNR and the DMM to protect people, property and the environment by addressing the causes of flooding before imposing permanent restrictions on shoreline property owners and local businesses. 

STOP NORMALIZING FLOODING, FOCUS ON LONG TERM FIXES TO ITS ROOT CAUSES

To learn more about the impacts of OPA 61 and send a direct letter to District Council and the Province, please visit stopthefloods.ca