Manapouri

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32209, 30 January 1970, Page 12

Manapouri

Sir,—As a youth of New Zealand, I question the right of the Government to damage one of the most beautiful parts of New Zealand which I and my fellow New Zealanders have every right to inherit and enjoy as previous generations have done. We do not want to be left with a once beautiful country scared with the mistakes of a Government ruthless in its exploitation for minor economic gain. Lake Manapouri lies in the sanctuary of a National Park which, by law gives it absolute protection for all time. Raising the level of the lake makes a farce of this law. The growing population of New Zealand and the accelerating interest in tramping makes it essential that this lake and others like it are preserved.—Yours, etc., J. R. BLACK. Taupo, January 26, 1970.

Sir, —I was most disappointed in both your recent editorials on the Manapouri question. In all those words you wrote, there was only the briefest reference to the original principles involved in conservation of our national

parks. Yet Manapouri is parti of a National Park, and all I are supposed to be preserved! in trust for posterity. Many of us feel the Government grossly dishonoured this trust by making the agreement with Comalco in the first place. The thoughtful objections by more far-sighted people at that time were arrogantly brushed aside, and now that time is running short, more and more of us are feeling concerned. One would have expected the Government to be the trusted custodian of our National Parks and farmlands, yet here we have the topsy-turvy situation of private citizens trying to protect their country from their own Government! —Yours, etc . HUGH BENNETT. January 28, 1970.

Sir,—Having heard the recent broadcast in which the Chief Engineer of the Electricity Department, Mr E. B. McKenzie, sought to defend the proposed raising of Lake Manapouri by 271 feet, I wish to raise my voice against this proposed act of national vandalism. New Zealand is blessed with a unique national asset in possessing the most beautiful lake in the world, made beautiful by the lovely islets which stud the lake’s surface. Having seen the famed Lake Windermere in England, the equally famous Lake Hamilton in Florida and others, 1 can say that the beauty of Lake Manapouri surpasses them all. To raise the level of the lake would involve the destruction of its beauty by submerging or limiting the size of the islets which give the lake its unique beauty. Why not follow the lead of Britain and India and,’ if additional electric power is needed, provide it by atomic piles?—Yours, etc., G. M. SPENCE. Blenheim, January 28, 1970.

Sir,—lf he was reported correctly, the general manager of the Electricity Department has introduced irrelevancies to the Manapouri debate which more than match any put forward by conservationists. The report states that by raising the lake level, general tourist traffic would have access to Doubtful Sound; but as this road has already been completed, its use by tourists can in no way depend on raising the lake level. As far as I know the same applies to the road over the Barland Saddle. He also attempts to beat conservationists at their own game, by stating that the ultimate alternative to not raising the lake is more atmospheric pollution. This infers that any loss of power production will never be compensated by development of alternative sources of electric power—an argument which we have not heard before. —Yours, etc., P. WARDLE. January 29, 1970.

Sir, —Your editorial heading “The price we pay for saving Manapouri,” should read “The price we pay for selling Manapouri.” Why? Because we will sell its power at cost and won’t make any money out of it. The smelter will be owned by an overseas firm, so New Zealand won’t make any money out of that either. Lake raising would give up only 4 per cent more power, so any profit we make on it would never compensate for the 96 per cent we will give away.—Yours, etc., R.B. January 28, 1970.