Manapouri

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32213, 4 February 1970, Page 18

Manapouri

Sir, —Many New Zealanders who have never seen j Manapouri are becoming vaguely aware that tucked away down in Southland is a scenic wonder which would, perhaps, be worth visiting. Magazines, newspapers and pamphlets are conveying by means of their illustrations an impression of a boating, water ski-ing and tourist paradise. But for those New Zealanders who own noboat, have no money for the launch trips, or yen for a sophisticated holiday. Lake Manapouri should be considered in yet another role. Those beaches, which will be destroyed forever if the lake level is raised, are ideal for a family-type holiday. The sand is clean and golden, and the water safe for children. We spend so much money building swimming pools all over the country—here we have a natural one, so wby not take the kids and your costumes—see it, try it, and then try to save it!—Yours, etc., A. FRASER. Lagmhor, Ashburton. February 1, 1970. Sir,—There are two issues at stake in the Lake Manapouri discussion. The first is

whether the level of the lake should be raised, and the second is whether New Zealand should sell its birthright to monopoly capital. The two should not be confused. Every time a person plugs in his electric kettle he is helping to make it necessary to raise the level of lakes like Manapouri. “The Press” today informs us of the raising of the Waitaki basin lakes. Is anyone protesting? In Egypt at the new lake on the Nile, stone monuments were cut away from their positions when that lake was formed. In China whole cities have been inundated when the new San Men lake was formed, and who would say that these had no beauty? Generally more water means more life and a better distribution of rainfall.— Yours, etc., P.J.A. February 3, 1970.

Sir, —Amongst the several critics of your recent editorial, this mild but necessary comment could maybe prove effective as a “still small voice.” To me your editorial succeeded in giving a balanced and realistic expression of the pros and cons of this Manapouri problem. It contained a clear call for unemotional assessment of our duties as New Zealanders to the future of our great heritage of water power and Nature’s beauty respectively or in combination. Further, it contained a timely warning to the chairman of the “Save Manapouri Committee” to count his blessings on having at his committee’s command a Government that acted so responsibly and with such celerity in appointing a special and well-qualified committee to examine and report You put it nicely. I would have advised Mr McLean “not to blot his copybook.” The late W. Shakespeare would have said: “Fie, what a spendthrift is he of his tongue.”—Yours, etc., L.B. January 31, 1970.