Govt advised to hold Manapouri at natural levels

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32629, 10 June 1971, Page 1

Govt advised to hold Manapouri at natural levels

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, June 9.

Lake Manapouri should remain at its natural levels when a dam is constructed at Mararoa for Comalco’s power supply, the Government was advised today. The Parliamentary select committee on Manapouri recommended that six petitions against the raising of the lake be referred to the Government for “favourable consideration.”

In the course of the debate on the report in the House today, the Minister of Electricty (Mr P. B. Allen) said that the Government would carefully consider a suggestion that the Mararoa dam be built in such a way that the natural levels of Lake Manapouri would not have to be raised.

Mr Allen said there would have to be full discussions with Comalco before any decision was taken.

The petitions considered by the select committee had been headed by that of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. It was signed by 264,906 people. The committee had the choice of three recommendations to make—“no recommendation,” “favourable” and “most favourable.”

Only a "no recommendation” is usually debated; but the Prime Minister (Sir Keith Holyoake) moved the suspension of standing orders to allow the House to discuss the committee’s finding.

The committee added three riders; That any dam at Mararoa be constructed in such a way as to ensure that, at this stage, the lake be not raised above its natural levels. That the dam be constructed in such a way so that the level of the lake can be raised in the future if necessary. That Parliament must first give its authority before the level of the lake can be raised. The Government was contractually bound to Comalco to raise the level of Lake Manapouri to 610 ft or possibly 620 ft, Mr Allen said.

Final decision “The final decision on the ultimate height of the dam will depend largely on the relative economics of producing extra energy and firm, continuous power balanced against the increased cost of the dam and of clearing the shoreline,” Mr Allen said.

“Discussions on the optimum lake level must now be extended to include consideration of the ‘hybrid’ dam.

“Ministry of Works designers have been working hard to establish the technical implications of such a compromise and the extra costs involved, facts which it will be essential to have for the discussions with company officials and for any later submission to the Government for authority to proceed with work.

“Clearly, the Government cannot determine any course of action until these essential preliminary steps have been taken.” Mr Allen disclosed that the Government had accepted the Manapouri Commission of Inquiry recommendation that the maximum operating level of Lake Te Anau should be 668 ft and not, as at present proposed, 670 ft. Control level “After, say, two years it will then be decided whether the control level can be allowed to go to 670 ft without adversely affecting Te Anau township or the shoreline of the lake,” said Mr Allen.

The design of the control structure will remain the same.

However, the Government was prepared to “considei seriously” locating the structure at the outlet of Lake Te Anau instead of three ■ miles below on the Upper Waiau River. This was in line with a recommendation from conservation and fishing interests to the select committee, Mr Allen said.

Special investigations had shown that the siting of the structure at the lake outlet was feasible but more costly than locating it downstream.

“This matter will also have to be included in the forthcoming discussions with Comalco because they are entitled to be consulted on anything which will affect the cost of power from the scheme,” Mr Allen said. Crown’s right Putting the structure at the outlet would also mean that the Crown would lose its right to electricity from it This was because it would be virtually impossible to generate electricity from the structure. Mr Allen said the suggestions of “staged construction” of the Mararoa dam must be fully explored.

“But let us not delude ourselves into thinking that this is the full and final answer,” he said. “At some time, sooner or later, a decision must be made about the ultimate level of Lake Manapouri.” The committee’s chairman, Mr A. E. Allen (Nat., Franklin) said that Lake Manapouri had been the subject of “protracted and bitter” argument for the last 11 years. “And I have no doubt that whatever decision is finally made it will be the basis for further argument,” Mr A. E. Allen said. Mr A. E. Allen said that some witnesses appearing before the committee had allowed “emotion to override reason” but there were others who provided wellreasoned arguments.

The committee’s recommendation was along lines suggested by the National Conservation Council and the Civic Trust of Auckland.

Lake Monowai There had to be a meeting point between social environment and economic environment, said Mr A. E. Allen. After visiting the area the committee agreed that there must never be another Lake Monowai, where the level had been raised in the 1930 s to the detriment of the shoreline.

Their trip showed the Government’s determination to take all reasonable steps to preserve the environment. Government departments had taken a balanced view to do everything possible so that the economic and social. environments could come together in harmony. Mr A. E. Allen said he did not wish to make a case for raising the lake, but there were exaggerated and onesided opinions expressed to the committee over the building of the power station. The committee was not concerned with the legal aspects of the agreement to raise the lake, Mr A. E. Allen said. This was a matter between the Government and Comalco. Makaroa dam

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Watt) a former Minister of Electricity, said he was disturbed to discover that the site for the Mararoa dam might be un-

suitable for a dam high enough to allow the lake to be raised 27 feet. He was also concerned to discover that few people had any criticism over the interference of the level of Lake Te Anau. Scenery at this lake would be affected by a decision to raise Lake Manapouri, he said. He believed that New Zealand could supply the agreed 480 megawatts of electricity to the Bluff smelter without raising Lake Manapouri. Mr Watt said it must be remembered that without the advent of cheap power New Zealand would not have the Bluff smelter at all. New Zealand was capable of providing the required power to the smelter for 27 out of 29 years without raising the lake if the Crown’s power requirements were disregarded. Other sources

Supplies from other sources could eventuate, he said. In power planning a surplus was always allowed for.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) said the committee’s recommendation meant “we are back to square one.” A decision on Lake Manapocri had still not been made.

“It is not a question of engineering feasibility,” Mr Kirk said. “It is purely a matter of political fortitude and decision.”

Most people did not want the lake to be raised but the Government temporised and postponed making a decision. Mr E. S. F. Holland (Nat., Riccarton) said it was interesting to note how Manapouri had suddenly become an object of scientific importance when it appeared it would be raised. The same thing had happened over Coppermine Island when mining investigations were carried out there. National Park

"I wonder, if Lake Manapouri is not raised, whether it will cease to be an object of scientific importance?” he asked. He believed it doubtful whether the development of power at Manapouri to the fullest extent would have a detrimental effect on the National Park. Already work in the area had brought added public facilities.

Comalco should be entitled to expect the Government to keep its word and if the agreement were to be rene-

gotiated it should be with the willingness of both parties. Mr J. Mathison (Lab., Avon) said that the committee’s recommendation would help the Government “get off the political hook.” He said that had it not been for the petitions the lake would probably have been raised by now. ‘Very complex’ Supporting the committee’s recommendation, Mr V. S. Young (Nat., Egmont) said that politics had been outside the deliberations of the committee which had therefore been able to come to a unanimous decision on a “very, very complex issue.” “I personally am opposed to the raising of the level of the lake except as a last resort,” he said. Mr Young went on to say that a Government at some time in the future would have to decide whether or not to raise the lake.

“When it does.” he said, “it will have to take into account that hydro-electricity is the only form of energy that is pollution-free, and it is the only form of energy that can be produced pollution-free. “It will have to take into account also the millions and millions of dollars that would be necessary to clear the shoreline.”

Seven occasions Mr B. G. Barclay (Lab., Christchurch Central) said there had been seven occasions in the last 30 years when the level of Lake Manapouri would have been insufficient for Comalco’s needs, and there would still have been a shortfall one year, 1951, if the lake had been raised.

“We keep hearing that the need for raising the lake is to supply Comalco. This is not borne out by the evidence heard by the committee,” said Mr Barclay. Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Timaru) unsuccessfully attempted to move an amendment which would make the committee’s recommendations binding on the Government. It was ruled out of order by the Speaker as it contravened standing orders. The committee’s report was laid on the table of the House and referred to the Government for favourable consideration.

Comment on page 12