Clutha dam

Press, 3 July 1982, Page 14

Clutha dam

Sir,—There is a simple alternative to lay-offs at - the Clyde dam site. Build the low rather than the high dam. The affected landowners have said they would not object to a low dam. Therefore, no legal delays. Furthermore, on the Government’s own figures, without the mythical second smelter, over 60 per cent of the high dam’s energy would spill to waste in the first five years of operation. Thus the low dam better fits New Zealand’s electricity needs. The main constraint on changing to a low dam apparently is the time taken for design changes. If construction were handed back to the M.0.W., construction and design work could proceed concurrently. This has been done in the past. Only with tender-

ing to private enterprise does all design work have to be completed work starts.

The Government is only in a corner over Clyde because it chooses to be. There are options. — Yours, etc.. D. L. JACKSON. July 2, 1982.

Sir—A few people are concerned about 300 to 400 people being laid off work from the Clyde dam project. Who cares about the 6000 out of work in Christchurch? Who cares that 400 or 500 of these are school leavers? Who, cares that there are 46.000 registered unemployed in New Zealand, and that there are 20,000 on temporary or subsidised work schemes who are made unemployed every 3-12 months? Who cares? I do. Does anyone else? — Yours, etc., KATE GLENDORRAN. July 1, 1982.