Lake users might have to pay

Press, 23 March 1988, Page 9

Lake users might have to pay

By

JANE DUNBAR

Recreational users of the Mackenzie and Waitaki hvdro lakes could find themselves paying' for access if an Electri-; corp proposal goes ahead,’ says the Public Lands Coalition. kJ “Electricorp is trying to get control and ownership of the beds ; of Lakes Tekapo, Pukaki and Hawea,” said a] coalition spokesman, Mr Alan Evans. j The coalition — a grouping of acclimatisation societies. Federated Mountain Clubs, Forest and Bird Protection Society and the Native Forests Action Council — has seen . maps showing areas Electricorj?, wants.

the Government I to transfer to its control. !i It w r as also trying to get the -beds of the Ohau, Tekapo and Pukaki rivers, said Mr Evans. || (| "The shores of these areas are used by a multitude of people for a wide range of recreational activities." :( (■ | i Hundreds of thoi sands of people would t ppbse the transfer, as th> y regarded the lakes and rivers as public tssets, and expected free access . to them, he said. -( ( | * | If transferred to Elec-“ tricorp, however, would be affected. | ![ •> ??. I “Electricorp could re-** strict public ; use, ! and charge for access ; — which it would dpi be-

cause it is= there to make as much moneylas it-can." Mr Evans said the New Zealand Electricity Division had generated electricity on the (lakes and riverbeds for: decades; without ownership of the beds. I : i 4 . ■ “We see no (reason why Electricorp cannot continue to do the!, same." The coalition ‘had no objection to 1 Electricorp’s haying water! I rights to generate electricity, but objected to (ownership of the beds, he said. Electricorp’s (; corporate relations manager, Ms Judith Aitken, said the corporation had no "imperialistic intentions.” “We only want to own resources essential to our

operation,”) she said.' ! Wide public ( access would be (encouraged to the (resources owned or rhanaged by Electricorp ‘(with the obvious considerations of public safety.” |So( that the areas did riot ; ‘ become “public plums,” a charge would be : ijnade for the maintenance) of facilities such as damping grounds and roads. j “A minimum fee (would >e ! required simply to cover costs, not for commercial gain,” she said. ( Mr Evians said the Coalition did not object to members!, paying for (janiping grounds! and facilities but object tb paying for access to the Ihkes and rivers. | •■■The coalition was ex-

tremely concerned | the public would have little opportunity to comment on the proposed transfer; The maps had only come to light in the) last week or so, and there! was no time to get the pitblic behind opposing the moves, he said, I The Government has said it, wants the transfer of assets completed by the end of March. The coalition has Written to several Government members in protest. : The Public (Lands Coalition has already successfully opposed the transfer of Crown lands (to Land-1 corp, including highcountry pastoral leases and Molesworth“fation.