A 10-Year Struggle To Save Lake Manapouri

Forest and Bird, Issue 176, 1 May 1970, Page 10

A 10-Year Struggle To Save Lake Manapouri

By

R. C. NELSON,

President

FOR over 10 years the Society has sought by all possible lawful means to save Lake Manapouri from the disaster threatening it in the proposal to raise the lake levels for power production purposes. In this we have been supported by many kindred bodies, including the Scenery Preservation Society, and the Nature Conservation Council has left the Government in no doubt that it also considers raising the levels is not warranted.

WE were exceedingly disappointed when, after all our efforts, the Government failed to take the opportunity to plan the power plant without the need to raise the lake levels at the time the Consolidated Zinc Company found it could not carry on with the proposal to build the plant. We were shocked recently when we found out that not only had the authorities ignored our pleas, but had actually undertaken to supply the aluminium company with all the surplus power the waters of the lake could generate —with the levels raised.

Our viewpoint has been stated over and over again. I can do no better than quote what I said when I addressed the Minister of Works in Parliament Buildings on 28 February 1963, as reported in the “Dominion” the next day:

The president of the Society, Mr R. C. Nelson, of Lower Hutt, led the deputation, which included Mrs A. J. Du Pont, Dr J. T. Salmon, Messrs A. Caccia Birch (Marton), H. G. Royds (Christchurch), a consulting engineer, D. Bowie, and D. A. McCurdy. The Commissioner of Works, Mr J. T. Gilkison, and the chief engineer (power), Ministry of Works, Mr F. R. Askin, were present and had discussions with the deputation.

Mr Nelson said that Lakes Te Anau and Manapouri were part of New Zealand’s largest national park, one of the most beautiful in the world and an asset which would improve with the years if it were kept as far as possible in its natural state. It was of paramount importance that the

principle of inviolability should be broken only to meet the direst national need or grave emergency.

The Society did not oppose using the lake waters for generating electricity for industrial purposes, because it appreciated the need to take all reasonable steps to find means to lessen the drain on overseas funds and to augment primary income.

“What we do oppose most earnestly and vigorously is the decision to raise the levels of the waters of the lakes for the purpose,” Mr Nelson said. “We believe that to do so will inflict damage of such a calamitous nature on the national park that we can contemplate it only with horror, the more poignant because we know it will be permanent and irremediable.”

His organisation believed it was not beyond the capacity of Ministry of Works engineers to design a scheme so that the waters of the lakes could be used without any rise in water levels. It was known that a great part of the power required could be obtained from the lakes without constructing the high Mararoa dam.

“We submit that this would meet all requirements without the need for the catastrophic interference with the natural charm and unique flora involved in raising the water levels to obtain a relatively small increase in continuous power output,” Mr Nelson said.

Within the past 12 months we have received powerful support from “Save Manapouri” committees, which have been organised

throughout the country. More than a quarter of a million citizens have signed cur petition and we have received a great volume of correspondence applauding our efforts, a good portion of which came from overseasthe U.S.A., Britain, Australia, Canada, and even Teheran.

Our petition is to be presented to Parliament after the May adjournment, a special

Select Committee is to be appointed, and our submissions will be received after the Report of the Commission of Inquiry is received by the 1 louse. The Society will, of course, present submissions to the Commission, but because Parliament must make the final decision, our petition will be heard after the Commission presents its report.

A New Mining Act

SHORTLY before the former Minister of Mines, the late Hon. T. P. Shand, was taken ill, he was good enough to give me the opportunity of discussing with him the Mining Bill, now before the House. I am sure Mr Shand had done his best to produce a Bill acceptable to the many interests involved and in many respects it is a good one. There are, however, a few weaknesses, one in particular being that the Warden’s Court is to be abolished if the Bill becomes law, and this will remove the right of the citizen to have his objections heard by a properly constituted court at a public hearing. The powers of the Minister of Lands to grant or to refuse mining privileges over public lands is quite satisfactory— long as a Minister is in office who has a proper appreciation of the various values involved, but it could be otherwise. We therefore made submissions early this year to the Select Committee concerned. On behalf of the Society I said that though the Minister of Mines could refer any matter involving questions not of law to a magistrate, this was entirely at his discretion and even if he did, there was no obligation on his part to accept the magistrate’s decision. I emphasised that the right to be heard at a public hearing should not be denied to the citizen. This was the privilege of the citizen in a democracy and it should be retained. Exercising this privilege may on a few occasions result in some slight inconvenience, but it is the price of democracy and one we should be happy to pay. —R. C. NELSON, President.