[Page 1.]

[Black stamp at the top of document reads 'PRIVATE SECRETARY' '28 JUN 1972' 'TO GOVERNOR-GENERAL']

[Typed letterhead reads 'His Excellency Sir Paul Hasluck,

Government House,

CANBERRA…A.C.T. 2600

332 Davey St.

HOBART…TAS 7000

27th. June 1972’]

Dear Sir,

Lake Pedder, the large lake of the South-West of Tasmania, is threatened with immediate destruction as a minor part of the Gordon River Hydro-Electric Scheme. Lake Pedder lies in the watershed between two further rivers, the Huon and the Serpentine, and is sandwiched between two mountain ranges – the Sentinel and Franklin Ranges.

This geography affords a scene of incredible beauty and great aesthetic value. Besides this, the area has tremendous tourist potential – it is undoubtedly Tasmania’s greatest scenic asset.

Yet what is most objectionable is that it contains at least 18 endemic species – many more should be discovered if a proper scientific investigation is carried out. So it would be the area of highest endemism in the State – our greatest scientific asset.

Scientists say all this will be destroyed when the waters of the artificial lake inundate Lake Pedder and her environs. I must s [sic] stress that the saving of Lake Pedder does not require the abandonment of the scheme. It and the 18 species can be saved by the implementation of the alternate scheme (see attached).

This must be implemented to help avert the ecological crisis into which we are blindly heading. It is a matter of extreme importance that our species diversity is maintained, for in the growing alienation of our earth, we must keep all our avenues for survival open.

These species may now seem insignificant, but they may soon have vital ramifications in the health and/or survival of our future generations.

As you are probably aware, the Campaign has been a long and intensive one – it has enlightened many politicians and the public en masse. Over 250,000 signatures have been collected supporting alternatives to the present scheme.

The great problem has been buck-passing. Successive governments have either blamed it on previous governments or on lack of finance. (while knowing it was a Commonwealth matter and that it should be up to the Commonwealth to pay for the alternative). The Federal Government, though Mr. McMahon refuses to stand up to its responsibilities – he insists he shouldn't interfere in state matters! yet the Commonwealthfinanced [sic] the original scheme – Lake Pedder lies in a NATIONAL Park.

So while no-one will take the source they know to be correct the day draws nearer when the plants and animals will eventually die.

Due to urgency and importance of conserving this great national asset, I hope you can somehow make representations to thepoliticians [sic] who can avert such a tragic loss to the Australian people.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Richard Friend,

332 Davey St.

HOBART…Tas. 7000

[Signature on bottom left of page in blue ink]

[Hand written note along bottom of page in blue ink reads: 'If any further information is required, I will endeavour to supply said information immediately'. This is followed by an illegible initial.]

[Page 2. The text on this page is divided into 2 columns.]

[Underlined heading:] ALTERNATIVES

The Gordon Power Development Stage 1 is based on sources of water from three rivers –

i) The Gordon providing approximately 60% of the water

ii) The Serpentine providing approximately 27% of the water

iii) The Upper Huon providing approximately 12½ % of the water

Each river is being dammed, but only the dam on the Gordon has a hydro-electric generating station.

Basically there is only one storage reservoir. That is Lake Gordon. The reservoir in the Serpentine Valley is only for collection of the waters of the Huon and Serpentine, the linking of the catchments and the passing of the water by gravity through a man made canal into Lake Gordon. Only the top five feet of water will be available for power generation. The rest of the water in this 100 square mile reservoir (calculated to represent 97% of the total volume) is [underlined: not] available for power generation. It is merely an engineering device for getting Huon water and Serpentine water over the mountain and into Lake Gordon.

Alternative schemes rely on pumping these waters into Lake Gordon instead of using gravity. By pumping, the waters in the Serpentine Valley can be left below the level of Lake Pedder, which is situated approximately on the watershed between the Serpentine and the Huon.

The cost of off-peak pumping is marginal. Power schemes must deal with peak loadings – therefore, there is about half the running time in each day when only about 40% of generating capacity is being used. There is, of course, the capital cost of a pumping station and tunnel, but running costs relate only to labour and maintoinance [sic].

With the present scheme, we have the situation where waters collect behind Scotts Peak Dam, from the Huon catchment, and flood down the valley to join waters from the Serpentine, bottled up behind the Serpentine Dam. These waters then have to rise to some 50 feet above the present level of Lake Pedder so they can lap over into Lake Gordon, by means of the McPartland Canal, and eventually through the Gordon Power Station.

The alternative schemes rely on off-peak pumping rather than gravity.

i) The scheme most favoured requires the separation of the Huon from the scheme, and therefore loses 12½ percent of possible water. Without the Huon, Lake Pedder is no longer needed as a channel, and the level of the water behind the Serpentine Dam need not rise to the level of Lake Pedder because of the pumping system.

The cost of this scheme, released by the H.E.C. through the former Premier (Mr. Bethune amounted to 7.3 million in charges for direct works, equipment and associated interest charges on loan capital.

The costing was padded to $24 million by items such as loss of water and loss of power over the total life of the scheme. This of course assumes that the electricity will have a ready market (which seems un [sic] unlikely considering Tasmania's present position).

ii) A second possibility, which retains the Huon waters, requires a by-pass canal to fee feed the Huon into the Serpentine. The passage of water into Lake Gordon is the same as in the previous alternative. The canal would be added expence [sic], and it [continued on page 3.]

[Page 3.]

[and it ...] would need to be carefully cut through the sedgoland [sic] at the base of the Franklin Range. The water catchment area would be exactly the same size as in the present H.E.C. scheme, thus no water loss would occur. The present works would be compatible with this alternative, the McPartlan Canal would not need to be built, and the only power loss would be the off-peak pumping requirement to raise the water 40 feet over the saddle and into Lake Gordon.

The water catchment area would be exactly the same size as in the present H.E.C. scheme, thus no water loss would occur, and the only power loss would be the off-peak pumping requirement to raise the water 40 feet over the saddle and into Lake Gordon.

Neither of these alternatives were publicly declared as possibilities by the H.E.C. in 1967. No alternative schemes were considered in the House of Assembly debate on the Gordon No 1 Scheme. The alternative which received attention by the select Committee of the Legislative Council was one which channelled the Huon water into Lake Pedder. This required an unsightly rock walled flume, built out across the south end of the beach. It would also have tended to flush the sand out of the Pedder basin, as the water would stream across the lake and down to the reservoir behind the Serpentine Dam. The Select Committee appreciated that the damage cause to the natural environment by this alternative would fall only a little short of actual flooding. Unfortunately the Select Committee accepted the H.E.C. suggestion that this was the best of a bad lot. They did not receive detailed analysis of any other alternatives from the H.E.C. It would seem reasonable to question whether the H.E.C. was not neglectful of their duty in detailing only an obviously unacceptable alternative.

Had the details of the first alternative, for example, been known to parliament when approvement for the bill was sought it would have been possible to weigh the saving of the Lake Pedder environment plus a considerable cost saving in capital expenditure against a loss of one 12½ percent of the generating capacity. The saving in the expenditure on capital works not required would have included the whole of the Scotts Peak Dam, the Scotts Peak Road, at least the top fifty feet of the Serpentine Dam and the McPartlan Canal. The only debit apart from water loss would have been the pumping station and tunnel.

The fact remains that the House of Assembly has never debated the Pedder issue in the knowledge that viable alternatives existed and the Legislative Council received knowledge of an inferior alternative only late in their deliberation of 1967. The public gained knowledge of other possible alternatives only in 1971.

It is only now, in 1972, that large numbers of people have learnt that acceptable alternatives exist. You must demand that these are fully considered in Parliament.