13.jpgA number of people and organisations, who felt that the decision to flood Lake Pedder was wrong and who believed that there were faults in the decision-making process, suggested that Lake Pedder should be restored by releasing some of the water in the Serpentine/Huon impoundment and adopting one of various alternative schemes.
In summary, their arguments were that:
the advantages of Lake Pedder as a natural feature of south west Tasmania far outweighed the advantages of the new impoundment;
and a the lake could recover, if drawn down to its natural level in the near future.
The attention of the Committee was drawn to four main reasons why Lake Pedder should not have been flooded and why, therefore, it should be restored. In brief, they were that it had been -
1. part of a declared National Park,
2. an integral part of an outstanding wilderness area,
3. of international scientific interest and importance, and
4. of incomparable beauty. These reasons are considered more fully below, but it is important first of all to consider the likelihood of the lake recovering if the level of the Serpentine impoundment were lowered.
We questioned a number of scientists about the probability of the lake recovering, if the impounded waters were drawn down. "Recovery" of the lake has many aspects, embracing the lake itself, the beach, the dunes, the vegetation both in and around the lake, and the animals both endemic and other. Obviously some of these aspects -such as the beach are much more central than others in the overall view. Thus, as we see it, the idea of acceptable recovery would embrace little toleration of damage to the important aspects but would allow for considerable damage to aspects considered relatively unimportant -such as the non-endemic animals, perhaps.
The consensus on the recovery of various components of the lake and its surrounds appeared to be:
the beach would probably have been quite undisturbed. It would probably have accumulated a cover of silt and organic debris which, however, would be cleared relatively quickly by wave action.
the dunes have been subject to damage along part of their length during the flooding but, once flooded, should have remained stable. They might suffer further damage during the draw-down of water, depending on how the draw-down is managed. It was suggested that the processes which created the dunes would ultimately restore them to a state essentially similar to their former state.
the trees in the area will probably all die. Over a period of years it would be expected that they would restore. Replanting would expedite recovery of the tree cover if this was thought desirable.
the smaller vegetation of the area, such as button grass, is adapted to seasonal flooding and would recover quickly.
the endemic plants are adapted to flooding and would be expected to recover. The University of Tasmania has breeding stocks of these species, which could be replanted. a the introduction of trout may have had some adverse effect on the endemic species, but it is highly unlikely that endemic species would have been eradicated. Species of particular interest generally live under the beach and are relatively protected.
Our assessment of the evidence, allied with our estimation of the relative importance of the various components, leads us to consider that there is, at this stage, a reasonable likelihood that the lake would recover acceptably. Full recovery may take a number of years for some
13.jpg
14.jpg
components, such as the trees. A clear indication of the likelihood of acceptable recovery should be available after two or three years.
The following discussion summarises the various reasons advanced as to why the lake should not have been flooded originally and should now be restored.
Lake Pedder was the central part of a declared scenic reserve, the Lake Pedder National Park.
It was put to the Committee that there was a public expectation that a declared National Park would not and should not be revoked, without an impartial review. The Australian Conservation Foundation supported this view.
The original proposal to create a reserve was discussed by the Scenery Preservation Board and appropriate minutes of the Board were provided to us. The development of the boundaries is a point of interest and is shown in Fig. 3. As can be seen, the proposed boundaries of the reserve were moved to exclude the major part of the Serpentine valley. The minutes of 19 March 1954 include:
"The question of the area to be reserved was he subject of discussion. Mr Knight stated that the Hydro-Electric Commission might build a dam near the junction of the Gordon and Serpentine Rivers. This would probably flood a good part of the valley of the Serpentine, which was chiefly button grass, but the Commission could be criticised for having flooded a scenic reserve. Care should be thus exercised in fixing the boundaries of the proposed reserve."
Eventually boundaries were defined which were acceptable to the Mines Department, the Forestry Commission and the HEC, the departments concerned. Thus, there appears to have been an effort made to select boundaries which avoided any major overlap of interests in the future.
It is noted that, simultaneously with its consideration of Lake Pedder, the Board considered a proposed reserve on the Arthur River. The HEC and the Forestry Commission representatives opposed reservation on the grounds that it was premature as it was not possible to assess the value of the area from the point of view of the Forestry Commission and the HEC. The reserve was not created. At about the same time the Gordon River Scenic Reserve was not extended for similar reasons.
Mr Payne. an Assistant Commissioner for Forests, appeared before the Committee and gave evidence of his work as the Forestry Commission representative on the Scenery Preservation Board. Mr Payne said he had opposed proclamation of the scenic reserve until hydroelectric potential had been fully investigated. To questions from the Committee Mr Payne said:
Payne:
"..... My concern was as a forestry administrator. I didn't want the concept of dedication to be lessened in any way."
St John:
'No, but you did feel that the dedication meant what it said. It was dedicated once and for all.'
Payne:
"Right It was not something to be done lightly."
St. John:
'Right And perhaps if that were your impression, you could expect the public to think the same thing, couldn't you?'
Payne:
"Right."
This Committee accepts that the scenic reserve was proclaimed in 1955 in the normal way; that the boundaries were developed to take account of the HEC view of likely developments; and that there was a public expectation that the dedication of the reserve was permanent.
The Lake Pedder National Park was incorporated in a new and larger scenic reserve when the South-West National Park was created in October 1968. Doubts about the legality of the inundation of the Serpentine valley section of the National Park were removed by the Doubts Removal Act of 1972.
Many witnesses felt strongly that this precedent threw a shadow of uncertainty over the future of all National Parks. They believed that National Parks needed stronger protection against development, whether for power, forestry, mining or other purposes.
