I beg to move the Second Reading of the Arterial Drainage Bill, 1925. It is hardly necessary in the present year to spend much time in dwelling on the advisability of having some legal means of dealing with the flooding that periodically occurs in various districts in Ireland. The physical configuration of the country, with the mountains practically altogether on the coast, and a pretty level plain in the centre, brings it about that you have, comparatively speaking for the size of the country, long and sluggish rivers. It is true that the lakes sometimes act as reservoirs, and the bogs as retaining lands that keep back the water more or less like sponges, but, on the whole, the result is that you probably have, in comparison to the size of the country, from the mere course of nature, an abnormal degree of flooding.
The present situation is that there are in existence about 190 drainage districts in Ireland as a whole, and most of these—even out of proportion—in the Saorstát. Owing to the many causes and changes of circumstances that have taken place, especially within the last forty or forty-five years, the present legislation that we have is quite unsuited, and quite incapable of dealing with the problem of the creation of new districts. In the creation of 190 districts something like £3,300,000 was spent altogether, but largely as a result of widespread neglect, in many cases, so far as mere external appearances go, it would seem as if nothing had been spent on many of the existing drainage districts. As I think I indicated in speaking here on the Estimates, it is not altogether possible that the districts could recede to the position they were in before they were first taken in hand and dealt with, especially where channels have been blasted through rock and matters of that kind, where improvement undoubtedly is permanent. When you come to less serious matters—that is, matters more easily and more economically dealt with than the blasting of rock, such as allowing weeds to grow and accumulate, allowing the rivers to silt up and weirs to be built across the rivers, as well as obstructions of all kinds placed through the proper flow of the water—there has been such wholesale neglect that, as I said, in many cases, the outward appearance of the river valleys is pretty much the same as it was before they were dealt with. It is natural, therefore, that you should have widespread complaints about flooding. Inspection has shown that these complaints are well founded, and that that is due, in many cases, simply to neglect and failure to maintain the rivers in the position they were put into at so much cost.
Under the old code of 1842, 120 of these districts were made and there are about ten modifying Acts. That particular code probably never got a fair chance as before it was really fully in operation, or before it could be justified in normal circumstances, the famine years came upon the country. There was then great anxiety to undertake relief works of all kinds and amongst the relief works undertaken were drainage works on a large scale. Possibly they were undertaken without full examination or without due consideration. In any case the proprietors got frightened owing to the amount of money they were charged with, and the Government of the day also got frightened, and there were instances in which schemes were dropped when half finished. The existing legislation is such that we have no legal power to extend these schemes or to carry them out, no matter how desirable they may be. I may say that a Royal Commission was good enough to suggest that some people might think that one of the causes of the unpopularity of the Board of Works was the great eagerness with which it plunged into the drainage schemes of those days. Be that as it may, there is no power to extend, even to the extent we would like, the existing drainage districts except under the Act of 1866. That is the only code now operative so far as the creation of new drainage districts is concerned. The distinguishing mark between the code of 1866 and that of 1842 is that most of the responsibility and the initiative was thrown entirely on the proprietors. The State, represented by the Department of Public Works only came in to a slight extent. The scheme was promoted by the proprietors. They employed the engineer who was to draw up the scheme and who ultimately was to carry it out. The function of the Board of Works was to get an outside engineer who was not one of their own men and who could not have anything more to do with the scheme in question, than to vest it, as it were. They had two other functions, to supply the money by way of loan and to make a final award determining how much each little plot was improved or benefited and what portion of the annuity it was responsible for. On the whole, the scheme of 1866 was not a success owing to the inherent weakness in the code itself, owing to the great social and economic changes that took place connected with the holding of land, and also probably to the failure of the proprietors to get really competent engineers to draw up the scheme and see that it was properly carried out.
Deputies are also aware that both the trustees, under the one Act, and the Drainage Board, under the other Act, were appointed from the proprietors. With the coming of the Land Act of 1881, the proprietors lost the interest or the motive that they had for undertaking drainage schemes. If the motive did not altogether disappear, it was certainly greatly diminished. By the Land Acts that came later, substituting the farmer as the owner of the land for the landlord, the motives may have been restored so far as the farmer was concerned, but there were difficulties that interfered with the proper working of the Act. The Act involved the expenditure of money, the paying back of the interest on the loans, and the paying of the maintenance rate. As a result of the splitting up of the proprietorship, the rate very often amounted to less than one shilling. In some cases it only amounted to one penny. It was practically impossible to collect that rate, and the Drainage Trustees were unable to keep the rivers in proper order.
Undoubtedly, there was a certain limited power in the Board of Works to interfere, but only in one way. They could not compel the trustees of the Drainage Works to do their duty. They had no such power. All they could do, if a drainage district were neglected—that is, prior to the Act of 1924—was to come in and spend the money and charge it to the people whose land was improved. The difficulty there, again, was that the proprietors were so numerous that there was a difficulty even in collecting the rent charge to pay back for the restoration of the district works.
Taken as a whole, the Act of 1866 has not been a success. So far as the maintenance is concerned, it was brought up to date last year by the Drainage Maintenance Act of 1924. That took advantage of the fact that you have in the County Councils bodies that could collect this drainage rate as they collect the poor rate. That made it possible to collect the maintenance rates in the future. Therefore, the difficulty that existed in the past and that has led to the neglect of those rivers, will not be there now. There is not the same reason to fear that in the future. On the whole, the efforts to drain different portions of the country in the past very often resulted in a state of chaos. There was no system. The thing was done haphazard. There was really no department of the Government responsible for the carrying out of drainage works. Very often a little district was constituted a drainage district, without any reference to the larger district of which it formed part. Sometimes benefits were conferred on people outside the district, who had to pay nothing for those benefits. Sometimes in the same river there were two drainage districts. There was no reason why you should have that. There was no natural division between the two districts. Sometimes the key position of the district was outside the district itself. In the same way, in the course of years, mills began to put up weirs and increase the height of weirs. In some cases the mills have passed into disuse, and the only thing they can produce now is flooding.
Very often the right they had to erect weirs or raise the height of weirs was very doubtful. It was oftentimes a case of usurpation. Now it has the sanction of prescription. If we were living in ideal conditions, one might argue that after all it is the business of the people living along the riverbanks to combine and to put the river into a proper state of repair. But we are not living in ideal conditions. Consequently it has been recognised in all drainage legislation that compulsory powers are necessary. When a certain number of persons along a river think it proper to improve their land, compulsion should be put upon others not to hinder them. As I said, it may seem reasonable enough to argue that it is a matter primarily for the owners of the land, or the people living along the river whose lands are flooded, to combine and do the work themselves. But compulsion is necessary, and for that legislation is necessary, and the State must in reality step in. The idea in this Bill is to make use again, as in the Maintenance Act of last year, of the co-operation between the county councils, on the one hand, and the Central State Department, on the other hand. It is recognised that it is not easy in the case of drainage or hydraulic work, to find local engineers capable of undertaking ticklish work of this kind. The suggestion, therefore, is that the technical skill of the Government engineers—who, owing to the number of cases of this kind that they have to undertake, have the advantage of both theory and experience —be put at the service of the drainage district. The works will be carried out —if it is decided to carry them out— by the Central State Department. Then the lighter responsibility for maintaining the works will be put on the local bodies. Owing to the position they are in, they will be able to collect the annuities necessary to pay back the loan and also to collect the maintenance rates. It is recognised in this Bill—and this is a departure from previous drainage legislation—that the people living along the banks, the owners whose lands are benefited, can hardly be expected to bear the whole cost of putting the river in order. Under the Acts of '42 and '66 the theory at all events was that the proprietors of the benefited lands would bear the whole responsibility. Considering the prices that have to be paid for labour on the one hand and the prices realised by farm commodities on the other hand, we realise that that is not a practical proposition. Hence there is provision in the Bill to enable the State to advance, not merely the money to be repaid, but to make a grant—a free grant—in other words, to contribute something to the expenditure which need not be paid back. The county councils will have the same power. Whether that power will be exercised by the State or by the county councils is a matter that will have to be considered in each case.
Seeing that this is merely a question of draining a river or a number of rivers, it may seem that the procedure outlined in this Bill is rather cumbersome and complicated. I think any complication there is, is, practically speaking, unavoidable. Occasionally there are letters in the Press suggesting that there is no trouble in dealing with rivers. I think I saw the statement in a letter about twelve months ago from an engineer, that practically every farmer living on the banks of a river— even such a troublesome river as the Barrow—knows precisely what the problem is, knows how to deal with it and that there is, therefore, no necessity for expert engineering. The problem, unfortunately, is not so simple. On the contrary, it requires special training. The ordinary civil engineer, without experience in river matters, is not much good for anything like a big drainage scheme until he gets that experience. We have to remember that there are rights of different kinds interfered with —rights of individuals, land rights, mill rights, water rights, navigation rights, and so on. There must be some protection for the people who propose to drain a river to secure that they will not be mulcted in heavy damages. There must be some means of determining what compensation should be paid for interference with the rights that I have alluded to. Thirdly, there is a question which some of the most complicated provisions of the Bill are designed to deal with. The people whose lands are benefited will have to pay to the estimated amount of the benefit which they derive. That being so, it is only fair that they should have given to them the choice of initiating a scheme or be asked whether they will go on with the scheme or reject it by a majority. When I say "majority," I do not mean a majority of votes. It will not be simply a counting of heads. Neither will it be a property franchise qualification. The voting power of the parties concerned will be decided not by the amount of land they hold, not by the amount of wealth they have, but by the amount of their land which is estimated to be benefited by this scheme. It is only just—it is inevitable, in fact—that the right should be given to the majority, in that sense, to determine whether they will have the scheme or not, since, as I have pointed out, they will have to pay for the scheme to the extent of the benefit they are expected to get out of it. Consequently, for these three reasons— the necessity of protection against legal action and heavy damages in respect of the people undertaking this scheme, the necessity for providing proper technical advice and the necessity of getting the consent of the people whom it is intended to benefit—there is apparent complication in this measure. Personally, I would be quite glad if anybody could suggest how any of the complicated provisions could be dropped, without damaging the Bill or without unduly diminishing the rights of the individual.
The Bill itself allows any six or more persons whose lands suffer from flooding to send in a petition to the county council. The county council will ask the county surveyor to give a general verdict—but only a general verdict— on the scheme presented by the petitioners. They will not ask him to draw up a detailed scheme. Then the county council has the right to drop the matter or send it on to the Commissioners of Public Works. That is again a right that you cannot very well deprive them of, seeing that they will be responsible for the collection of the rate in respect of the money advanced by way of loan for the carrying out of the works, and also for the maintenance rate afterwards to be paid to the State. By sending the scheme on to the commissioners the county council undertake the particular duties I have referred to incidentally. The commissioners having examined the scheme, will appoint a qualified engineer, and, if necessary, a qualified land valuer, to examine the scheme. If it seems that the scheme ought not to be gone on with, the matter ends there. If the commissioners are of the view that the scheme is prima facie a good one and should be gone on with, then they get one of their engineers to prepare the scheme in full detail. That scheme will show not merely the rivers proposed to be dealt with and the works proposed to be executed, but also the different plots of land that are expected to be benefited, and the estimated amount of benefit that is expected to accrue to each plot. Then there will be an estimate of the cost of the whole scheme. The next important point is, that an opportunity will be given to the people affected to object to this scheme. They will be asked to vote on whether the scheme is to be gone on with or not. If there is a majority of votes in the sense I have indicated—a majority, if I may say so, representing the benefited lands—against the scheme being gone on with, it will drop; it does not matter whether that opposition is well founded or not. In case half or more than half the people are in favour of it, objections will be heard. If they are found to be frivolous, they are simply rejected, and the commissioners report on the scheme. If not, an inquiry will be held, and on receiving the report the commissioners, after considering the objections put forward by the local people, make any recommendations they think fit, in the way of addition to, change in, or omission from the scheme. The scheme having been approved of by the Minister for Finance, the commissioners will be given power to carry out the scheme as an engineering project. Section 12 deals with the method of assessing compensation. That is the same as under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act of 1919. Then you have section 13, dealing with the provision of money for the carrying out of the scheme. The money is provided in the three ways I have already indicated: the Minister for Finance may make a free grant to the scheme. The county councils have a similar power. The balance will be provided, in the first place, by loan, and that will be paid back by means of a charge levied on the improved lands. The scheme having been carried through, a draft final award, will be prepared. There, again, you will have indicated the works carried out, the lands benefited, and the extent to which they are found to have been benefited, the amount to be paid by the scheme as a whole in repaying the loan, and the amount to be paid by each plot. As there are still likely to be objections—somebody thinking he is paying more than he ought to pay—a further inquiry will be held to hear these objections, and then a final award will be made. The future charge will be based on that. Section 16 deals with the responsibility of the county council in collecting the annuities that are to pay back the loan, and also in collecting the maintenance rate which is to be levied. Section 19 confers on the council of the county the power of maintaining in good repair and proper and efficient working order the district in question.
It is decided that all costs and expenses shall be raised in the way of a drainage rate. The drainage rate will be collected, levied at the same time, and subject to the same appeal as the poor rate. That is Section 21. The other matters deal with the power of the county council to raise money, their power to appoint committees to carry out the purposes of this Act, the Committees of the Commissioners, the public rates they interfere with; the two final clauses are necessary to see that the scheme is not damaged wilfully or through gross carelessness. With reference to the determination of various offences and penalties—they are maximum penalties—power is given in Section 28 to make by-laws and incidentally to fix penalties. Generally speaking, that is the principle and the scope of the Bill.
