In moving the Second Stage of this Bill, I think I may congratulate the Dáil and the Government on having got so far towards the solution of a problem which has troubled this country for many years past. But if the scheme is brought into successful operation, the credit will be due, not only to the Dáil and the Government, but also to the counties concerned for contributing substantial financial assistance, and not least, perhaps, to the skilful engineers who have succeeded in producing a practical scheme at a practicable cost.
It would not be reasonable for me to detain the House with the history of all the projects for improving the Barrow which succeeded one another during the nineteenth century; the outstanding fact is that until we started work last August no man had ever put a spade or a pick into the ground, so far as I can learn, for the purpose of arterial drainage on that river. Extensive works were carried out in the eighteenth century for the purpose of navigation in the lower part of the course—from Athy; but the part of the river above Athy, where the lands suffer most from floods, was absolutely untouched. An attempt was made by the British Government, 40 years ago, to deal with this problem, but it fell through owing to lack of popular support.
The modern history of this subject begins in March, 1924, with a very representative deputation from the districts affected by the Barrow floods to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That deputation urged the Government to carry out the scheme proposed by the British Government in 1889. They estimated the present cost at £800,000, and said that the locality would pay half if the Government would pay the other half. That is a promise of £400,000. Of course the locality includes the improved lands— it was not intended that the whole £400,000, or even the greater part of it, should be paid out of the county rates. Nevertheless, I think the Dáil will agree that that offer represented a very considerable advance in the public spirit of the localities concerned. The Government took that view; and after taking time to think it over, decided to accept the offer. That is to say, that they would inquire into the engineering question, and if they could get a practicable engineering scheme they would carry it out and pay half the cost out of public funds, with the assent of the Dáil, provided the other half was paid by the improved lands and by the counties concerned. And as there has been a certain amount either of misunderstanding or of misrepresentation about this matter, particularly at election times, I wish to assert here quite plainly that at no time and in no place did the Government promise any more than that, and at no time since they gave the promise have they withdrawn from it.
But it was by no means as simple as it looked to find a practicable engineering scheme. The first step, naturally, was to investigate the records of the scheme of 1889, that mentioned by the deputation—a scheme associated with the name of Mr. Gamble.
The result of the investigation was, in the first place, to raise grave doubts whether the scheme was a good one, and in the second place to establish that, good or bad, it was not in a condition in which it could be carried out or published immediately. The Government, thereupon, decided that they could not take the risk of proceeding with that scheme without further advice; and they asked Professor Meyer-Peter of Zurich to advise. His report, dated March, 1925, has been published and is, no doubt, familiar to the minds of the Teachtaí, but as the matter is complicated it will be useful for me to summarise the leading facts and figures. Professor Meyer-Peter did not think the scheme of 1889, Mr. Gamble's scheme, was conceived on the right lines; in particular he thought that scheme contained too much embankment and too little excavation. He therefore proposed a fresh scheme, for which he gave an estimate of £1,130,000. But he pointed out that all previous estimates of cost, and also his own, rested upon a very poor basis of ascertained fact, because at no time had there been any actual measurement of the flow of the river. Now, in designing a new channel for a river an engineer must necessarily begin by deciding what amount of water he will provide for; on that his whole scheme depends. But no one had ever attempted to ascertain by direct measurements what amount of water comes down the Barrow in a flood; all the engineering schemes, including Professor Meyer-Peter's own, were founded on estimates of flow, and these estimates differed widely. Professor Meyer-Peter, therefore, advised that the actual flow should be ascertained by measurement before the Government committed itself to any scheme. This was done; it was a matter of some time, because, of course, it is necessary to measure the flow on many days in varying conditions of high and low water, before you can get trustworthy results.
The result of the flow measurements was, very fortunately, to show that all the engineers had over-estimated the amount of water brought down by the Barrow. I say very fortunately, because if it were really necessary to spend £1,100,000 on this scheme I do not think it would be done at all. The Government was ready to ask the Dáil to pay one half, that is £550,000, but I do not think the localities could well have borne the other half. I do not wish to weary the Dáil with too many figures, but I will just mention the various estimates of the flow. Mr. Manning, an eminent engineer who made a scheme in 1885, provided for 400,000 cubic feet of water per minute passing Athy at maximum flood. Mr. Gamble, who made the scheme for the Bill of 1889, provided for 320,000. Professor Meyer-Peter's estimate for maximum flood was 486,000. The actual measurements of the flood of February, 1926, which appears to have been one of the largest ever known on the Barrow, gave 268,000 cubic feet per minute.
Acting therefore on the measurements of flow which we owe to Professor Meyer-Peter's advice, the Government decided to have a modified and reduced scheme prepared. This has been done by Mr. Chaloner Smith, an engineer in the service of the office of Public Works, whose name is known among hydraulic engineers by his work on the flow of the Shannon. If the scheme for the Barrow is carried out successfully, that success should be associated with the names of Professor Meyer-Peter and Mr. Chaloner Smith.
The estimate for the modified and reduced scheme is £425,000 and we are advised that it will be practicable to obtain, for that sum, immunity from ordinary high floods for the lands on the Barrow, and, what is more important for the farmers, to secure that any abnormal floods which come upon the lands will not lie there long, and that the ordinary water level under the soil throughout the year will be reduced rendering thorough drainage practicable.
Coming to the specific provisions of the Bill, I think it is not necessary to go into detail at this stage except on one point—finance. The other provisions, apart from finance, are much the same as those with which the Dáil is familiar in the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 and the Owenmore Drainage Act of 1926. But the financial provisions are new.
The maximum expenditure for which the Bill provides is £425,000. If it turns out to be necessary to spend more, we shall have to bring in another Bill, but we think it will not be necessary. Clause 9 says that the Government is to pay half the cost, within that limit, as a free grant. The other half will be advanced by the Government and repaid on the ordinary terms for Arterial Drainage loans by the improved lands and the counties concerned. In addition to the repayment of the capital cost, there will be an annual charge for maintaining the works. We cannot tell what that will be, but we estimate it, one year with another, at £4,000 a year.
Now the Government proposes, with the assent of the Dáil, to grant not only half the capital cost but also, during the period of repayment of capital, to grant half the cost of maintenance, provided the works are properly maintained. That is, of course, a very exceptional provision, but we think it justified in this case. Now let us see how the finance works out for the localities. The localities are to repay one half of the capital cost not exceeding £212,500. They are also to pay £2,000 a year for maintenance. The repayment of £212,500 means an annual charge of nearly £14,000 for 35 years, £14,000 plus £2,000 makes £16,000. The maximum charge on the localities, therefore, under this Bill is £16,000 a year for 35 years, and after 35 years the charge for repayment of capital ceases and the localities have to bear the whole cost of maintenance, whether that proves to be £4,000 a year or more or less.
Now, how are these charges to be divided between the improved lands and the county funds of the counties concerned? We have adopted what seems to us the simplest and most equitable method; we impose on the improved lands a charge equal to the assessed improvement, whatever is left over is to be paid from the county funds in the proportion of the assessed improvement in each county. I can, perhaps, make this clearer by an imaginary simplified example. Suppose there were only two counties concerned, County A and County B; suppose the total annual payment to be made is £21, and the assessed improvement of lands in County A is £6 and in County B £8—total £14, then these lands will have to pay those amounts, and in addition County A must pay £3 out of the county fund and County B £4 to make up the total of £21.
As all the payments depend on the assessed improvement, nothing is laid down beforehand except the maximum total, and it is not possible to say what any particular county will have to pay. But we have, of course, some notion, based upon previous valuations and upon what we learn from our valuers now at work; and if things work out as we expect, it is probable that the payments to be made from county funds, apart from payments by the improved lands, will be something between £2,500 and £3,000 a year from each of the counties of Leix, Offaly and Kildare, with very much smaller sums from Wicklow, Carlow and Kilkenny. But of course these are only conjectural estimates. I think the Bill may be commended to the Dáil as a very generous attempt to solve the vexed and century-old question of the Barrow drainage.