The Dáil unanimously passed the Acts, having had the actual facts in front of them. The condition here revealed — I am now taking the complaint that there had been no improvement, and at that time there was a refusal to tackle even their own drains — would be generally analogous to a case in which a town complained that, as a result of the inadequacy of a sewerage scheme, an epidemic was rife, and in which an examination of the houses of the complainants showed that their own domestic drains were culpably choked, and that seven years of household waste was accumulating in front of their doors. I have indicated the position in relation to Gilleece's land and Joly's land. For such an occupier to complain that the disease from which he was suffering was due to the inadequacy of the main sewerage scheme, would be manifestly absurd.
Let us consider the suggestion that the benefit has been over-valued. The Barrow Drainage Ratepayers' Organisation, in their letters to the Press, speak of their lands being assessed at up to 7/- per acre, as if that were the normal assessment. There are lots valued as low as 6d. per acre, and lots in the vicinity of towns valued as high as 10/-, but of the whole 43,520 acres assessed, 90 per cent. is valued at less than 4/- per statute acre. The fact is that the average benefit per acre assessed is 2/10 as against an estimated improvement of 4/3 under the 1890 scheme. It might be well to bear in mind that the comparable average assessment of improved value per acre per annum on the 51 separate schemes carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, is approximately 4/- per acre, while in the case of the Barrow scheme it is only 2/10. Obviously there is no case of exorbitant assessments.
From the point of view of husbandry, the assessed lands cannot in the main be expected to enjoy full benefit unless advantage is taken of the improved outfall by attention to farm drains. Before confirmation, the assessments were reviewed by a highly competent investigator whom the Minister for Agriculture appointed. This was the method appointed by law for the ascertainment of the improved annual value. The meticulous care with which the assessments were made on these lands is evident from the valuers' and investigator's reports, showing the separate lots divided into numerous sections at varying valuations, with notes upon the type of lands in each case. Moreover, the State, having already agreed to pay 50 per cent. of the cost, had no interest in high assessments, and the assessments were made after full and careful consideration of the reports of these assessors, who were experienced and qualified men with no urge to place an undue share of the cost on the benefited occupiers.
The assessment was made at the lowest possible point in relation to agriculture in this country. It was in the middle of the economic war. We were right at the bottom of the slump of agricultural prices. The prospects were bad and yet the improvement was valued on that basis. I am perfectly satisfied that if it were valued now, or if it had been valued at any other time by the same men, by competent men, the assessment would have been higher.
Let us now turn from the evidence put forward by the organisation, in which the statements of alleged fact, as distinct from mere expressions of opinion, were capable of being checked and have been proved to be unreliable. Every statement that I checked has proved to be unreliable; it is all unsupported and prejudiced opinion. I want you to turn to the evidence that we produce, scientifically recorded evidence in relation to these works contained in the two charts which have been on display outside the Library of this House. One of these hydrographs indicates the daily height of the water level on the Figile river at Clonbologue bridge for the 14 years from September, 1926, to January, 1941. About half the total period shown on the chart — from 1926 to 1933 — relates to pre-drainage conditions, the other half to post-drainage conditions.
The critical height of five feet indicated for each year on the chart is the height of water level at Clonbologue bridge at which, in general, flooding will occur on the improved marginal lands in that area, and the period and depth of inundation are indicated by red colouring. Blue colouring indicates the period during which the river level was below the critical flood height. At lower gauge heights down to about four feet some lesser flooding will occur on isolated and particularly low-lying lands, but the area affected below the five feet level is relatively small. It will be seen from the red colouring on the chart that in pre-drainage times the river level stood at or above the critical flood height of five feet for long periods each year, and only dropped below this height for short spells in the summer months. Generally, the amount of drop below the five feet level pre-drainage was not such as to enable the lands affected to be dried out properly.
The change in flood conditions resulting from the Barrow works will be clearly seen by an examination of the river hydrograph for the year 1933. The improvement works on the Barrow reached Clonbologue bridge on the 25th July of that year, when there was an immediate and considerable drop in the water level of the river. In fact, the bed of the river at Clonbologue was lowered by about five feet. This point is the dividing line between the pre-drainage and post-drainage periods and the lower water levels continued throughout the rest of the post-drainage period.
The number of occasions in the post-drainage period when the water level has arisen above the five feet critical level are extremely few, and, in general, the drainage improvements which have been effected by the scheme can be readily interpreted by the amount of red colouring on the diagrams before and after the works were completed. It will be noticed, too, that any floods exceeding the critical level in the post-drainage period were of very short duration. They show as occasional spear-heads in the post-drainage period as compared with practically continuous flat and rounded areas in the pre-drainage period. It will be noted, too, that any post-drainage flooding which has occurred is confined almost entirely to the winter months, when it can have little serious effect.
On two occasions only in the seven years of post-drainage has the water level risen above four feet in the summer months. These occurred during the wet summer of 1938, but the floods on each occasion were of very short duration. No maintenance work was done in the district from the end of 1937 until 1940. No doubt the routine maintenance works will improve matters again. In the worst conditions of post-drainage flooding only low-lying lands adjoining the main channels are affected. The second chart exhibited is for the water gauge at Dunrally Bridge on the main Barrow river. This chart for Dunrally is probably more indicative of conditions generally over the whole of the Barrow scheme. The critical flood height for the Dunrally hydrograph is eight feet, six inches.
I invite all Deputies, and all others concerned to know the truth in this matter, to study those charts — evidence based on ascertainable and unquestionable facts — and see for themselves the really tremendous improvement that has been effected in the flooding conditions.
An advertisement appeared in the newspapers on the 31st January, 1940, inviting the Deputies of Counties Kildare, Leix and Offaly, engineers and all others concerned, to come immediately to inspect thousands of acres in the whole drainage district which were under water. We have similarly received an invitation to hold our engineers in readiness to come immediately when it was intimated by telephone that the water had reached a certain level. Our experience of inspecting the so-called flooded areas at the earliest moment that we could after we received notice was that before we could get there the water had gone and the whole evidence of these frantic appeals for immediate presence to inspect is evidence of the brevity, infrequency and, therefore, lack of significance, of any flooding which, under present conditions, takes place.
Taking all this evidence into account, it seems to be clear that the State has efficiently and economically done what it set out to do. It has, under a sound plan, with eminently competent engineers and proper supervision, carried out an arterial drainage scheme which has so lowered the level and made available an effective outfall that the 43,500 acres of land which were assessed in the award must have received, even under the present conditions, a very real benefit, and would receive the full assessed benefit if the ordinary farm drains on these lands were opened up and connected to the outfall provided. As I have said, the value of the benefit was assessed on the reasonable assumption that the occupiers would do this work.
The second portion of the motion, which no one has touched upon, suggested that no benefit whatever has been conferred by this scheme on many ratepayers who are required to pay the county-at-large charges. I have a good deal of sympathy with the ratepayers in this matter, but I also have a good deal of sympathy with the taxpayers, and the question of transferring any particular burden from a ratepayer to a taxpayer does not seem to me to involve any great principle. Ratepayers have to contribute to all such schemes. The motion, in effect, demands that the ratepayers' share of the cost of this scheme should be transferred to the taxpayer of the country. What benefit is given to taxpayers in Kerry or Donegal by this scheme? Yet, they contribute their share of 59½ per cent. of the capital cost. It must be clearly appreciated that the payment of contributions towards drainage schemes by way of county rates is general throughout the country and rests on Parliamentary authority.
In 16 counties the ratepayers are making, by way of ordinary rates, contributions towards drainage schemes from which they get no direct benefit. In many counties, they are contributing in rates towards more than one scheme and of course they also pay a share of the State's contribution by way of taxes, etc. In fact, in many cases the county councils have even increased their contributions subsequently when it was found that the schemes were more expensive than was anticipated. I have been always struck by the willingness and the generosity of county councils to contribute towards schemes. County councils generally have shown a remarkable willingness voluntarily to contribute towards the cost of the drainage schemes. In every one of these 1925 Act schemes it was required that they should be sponsored by the county councils and that the county councils should voluntarily contribute to their capital cost.
Amongst the indirect benefits accruing from drainage are improvements in highways, towns, sewerage, public health, wages distribution and increase in the productive capacity of the rateable area served. I have the testimony of Deputies Davin, Gorry and Hughes to support that statement. In the case of the Barrow, out of £550,000 spent, some £333,000 went on wages. The development of the Clonsast bog was made possible, on which up to £70,000 has already been spent on wages, giving steady employment to 200 men, as well as seasonal employment to about 400 men. Further developments in Clonsast are contemplated with consequent local financial advantage. The sanitary conditions and amenities of all the towns and villages in the district, particularly Mountmellick and Portarlington have been improved with consequent public health advantages. There was one road in the area that used to be known as the "navigation", and there are a couple of other roads there along which piers were erected to enable pedestrians to travel along the roads when they were under water. Many important public roads in the area, formerly rendered frequently impassible by floods—for instance the main roads between Athy-Monasterevan and between Portarlington-Mountmellick — are now completely free from flooding.
It would seem, therefore, that in principle the contributions from the county funds in the case of the Barrow are in line with the position in other counties, that the benefits received by the ratepayers are relatively substantial and that productive assets have been created. This condition has been brought into being in accordance with the law and that law was not voted against in any of its stages by the representatives in the Dáil of the ratepayers concerned. No case can be made in principle on behalf of those county-at-large ratepayers in Laoighis, Offaly and Kildare, which does not extend to all ratepayers in the other counties in which drainage contributions are being made. Unless, therefore, conditions come about in which it is decided generally, in relation to drainage that the whole capital cost, future and retrospective, of arterial drainage in Ireland, should be borne by taxation raised by this House, without any contribution either from the benefited occupiers of the land or from the local ratepayers, and that, in addition, a large proportion of the maintenance cost of such free gift drainage schemes should be borne by the taxpayers of the country, there is no present case for changing the financial basis of the Barrow drainage scheme.
Deputy Hughes raised one other point in relation to the intrinsic quality of the land. If some of the land had been under water, as it apparently had been for some considerable time, there is no question but that at the moment that land could be considerably improved. Had advantage been taken of the outfall which has been provided there, for instance in the last seven years, does anybody suggest that the quality of that land could not have been considerably improved during that period? Everybody's opinion in relation to the quality of land is his own and I do not expect anyone to accept my views on this question ex cathedra. We had an extraordinary experience in Rynanna. It was an area which had been submerged, an old drainage area which had been allowed to get out of condition. It was necessary for the purposes of the aerodrome there to produce a grassy sod. In the early stages, like our engineers, we recognised that there were limitations to our knowledge and we went to experts and asked them what mixture of seed was necessary, and under what conditions we should sow that seed, in order to get upon the surface of Rynanna a good sod. After the experts had not merely looked at it, but had analysed the soil, they told us that no grass could be grown there and that we could not get a grassy sod. I need hardly tell you that that was somewhat of a shock to us — engineers, experts in soil culture and all the rest. While we were worrying about this, some photographs of the area which had been taken from an aeroplane, some years before, turned up. On the photographs there was a series of very curious dots with no regular formation. We inquired what these dots were and ascertained that they were haystacks. I understand that the crop of grass which we are getting at Rynanna this year, from land which the experts in their ripe judgment told us could grow no grass, would make a prosperous farmer very happy.
I have gone into this question as carefully as I could and I am satisfied that a good job, a straightforward, sound engineering job was done. I am satisfied that the basic water level over the whole area has been so lowered that the land can be improved. I am satisfied that an adequate outfall channel has been provided, that an improvement of a very considerable character has taken place up to the present, and that a larger improvement will take place if ordinary good husbandry is used in opening up these drains. I am satisfied that the £550,000 that has been spent by the State in this matter has not been wasted; that good value has been given; and that good value can be got. I am satisfied that those who to-day are withholding from the ratepayers of Laoighis, Offaly and Kildare a capital sum of £18,159 and who apparently are contemplating withholding from them in the near future some £6,000 a year are not doing their duty either by the State, by themselves, or by their job. The case for the motion has failed for that reason directly, as far as the Barrow is concerned, and for the reason that the principle which. I am asked to adopt in relation to it, applied to ordinary general drainage, would be bad; and I am not prepared to recommend that special ad hoc legislation should be made in this matter.
