asked the Minister for Finance whether in view of the great damage being caused to lands surrounding Lough Carra, and the consequent hardships on the 130 farmers concerned by the maintenance of a weir in the Keel river between Lough Carra and Lough Mask, he will take the necessary steps by introducing proposals for legislation or requesting the Commissioners of Public Works to take action to (1) have cancelled that portion of the final award of the Commissioners of Public Works of 1858 which provides for the maintenance of this weir, and (2) have the necessary statutory provision made for the removal of the weir.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Mayo Weir.
It is not proposed to introduce legislation to promote piecemeal drainage of thenature suggested by the Deputy in this or any other catchment. The removal or alteration of the weir on the Keel river will be considered by the Commissioners of Public Works when a scheme under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, for the Corrib-Mask catchment is being formulated. There is no statutory authority to vary the award made by the Commissioners of Public Works on the 14th January, 1858.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary ask the commissioners to alter the portion of the final award mentioned in the question in relation to this particular weir and have the weir removed, in view of the fact that it was blown away around during the years 1921, '22 or '23? That weir was completely wiped out since then, until it was rebuilt this year under the terms of the final award. They can do that without new legislation, so far as I understand.
There are several other rivers as well as the Keel river in which there are obstructions of this nature. Even if the introduction of legislation was not necessary in this case, if anything of the kind were done, there would be a very strong demand for the introduction of legislation to undertake that type of work all over the country. If such legislation were introduced and passed, it would interfere very considerably with the progress of work under the Arterial Drainage Act.
No complaints have been received by any Deputy in all that area about any other weir that exists —at least, to the same extent as in respect of this particular one. I want to repeat that this weir has been nonexistent since 1922 or 1923. It was rebuilt last November, but for what purpose I do not know. Surely the final award of the Commissioners of Public Works of 1858 could be altered so as to deal with this particular weir and have it removed. Approximately 130 farmers suffer loss because of it, but almost twice that number would be nearer the mark.
I have great sympathyfor farmers who suffer from flooding, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, but I certainly have not the same degree of sympathy with the farmers concerned in the Deputy's question because in 1934, when the drainage of the River Robe was being carried out, by a majority they refused the offer that this question of the weir and sluicing would be taken into consideration and dealt with at that time.
The weir was nonexistent then.