asked the Minister for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the proposed group water scheme committees throughout the country who were led to believe they could receive grants from FEOGA when, while a small number have been accepted for such grants, the majority have now been informed by his Department that they have been turned down.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - FEOGA Grants.
7.
In reply to the Deputy, the following are the relevant facts:
In 1977 and 1978 my Department applied for FEOGA aid totalling £5.05 million on behalf of 101 group water schemes in various parts of the country. In July 1979 the EEC Commission allocated FEOGA aid totalling £697,807 to 29 group schemes. The balance of the FEOGA aid applications in respect of group water schemes were, I regret to say, unsuccessful. I understand that the reason why so many applications were unsuccessful was the inadequacy of the funds which could be made available under the FEOGA regulations then applicable. New proposals put forward by the Commission are at present awaiting the approval of the Council of Ministers.
My Department did not lead any group to believe that they would receive a FEOGA grant in advance of the decision of the EEC Commission. The covering letter to groups issued by the Department with each FEOGA grant application form included the following paragraph, which I will read out in full:
A considerable time (12 months or more) may elapse before the decision on the applications for FEOGA aid for co-operative water supply schemes is known. The decision as to whether or not to grant FEOGA aid is solely a matter for the EEC Commission. Projects are assessed by the Commission in accordance with priorities laid down by EEC regulations and many projects fail to compete successfully for the limited funds available. It must, therefore, be emphasised that any co-operative which commences work prior to the decision by the EEC should plan the financing of the scheme so that the scheme is viable, in the event of an unfavourable decision.
Arising from the Minister's reply, despite what he has said by way of the paragraph which was inserted with each application, would the Minister not agree that expectations were naturally raised and, that since not all applicants were successful, that makes it more disappointing for those who did not obtain a grant? What does the Minister intend to do to fill the gap in expenditure for those disappointed?
We have had instances of a shortfall due to the failure of the FEOGA grants being given in two counties in particular, in Monaghan and Cavan. I received a deputation and we discussed this. I said I would be prepared sympathetically to consider making a special capital allocation and loan finance available to the county councils to enable the payment of the contributions to take place before the end of 1979 and also approving payment of State subsidy covering 60 per cent of the annual charges incurred by those councils arising from the payment of these special contributions. It is now with the councils of those two counties who I understand are pursuing it.
I am aware of what the Minister has said in regard to these two counties. Arising from that, what is the consideration the Minister is giving, or will give, to other counties in a somewhat similar situation because, as the Minister is aware, this is widespread?
I will give them sympathetic consideration, as I did in the case of these two particular counties where there was a shortfall and the schemes got under way and could not be completed.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am grateful to the Minister in so far as he has gone in the case of Monaghan and Cavan but does he realise that 40 per cent of the charges must still be paid by the counties concerned? Is it not a fact that notwithstanding the warning paragraph to which the Minister has referred these group water schemes in the counties concerned were planned and budgeted for with the co-operation of the Minister's Department on the basis that FEOGA grants would be forthcoming? The fact that the FEOGA grants have not been forthcoming has doubled and sometimes trebled the local contribution and placed promoters and people participating in an impossible position. I would ask the Minister to find alternative finance for these people by way of grant in lieu of the FEOGA grants they were entitled to expect.
All I can say is that the deputation I received went away quite happy with what we had agreed to do and I am now waiting on the councils.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The councils' fears—if they had to pay the service charges on the loans here—are that something else would go to the wall.
We are expecting proposals from the councils at any time now.
(Cavan-Monaghan): But they are finding it difficult to formulate them.
10.
asked the Minister for the Environment if the proposal to dump raw, untreated sewage into the Shannon Estuary at Kilrush is compatible with the objectives of environmental policy at national and EEC levels and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The existing sewerage scheme in Kilrush includes a treatment works which is overloaded. It is subject to back-pounding or flooding and discharges into an area of the harbour where the dilution is inadequate. The proposals on the new scheme are for the discharge of a comminuted sewage into a tidal storage tank at a suitably located sea outfall in the vicinity of Skagh Point. Comminution will aid oxidation and dispersal. The outfall pipe will be located 11 feet below low tide level and discharge will be on the ebb tide. This is an accepted method of disposal for coastal towns and the local authority's consulting engineer's investigations, including sea surveys, show that no offshore pollution should result or any contravention of the guidelines prepared by the Technical Committee on Effluent and Water Quality Standards.
I am advised that the proposals do not conflict with any objectives or principles of EEC environment policy as expressed in the action programme on the environment or with the requirements of any current directives on water quality.
I should state, however, that there is an appeal before An Bord Pleanála against the grant by Clare County Council of permission for the construction of the tidal tank and sea outfall and the decision on that matter will be enetirely one for An Bord Pleanála.