asked the Minister for the Environment if the water rights order for Gort regional water scheme, County Galway, was made last week; and the action that was taken as a result of the farmers' objections.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Gort (Galway) Regional Water Scheme.
17.
On 24 October 1984 I made a provisional order under the Water Supplies Act, 1942, declaring that a proposal by Galway County Council to take a supply of water from Lough Cutra, at a maximum rate of 6,000 cubic metres per day, for the purpose of improving and extending the Gort water supply scheme, may come into force without alteration.
In making the order I gave full and careful consideration to the evidence presented at the public local inquiry and the report of the person who held the inquiry, including evidence in relation to the effect of the proposal on farmers. I was satisfied from the evidence and report that Galway County Council need a proper water supply for the town of Gort and surrounding region, that Lough Cutra is the only suitable source available to meet the council's needs and that the proposal made to me by the council for the abstraction of water from the lake should not be altered.
Is the Minister aware of four years of opposition to the method by which Galway County Council propose to extract the water? The objection is not to the extraction of the water as such. In these circumstances would the Minister not have considered it appropriate that the changes in the extraction method as sought by the farmers would have been suitable? Would he not agree also that the proposals put forward by the farmers were adequate and would have allowed the scheme to proceed along the lines which the council intended and that as a result of his failure to make any provision for the farmers' objections this scheme could be held up for several years more?
There was disagreement between the local authority's consultant and the objectors' consultant in relation to the proportion of land that would be flooded if the proposal were implemented. It was emphasised on behalf of the objectors, the farmers, that they had no objection to the extraction of the water but that they were concerned mainly with flood damage. The local authority stated at many stages during the inquiry that this was a matter of compensation which they were prepared to face up to.
Will the Minister accept that because of the order he had made thousands of acres of land can never be drained since the order involves the construction of a dam across an outlet point to the lake? Will he accept also that the farmers' proposal is very reasonable in respect of a pumping facility that would alleviate the necessity for the dam and that therefore it would have been appropriate to have allowed the scheme go ahead? Can the Minister comment on the costs, if any, being allowed to the objectors having regard to the expenses they incurred as a result of the public inquiry?
The expert advice I received from the local authority's consultants swayed me in making the decision I have made. I have said that if this is causing a problem there may be a question of compensation to be faced, but I am satisfied that I acted on the best information available. I assure the Deputy that any application from the farmers for a contribution towards the cost in respect of their inquiry will be considered.
Has an application not been made already in the sense that one was made at the inquiry? Have the farmers not put forward an application for an amount to cover their expenses in total and which they had hoped would be paid as part of the Minister's order? It is not possible to compensate people in respect of the flooding of thousands of acres of land.
Has the Deputy a question?
I am satisfied that the Minister has made a wrong decision and one that will have serious repercussions in this whole area.
Each objector to the proposal now has the right of petition to the Circuit Court——
More money.
——within five weeks from the date on which a copy of the provisional order was given to them by the local authority. The court may disallow or confirm the order with or without alteration, but during this period any application made to me by the farmers for a contribution cannot be considered.
I asked if the question of costs which was put forward at the public inquiry has been considered. Why has the Minister not made a decision as to whether the costs will be met? Why is it necessary for the farmers to make further application?
There remains the possibility that the decision will be looked at again by the Circuit Court and upset if the court thinks fit. While that is going on consideration will not be given to any application in respect of costs relating to the inquiry.