asked the Minister for Finance the reason for the delay in sanctioning an extension of the River Robe drainage scheme so as to include Hollymount River which was the subject of a report commissioned by the Office of Public Works, as the report was presented to the Department some months ago and nothing in it precludes drainage in the area, fear of which was the reason given for not having drainage of this river included in the scheme long before now.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Extension of River Robe Drainage Scheme.
4.
The Commissioners of Public Works have been examining the economic and environmental implications of including the Hollymount River in the Corrib-Mask-Robe catchment drainage scheme. They have also been considering the feasibility of the works in the light of the report of their consulting hydrogeologist on the likely effects of drainage on groundwater conditions in the area.
Until the examination of these matters has been concluded, I cannot say if or when the Hollymount River might be included in the scheme.
I am given to understand that the studies have been completed and that the report has been with the Minister's Department for a considerable time now. I understand that there is nothing in the report which precludes drainage in the area. In view of the urgency of having this matter decided fairly soon, because the scheme is drawing to a close and because of the nature and extent of flooding in that area and the acreage of good quality, fertile land involved, would the Minister have immediate attention given to this report, if that has not been done already? Would he divorce this matter from the overall review which is taking place in his Department with regard to drainage?
It is true that the report is in my Department. The Deputy is well aware that that report does not preclude drainage of the area. At the same time, it is quite clear that certain precautionary measures would have to be taken. When the Corrib-Mask-Robe scheme was started it was considered that this area was outside that scheme. The Deputy was on a deputation which met me about this question. I appreciate that the question has been on the Order Paper for some time. A few things would have to be considered — for example, the effects of the drainage of the area on the local water supplies and in particular on the Ballinrobe supply. Furthermore there are environmental implications which are under consideration in consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Until all these matters are resolved no decision can be taken in regard to the drainage of the Hollymount River.
Is it not a fact that the principal purpose of commissioning the report of the hydrologist was to determine whether drainage in that area would interfere with other water schemes in south-east Mayo including the Ballinrobe water scheme? The finding of the hydrologist and his team indicated clearly that drainage at Hollymount would not in any way interfere with the Ballinrobe water scheme or any of the other water schemes in the area.
That is not exactly correct.
People were given to understand that if the hydrologist's report so found, the scheme would go ahead. Would the Minister now consider making the necessary funding available to allow the scheme to commence? With regard to the cost benefit analysis? is the Minister aware that experts in his own office have already reported that the extra cost involved in carrying out the scheme would be more than compensated for by the minimal expense which would be required to maintain it because of the quality of the land and the nature of the terrain in the area?
What the Deputy insinuates in his supplementary question is not quite correct. Drainage could be done. That is in the report, but certain specific things would need to be done which would add to the cost. This has to be considered. Further environmental implications are under consideration in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. The Deputy is well aware of all this because we discussed it at length when I met the deputation. It was not in the original scheme because it was considered to be too costly. I was not in office at that time. That was many years ago, before the Corrib-Mask-Robe scheme started. It was not considered economic at that time. That consideration has still to be taken into account. Since it was not included at that time the full statutory obligations of advertising the scheme and displaying exactly what was being done would have to be met before it could be included. All this would add to the cost of the scheme.
When will the Minister decide?
One final supplementary.
In his last supplementary the Deputy asked about six questions.
Is it not a fact that it is not the report which the Minister's office commissioned that is preventing this work going ahead, but the fact that the Department of Finance and the Government are not prepared to make the necessary funds available to allow the scheme to commence?
Irrespective of anything else, the Corrib-Mask-Robe scheme would have to be amended. The Deputy knows the legal process we would have to go through to do that, which would also add to the cost. It would then have to go back to the Government for sanction, because it would be a new scheme since it was not included seven or eight years ago in the original scheme. This was explained in detail to the Deputy by my officials.
Is the Minister in favour of the scheme?
I am unaware of the consequences of the scheme apart from what I heard from the deputation I met. I have a lot of sympathy with the scheme.
A good case was made for it.
A cost analysis was carried out on the scheme in 1980. This is 1985. Can the Minister tell us that the true reason why the drainage in this Hollymount river has not been started is that funds were not made available by the Government?
That is repetition.
That scheme was not included in the original Corrib-Mask-Robe scheme. Why was it not included at that time? If it was, we would not have all these difficulties. Experts have produced a report and that report is being examined.
Does the Minister think it is a worthy case?
The decision was made some time ago by the Fianna Fáil Government that the cost was too high even without this extra cost.
Will the Minister consider it favourably now?
I have some sympathy with the scheme but I have to take all the factors into account.
What is the estimated cost?
It is pretty high for a river of that length. People are saying it is better land. I often heard people saying the land in Mayo was very bad. Now it is wonderful.
The best land in Mayo is around the Hollymount area.
I know it well.
Can the Minister indicate when he will be in a position to make a definite pronouncement on whether or not this scheme will be funded?
He is a generous man and he will spent a few million pounds on it.