Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Mar 1992

Vol. 416 No. 6

Adjournment Debate. - Muine Bheag (Carlow) Sewerage Scheme.

Deputy Browne has been given permission to raise the matter of the delay in allowing work to commence on the sewerage scheme in Muine Bheag, County Carlow.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Teachta Wallace as ucht bheith tofa in a Aire Stáit. Tá siúl agam go mbeidh saol taitneamhach, tairbheach aige in a phost nua, ach ní saol fada mar ní bheadh sé sin oiriúnach dúinn sa bhFreasúsa.

I am very greatful for the opportunity to raise this serious matter in relation to Muine Bheag sewerage scheme. We live in an era where day after day new regulations regarding pollution are being sent out by the Department of the Environment. For many private individuals it can be quite expensive to fulfil these regulations in order to avoid prosecution. Therefore, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. In the case of the Department of the Environment they should not ignore their own regulations. That is why I suggest that the delay in giving the go-ahead to this scheme should be a source of serious embarrassment to the Department who tell everybody else how to behave. In this context I should say that county councils are often accused of being polluters and even if this happens to be true it is grossly unfair since the Department of the Environment provide the money to ensure that work can go ahead to maintain proper standards.

Muine Bheag is a town with a population in excess of 3,000 people and is at present, going through a very difficult time because of the overloading of septic tanks designed decades ago to accommodate hundreds and not thousands of people. This is of serious consequence considering that the beautiful River Barrow flows by the town and any overflow of raw sewage, because of the overloading of the septic tanks, is indefensible. The blame rests squarely with the Department of the Environment. On 19 April next, it will be eight years since the Department officially acknowledged the necessity to provide this treatment plant. Long and tedious work was undertaken to get to the stage where on 7 May 1991 tenders were accepted by the county council and submitted to the Department. Since then the county council officials have waited for clearance while taking the flack for the Department officials and this is the Department who set the standard in controlling pollution right across the country.

It is grossly unfair eight months after a company made an offer to do work for a given price that they are still expected to have their workforce on hand when it suits the Department of the Environment to call on them. This must indirectly lead to higher costs for the Department because what company can afford to keep on staff in the hope that at some date in the future they will get the go-ahead to do the work?

I hope the Minister of State in his reply will give me a date on which this work will start. It will be to his Department's advantage to avoid being accused of gross hypocrisy in seeing the pollution in his brother's eye while failing to see the mote in his own.

I thank the Deputy for his kind remarks and good wishes and for his offer of support to me and my Department in the future. I fully subscribe to the view that the sanitary services programme plays a major role in meeting the needs of communities throughout the country and in the protection and improvement of our environment. Adequate supplies of pure and wholesome water and acceptable levels for the disposal of sewage and water borne waste are a vital objective of the Government's environmental action programme.

Since 1989 over £277 million has been invested by the State in the water and sanitary services programme. This year there is a capital provision of £72.5 million which at a time of overall budgetary difficulties is evidence of the Government's continued commitment to the development of the services involved. Considerable progress has been made in bringing new and improved water and sanitary services to County Carlow.

In regard to Muine Bheag, I understand that the existing treatment and collection systems are overloaded and that the proposed sewerage scheme provides for an improved sewerage scheme network, pumping stations and treatment works with effluent receiving full secondary treatment before discharge into the River Barrow. Approval of the contract documents for this scheme issued from my Department in April 1990. Tender recommendations for a number of contracts, including civil works, pumping plant and sludge dewatering plant have been submitted by Carlow County Council. The need for the Muine Bheag scheme has been established and a decision on the council's tender recommendations is being considered having regard to the existing level of commitments under the water and sanitary services programme as a whole.

I expect the water and sanitary services capital allocations to local authorities for 1992 will be finalised very shortly. In addition to meeting the very demanding requirements of the existing construction programme the scope for approving tenders for new schemes will be considered. I can assure the Deputy that the Muine Bheag sewerage scheme will form part of this examination and I will let the Deputy know the outcome at that stage.

Top
Share