I want to join in the welcome and the tributes afforded in this House last week to the Minister of State on her appointment to the position of Minister of State to the Department of Finance, with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works. Coming from a county, as she does, where good land is appreciated and where there is an abundance of good land, I am sure she will appreciate the anxiety of somebody like myself from a county which has a minority, in acreage terms, of good land and where, naturally enough, there is an anxiety and an inclination that we should preserve, conserve and reclaim any potential good land which is not being utilised to the full as a result of flooding.
The Hollymount river, channel CM48, is the largest tributary of the Robe river. It drains approximately 430 acres of land directly, and a further 100 indirectly. There are 39 farmers whose lands are affected, or approximately 13 acres per farmer. In an area where the average farm size is approximately 40 acres, the drainage of this 13 acres is essential to their viability. The vast majority of the acreage accruing from the work to be carried out on this channel would undoubtedly make these farms viable.
The acreage flooded consists of limestone soil which is typical of the south Mayo type. It is an area which which is on a par with the rest of the country in terms of general production levels. That general perimeter of south Mayo, running into north Galway, is one of the most fertile and productive areas of the country. As a result of the high rainfall in the area, this land is flooded on average for eight months of the year. This year, for example, because of the inordinately high level of rainfall, the water did not recede at all and we had flooding throughout the entire year. In a good year one can expect, in fact, that water will lodge there for approximately six months. The irony of the situation from a drainage viewpoint is that the general impression in Mayo, among people of all generations, but particularly those who anticipated the drainage of the Robe-Mask scheme being undertaken, is that it seemed that one of the main reasons for the Robe-Mask drainage scheme was that drainage relief would be afforded to the Hollymount river channel and that this would alleviate what was a prime focal point of flooding in the area.
There was, quite naturally enough, an air of expectancy and anticipation that a problem which had been neglected for generations — and, indeed, for centuries — would soon be resolved. It was felt that once the go-ahead was given by the Department of Finance to the Office of Public Works to undertake work on the Robe-Mask scheme that this would be one of the natural outfall areas to be catered for. After all, it sounds reasonably logical. We are talking about 500 acres of potentially prime land, land which requires very little by way of after-attention. We are talking about an area which can be linked to the Robe by fairly major work on 800 yards of a linkage, or a neck or channel. Something more than 800 yards is involved but the key area, or the main bone of contention, consists of a neck, or a connecting link, of approximately 800 yards.
However, when the Robe-Mask scheme started on 2 January 1979, it was discovered, with some dismay, that the Hollymount river was not on the schedule of works to be carried out. Nevertheless, there was continued optimism, seeing that the Robe-Mask scheme would have a durability, or a life span, of approximately seven to eight years, that within that period difficulties and obstacles would be overcome. It was, therefore, the brief of Professor Drew, Professor of Hydrology at Trinity College, Dublin, to undertake a study of water levels and water tables in order to ensure that the local group water schemes and town water supply schemes within the Hollymount catchment area would not be unduly affected. Approximately 18 months ago Professor Drew reported. His findings show quite clearly that there would be no adverse effect on water tables or water schemes. Therefore, one of the major obstacles had been removed.
A second major obstacle was that at this time an investigation was being undertaken by the Department of Finance into the merits of further drainage. I understand that the Office of Public Works in Headford, which is the office responsible for this area, forwarded, in its review, fairly positive recommendations. The file was returned to the Office of Public Works in Headford for further clarification and elaboration. Points were raised and questions were answered to the satisfaction of the people in the Department of Finance. Therefore, we should have removed what were seen to be two major obstacles standing in the way of the drainage of this channel.
From a local viewpoint, we are talking about, in general, 800 yards. It is tantalising to see 500 acres of prime, excellent, top quality land lying fallow and useless because the necessary finance cannot be made available to ensure that the work goes ahead. There is no question whatever that finance is a factor. I would respectfully suggest that while there is one year of the Robe-Mask scheme remaining to be carried out, while machinery, manpower and technical expertise are in situ, and while it falls within the natural ambit, and as it abuts the Robe-Mask scheme, now is the time to carry out the work.
I would ask that serious consideration be given to making all the necessary funds and expertise available. I know that there is a cost factor and that we are talking about a figure of £750,000 at current costs to undertake work of this nature. It is a major consideration. However, I would ask the Minister of State to look at the fact that the machinery, the people and the personnel are now in place and request that something should be done before the axe falls on the Robe-Mask scheme.
Furthermore, I would say that while £750,000 may seem exorbitant in certain contexts other contexts it is not exorbitant. When one takes into consideration that it has been determined by the engineers and the technical people on site that there is little, if any, follow-up required by way of further maintenance, which is one of the costly features of other schemes, this is another consideration that would go a long way towards supporting the case for making the money available for this scheme.
There is, as I said at the outset, the question of the viability of the local farming community. We are talking about 39 to 40 farmers and the stark reality is this: with the general criteria being applied from Europe as regards viability, and who qualifies for this, that and the other, an additional 13 acres to each and every one of those farmers throughout the 12 months of the year is a major consideration towards viability. Two stark realities face those people: one,. extermination by way of emigration from the country of 40 families; or, two, the probability and the possibility that the Department of Social Welfare will have to subsidise these people by way of farmers' dole to the tune of up to £50 per week. If one is to quantify that on an annual basis it comes to a figure of £104,000. Over a period of time — indeed, over ten years — it more than offsets the financial commitment to this scheme.
Furthermore, looking at the industry and the expeditious manner in which the people of this area use their area, their time and their land, and looking at the production levels from this area, one will see, on examining the figures — and those figures are there from ACOT — that these farmers are capable of producing 20 tonnes of beef per acre. They are capable of producing approximately two-and-a half tonnes of barley per acre from this type of land, or 1,300 gallons of milk.
In my opinion there is a good case here. It is a difficult case, but a good case. The difficulty is that if it is not done now the probability is — indeed, the likelihood is — that it will remain undrained for posterity. It is a pity that while we have the machinery, the apparatus, the personnel, the people and the commitment to the area that it is not done now. I believe that if we do not do it now we will be indicted by furture generations of Hollymount people.
