Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Mar 1986

Vol. 111 No. 14

Adjournment Matter. - Maigue Drainage Scheme.

Mr. Kiely

I would like to thank the Chair for allowing me to raise this important matter on the Adjournment. I would also like to welcome to the House the new Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for the Office of Public Works. I am sure she has ancestors in west Limerick and she will probably have an interest in this scheme. I met people who made representations to me who claimed that they are related to the Minister.

Since the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, was passed 34 schemes have been completed and five are in progress at present. Some are not completed and one of these is the Maigue drainage scheme. In all, over 160 acres will have been influenced by drainage when these schemes are completed. The Maigue is in County Limerick and it is about 470 miles long. We had drainage schemes previously in County Limerick. I would like to compliment the Office of Public Works on the great work they have done in the Deel arterial scheme. They ensured that, whilst the scheme benefited farmers and made land more fertile in that catchment area, the environment was not adversely affected by the drainage. They ensured that fish life was not interfered with and that fishing could be carried on on the Deel.

However, tributaries of that scheme were left undone and the Office of Public Works pulled out once they had completed their scheme. Despite several efforts and despite numerous representations from TDs and myself, these tributaries were not included in the scheme and people are annoyed that, whilst other areas were completed and benefited, they feel they are victimised. One area in that scheme, if I may elaborate, involves a long tributary going back to Kantoher and people around that area are disappointed that this tributary was not included originally and, regrettably, has not been done since. I think I am correct in saying that the Minister's grandmother came from that side of the country.

As I have said, great work has been done in the Maigue drainage scheme. It commenced in 1973, nearly 13 years ago. Progress is slow and we would prefer it to be quicker but the work is so thorough that I suppose it means slow progress. I believe there are a lot of tributaries and I am sure the Office of Public Works know all about the extra tributaries and extensions that it has been requested should be included in the scheme. I believe some were approved lately. There was a scheme servicing Michael O'Donnell and others in Martinstown; Robert Allen and Michael Landers in Galbally were approved and a Mrs Bridget Rowe in Baggetstown. There was also a scheme approved in Croom that would benefit Pat Quilty and Mark Kennedy and others. Several representations have been made to me.

The purpose of this scheme is to ensure that land will benefit from it and also to create employment which is very important. Redundancies have been effected since this scheme started and I understand there will be 50 more redundancies next Friday week. I understand that between their redundancy and PRSI all the workers will lose is £7 a week. I think this is false economy on the part of the Government because they will have to pay out all this money whereas if they were paying wages, with the deduction of tax and the employment provided it would definitely be more economical. It would also serve to ensure that the land would be drained. Originally 300 were employed and the figure was reduced to 250. Now it will be reduced to around 180 by the 50 redundancies which will be effected in the near future.

Representations were made to me about a stream which I think is not included at present but it is a stream going to the main Maigue river. It would be referred to as C1 on the map and it is from Cooleen to Cappineelane. It is a long tributary and definitely should be included to ensure that the Maigue drainage scheme will give 100 per cent benefit to the community in the catchment area. There is also another stream from Croom going into the main Maigue river, that is in C1; it is entering the Maigue river at the Rectory in Croom and serving many farms and a lot of low lying land in that area. I am very interested in my own immediate area and have made several representations and I would like to thank the officials in the Office of Public Works for their sympathetic hearing and for being patient with me when I made representations. There is a tributary C1 43, serving William Ryan and others in Incha. This is a small tributary which would not cost much and should be included. There is another tributary off the same stream C1 43 serving P.J. Vaughan and another person. The land in that area is low lying and these tributaries will have to be included in the scheme if these people are to benefit and if the scheme is to fulfil the purpose for which it is designed and that is to ensure the fertility of our land.

Representations have been made to me in relation to the Maigue river. I cannot understand why the OPW stopped at a place between Ballygrant and Millford in the Cork Limerick border at Bellisle Bridge. They went as far as that and stopped there. I understand the Maigue originated in County Cork although it was shown otherwise on the map. From what I hear from people — and there are some good historians in the area and they have a good knowledge of geography — the Maigue originated in County Cork. The main Maigue river scheme would need to be continued on at least as far as Coon Bridge because there have been cases of serious flooding there. Last November a woman had to be evacuated from her house and farm buildings because of a downpour and sudden flooding. I am sure if this extension of the Maigue was continued back there it would ensure that there would be no recurrence of that flooding in the future. Cattle and young calves were in danger of being lost in that flood.

There will always be a case to be made about finance and so on, but taking account of what it will cost the Exchequer in PRSI and redundancy money laying off people is false economy. To include these schemes would not only maintain employment but would ensure that everyone would be happy in that area and the Maigue drainage scheme would fulfil the purpose it was designed for.

There is another extension I should like to refer to. I do not know if it was approved or not, but I was informed that it was not included in the original scheme. I am referring to a tributary, serial No. C85-454-806, serving William Heffernan and others in Raheennamadra, Knocklong. I am sure other public representatives made representations to the Office of Public Works that other schemes should be included. It is very important, whatever it costs, that arterial drainage in the Maigue scheme is completed and that every stream and tributary is included to ensure that it drains all the land and not 80 per cent or 90 per cent or even 99 per cent of it.

This arterial drainage scheme is very important in the development of agricultural land. I commend the Board of Works and successive Ministers for the work they have done in this area. There should not be any slackening of that work at any time. In the Maigue drainage scheme all tributaries should be included if local people are to get full benefit from the scheme.

I was in the Deel catchment area and I saw the benefits that were derived from it. I would like to see everyone, not 99 per cent of the farmers or the people, but everyone deriving benefit from these schemes. As I have outlined already, there was disappointment that one stream was not included in the Deel scheme and as a result many farmers did not benefit. I hope that when the scheme I am interested in is concluded, which I hope will be very soon, the Office of Public Works will continue the good work by going to the east of the county and continuing the Mulcaire drainage scheme which I am sure Senator Hourigan has an interest in. I appeal to the Minister to include all these tributaries in the scheme.

Mr. Hourigan

Firstly, I should like to support strongly the points expressed by Senator Kiely on the question of the early completion of the Maigue scheme. I know, as he does, that the work that has been done is very beneficial to a large section of the countryside. Other areas need the type of attention that Senator Kiely referred to. Senator Kiely made reference to the Mulcaire river and its catchment area which adjoins the Maigue and one would like to think that under the general concept of arterial drainage that, rather than redundancies being envisaged at all, the Maigue river would be completed at the earliest date possible and, coinciding with that date of completion, there should be a commencement of the drainage of the Mulcaire river. This is a totally separate question but it does impinge very much on the matter on the Adjournment for the simple reason that it has been the understanding that once the Maigue river is completed work will then commence on the Mulcaire.

A certain amount of design work has been done with regard to the Mulcaire river, approximately 50 per cent, and it is a matter of completing the other 50 per cent design work, having it displayed and taking it from there. There is, of course, a certain list of priorities. This list which was drawn up back in the forties must now be very carefully examined to ascertain if it is the best listing.

The review body that recently examined arterial drainage should have taken account of the type of area that Senator Kiely referred to, covered by the Maigue and Mulcaire rivers. The land is extremely fertile but not very well drained. The main water courses should be kept clear of impediments that come their way. Water should be allowed flow away so that people may do whatever field drainage is required. In the Maigue catchment area a lot of field drainage has been done that otherwise could not have been remotely considered. The same applies to the Mulcaire catchment area where we are talking about something like 165,000 acres of very fertile land. On a cost benefit analysis there is no doubt in our minds, and I have been closely involved in promoting the Mulcaire drainage operation, that the benefits to the economy, apart from the benefits to the individual, will be enormous. Arterial drainage, in my opinion, on good land is a good proposition, I have no doubt about that. Perhaps in the past certain drainage operations did not necessarily give the best results and the land reverted back to its old state. It would be very wrong to base a final opinion on that.

I should like to thank Senator Kiely for agreeing to let me say a few words about this. As this is the first time I have spoken in the House while the Minister was present I want belatedly to congratulate her on her recent elevation to office and to wish her well in that office in the years ahead.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mrs. A. Doyle)

Having recently addressed this House on the subject of the drainage of the Hollymount river in County Mayo, I welcome this opportunity of speaking again on the important subject of arterial drainage. I should like to start by thanking Senators Kiely and Hourigan for their good wishes to me on my appointment to office. I should like to accept the compliments given to the OPW, particularly by Senator Kiely, on behalf of those concerned, for the work done to date on the Maigue river.

The matter before the House relates to the Maigue catchment drainage scheme, which covers an area of some 265,000 acres in counties Limerick, Cork and Tipperary. Work on this scheme commenced in 1973 and is expected to be completed this summer. The scheme, like all others carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, is a comprehensive one. It involved drainage works to approximately 455 miles of channel, including about 24 miles of main river and a further 120 miles of major tributaries. Reconstruction, underpinning, or other structural alterations were required to a total of 1,300 bridges or culverts, including about 300 public road and railway bridges or culverts. A major amount of construction work also arose in connection with the replacement of fish weirs or croys, reconstruction of eel weirs, fish pass installations and various repairs and modifications to existing mill weirs.

The scheme was designed to confer benefit on some 30,500 acres of agricultural land damaged by flooding or waterlogging and represents a very substantial investment of State funds. Secondary benefits included the elimination or relief of flooding of public roads at several points throughout the catchment and at a number of towns and villages such as Adare, Croom and Bruree, which had been vulnerable to flooding for some time. Another significant secondary benefit was the employment generated by the scheme in the area. At peak level, a total of some 250 operatives were employed on the scheme. However, the Maigue, like all drainage schemes, is a finite project and, as it winds down, employment levels are correspondingly reduced.

Before I speak directly to the motion I should like to make a passing reference to the issue raised by Senator Hourigan about the Mulcaire river. Planning of a scheme for the Mulcaire, which is included in the national arterial drainage programme, has been suspended pending the outcome of the review on arterial drainage. This review is now with the Minister for Finance and will have to go to Government before any final decisions are made.

I should point out that the Maigue scheme saw the introduction of a detailed cost-benefit analysis, designed to assess the efficacy, in economic terms, of drainage proposals. Schemes undertaken before the commencement of the Maigue in 1973, were based on other, more rudimentary, forms of evaluation of their merits. The introduction of cost-benefit analysis on the Maigue enabled the formulation of economic criteria which could readily be applied to drainage proposals. Certain areas of land within the catchment were omitted from the scheme where the amount of work, and the expenditure involved, were not commensurate with the benefit which would be conferred by drainage. The application of cost-benefit criteria enabled an assessment to be made of the merits of proposals for the drainage of additional tributaries. This process was applied at the Maigue. The House will appreciate that there is not, nor has there ever been, any point in throwing money at drainage in an effort to solve each and every case of flooding or waterlogging of land. The return must be sufficiently adequate to justify the expenditure. The fact that EC aid, from the Regional Development Fund, was available for the latter stages of the scheme does not alter this undeniable requirement. Indeed, the economic viability of the works was a prerequisite of the availability of EC funds for the project.

Additional channels have, where economically warranted, been brought into the scheme. By this process, channels serving the Maidstown and Ballynamuddagh areas near Kilmallock, Portboy near Herbertstown and Elton near Knocklong, County Limerick and many others have been incorporated in the scheme. Other channels, such as those serving the Ballygrennan, Ballinlee and Ballingirlough areas near Bruff and Bottomstown near Hospital, County Limerick, have, on the same grounds, been ruled out. A number are under consideration, including those serving areas at Incha, Ballyagran and Kilbreedy in County Limerick. I am aware of Senator Kiely's special interest in these areas. Consideration of the channels involved was deferred until now so as to permit concentration of all the available resources on the original scheme works.

I should add that proposals for additional drainage works at the Maigue must also be examined in the light of the overall review of arterial drainage, which has been carried out by the Commissioners of Public Works and submitted to the Minister for Finance, prior to its consideration by Government. An important function of the review will be to enable the assessment of the merits of investment in arterial drainage, an assessment which, while highly desirable at all times, is doubly necessary in times when services and projects are competing for scarce financial resources.

Before concluding, I would remind the House that my portfolio extends to matters affecting the environment, a subject which is, perhaps belatedly, attracting the increasing attention it so fully merits. In drawing up proposals for drainage of the Maigue, account was taken of environmental factors and I take this opportunity to assure Members that assessment of any proposals for additional drainage works in the catchment will take full account of environmental considerations.

I will, as soon as possible, communicate to Senator Kiely the outcome of the deliberations on his proposals for additional works at the Maigue.

Mr. Kiely

I should like to thank the Minister for the good news in her communication.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 March 1986.