Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Apr 1960

Vol. 180 No. 13

Adjournment Debate. - Corrib-Mask Drainage Survey.

Because of the seriousness of this problem, and the anxiety of the people in the northwestern end of my constituency, I feel it is time to see if I can focuse the attention of the Government and get them to start to consider and examine what is at stake. For that reason, I asked the Minister for Finance today:

...whether he has under consideration the survey of that portion of the Corrib catchment area known as the Corrib-Mask section of the Galway-Mayo borders, which was cut out; and, if so, what are the prospects of having this work completed so that work may be continued on the completion of the whole scheme as originally intended.

I was rather shaken when I listened to the reply given to me by the Parliamentary Secretary which reads:

The survey of the Corrib-Mask catchment will be undertaken as soon as opportunity offers but at present I cannot say when we will be able to reach it. Having regard to our present commitments, I fear that it will not be possible to have the scheme ready to proceed on completion of the works at present in progress on the Corrib-Clare scheme.

That was about the first time I had heard the name of the Corrib-Clare used, in so far as this catchment was concerned. I was anxious to find out the reason why this area was left out originally. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary the following supplementary Question:

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me the reason, if any, for the decision to by-pass the most flooded area in the catchment?

His reply was:

I would not agree that it was decided to by-pass this area but it would appear that this section was included in the original catchment and at some stage it was decided to postpone it.

Everybody realises that postponements are dangerous and I take it the term "postponed" is just another way of saying "by-passed" because nothing can convince me—and I do not know anybody who could convince the people of this area—that it was not deliberately by-passed. The catchment area is something that was created by God Himself, and it cannot be split up as it is a particular type of unit.

The scheme was originally outlined to cover, in addition to the Clare-Corrib end, the Mask which covers part of Connemara, the north west portion of my constituency and a pretty big area in the south east Mayo end on the Shrule side. How at that time the eyes of anybody could be closed to this serious problem is more than I can understand. In 1947— everybody will recollect that was one of the wettest years in our history— areas were flooded which people never before saw flooded. The area, to give a brief outline, comprises Ballintleva, Caherlistrane, Headford, Killnamanagh down to Kilconley and then back around to Shrule.

The problem there is equal to the problem of the Shannon, and that is saying a big thing, but the difference between this area and the Shannon is a big difference. The Shannon is a problem on which thousands of pounds have been spent in bringing in foreigners to try to relieve it. It is a problem which has engaged and continues to engage the attention of the people of Ireland year after year. The Army are brought to their assistance to help to relieve people along the flooded Shannon area. The Shannon is bordered by the counties of Offaly, Roscommon, Galway and, I think, Longford and Westmeath. That is a very big area. Those counties are all deeply interested and, of course, I suppose the politicians are not very slow in raising their voices about it.

Here in this Corrib-Mask area we have, as I have said, a problem equal to that of the Shannon. I have some figures with me relating to that problem. In 1947, nine families had to leave their homes and some of them could never return because the houses fell down shortly afterwards. Twelve families lost their crops entirely—12 apart from the nine who also lost their crops. A further 35 families suffered serious losses. I think that indicates very clearly the serious problem which exists there.

We had, at that time, no funds to call upon. I was one of the people mainly responsible for organising a committee which set out, as the saying goes, with our hats in our hands, to try to collect a fund for the relief of those people. We met with fairly generous support and people contributed even better than we expected. We had to find housing accommodation for many of these families. We provided bedding for them and we had to find accommodation for their livestock. We had to bring other comforts to the people and we had to bring food to many whose potatoes were covered by the floods.

I have said that the Shannon flood situation is a problem but this is not. That is the difference between the two. This is something that could have been solved quite early by allowing the catchment area stand as it was. What I am trying to find out from the Parliamentary Secretary is: why was part of the catchment dropped? Why was the most flooded portion of the whole catchment—and the most flooded portion of any part of Ireland outside the Shannon—dropped altogether? I have no doubts as to why it happened and I know many people who think with me.

We are pressing to-day to get the Government to bring forward this scheme and to try to have it, as it should have been, included in the original scheme. My effort to-night and the efforts of the people I represent are to try to get the Government to go ahead as fast as they possibly can. That is why I am making a special appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary. We are all very much afraid that if the machinery moves out from the present Corrib-Clare scheme, it will not be an easy job for us to get it back.

The Parliamentary Secretary said today: "Having regard to our present commitments,I fear that it will not be possible to have the scheme ready to proceed on the completion of the works at present in progress on the Clare-Corrib scheme." I had been watching the development in regard to drainage. I saw the survey of the Moy started. Later, I saw the survey of the Suck started. During all that time I realised that all those things were being done at the expense of the Corrib-Mask portion of the Corrib catchment area.

I have an idea that Deputies and I suppose Senators and everybody who used their influence from other counties had come to this conclusion. I suppose they were perfectly right in forming the opinion that, because of all the propaganda that had been made out of the Corrib, because of all the big lettering on the walls and on the streets of certain towns in my area, any Deputy or other interested person passing through would be fully convinced that all the money in Ireland was being squandered in County Galway.

We nearly are.

I could visualise Deputies coming to the Minister for Finance, to the Parliamentary Secretary and to others and pushing schemes in their own constituencies and, if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary or somebody said: "There is a part of the Corrib catchment area that is left out" they would say: "Leave Galway alone; do we not know all that is being done down there?"

I was more than amazed to find out, when I attended a Shrule Drainage Board meeting quite recently, that this Drainage Board comprised of a body made up between the Galway County Council and the Mayo County Council, could spend only a few hundred pounds a year trying to do minor relief. The minor reliefs they can do are very temporary—cutting rushes, and so on. The expenditure of a few hundred pounds on drainage of that kind can achieve very little. I was amazed to find that Deputy Blowick, who was a member of the Coalition Government, stood by and slept while this was being put across him, as it was put across him.

Was what put across him?

Whose fault was it that the catchment area was not included?

I thought I was making myself clear. That is exactly what I am trying to find out. I have a fairly good idea myself but I want to hear it officially.

The Deputy is as clear as mud.

This year and this very day, if the Commissioners of Public Works and if the Parliamentary Secretary took a trip to my constituency, took a trip to Belclare, Mossford and that country, they would not have any difficulty in seeing 1,600 or 1,800 acres, after a very harsh, dry month of March, covered with water.

Is it dry in your part of the country in the month of March?

It was.

I would invite the Commissioners of Public works, the Parliamentary Secretary and anybody else to come and see the conditions I am describing. Actually, I took his predecessor down to see this area for himself and to realise what was happening. I would ask any of those people to take a trip around that area at this moment to see the position now and then to try to realise what the position was a month or two months ago when people were flooded out.

Because the propaganda there was not as strong as that from other areas, because they did not do as much shouting as the people along the Shannon, very little notice was taken of them. I want to put a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary and I should like to have an answer to them. It might help to satisfy my mind a little about this problem. The questions are:

1. Was the whole idea of the 1945 Drainage Act not planned on the basis of catchment areas of natural watersheds? I believe they were.

2. When the engineers were engaged on what is technically known as the plotting work in the area, did they include the Corrib-Mask in their work and report to headquarters?

3. If they did so, how is it explained that, in the design which was prepared in the office, one of the most flooded districts in the catchment area was excluded?

4. If the engineers who did the plotting work excluded this district, how did the engineers who prepared the scheme fail to detect this serious omission?

5. If the area referred to is part of the Corrib catchment, does this mean that the only effective natural way of relieving it from flooding is by treating it as part of the Corrib catchment?

6. Could it in fact be included, from an engineering point of view, in a neighbouring catchment for drainage purposes? I do not think so. I do not think there is a possible chance of having it——

Ten minutes must be allowed for the reply.

I want the Parliamentary Secretary to impress on the Government the importance of having this work included because if the machinery moves out it will be too bad for us. I have little hope of seeing this work carried out in the near future.

Give me just a few minutes.

The time I shall have for my reply is very short. Has the Deputy a point of explanation to make?

I shall not take long.

I have a whole series of points which I did not make at all in connection with this.

The Deputy is afraid of the ones I intend to make. That is what is the matter with him.

I am not. Deputy Donnellan had a long number of years in which to rectify this situation and did not do so. He is fully responsible for the mess.

I am calling on the Parliamentary Secretary.

May I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary, that his predecessor in office, the late Deputy Beegan, stated definitely here that it was he and he alone—I can give the quotation from the relevant Volume of the Debates—who was responsible for not carrying out the second part of the scheme? He gave good and sound reasons for it. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give me a few moments to explain that to that thick head across the way?

Order! Deputy Donnellan should allow the Parliamentary Secretary to proceed.

I have a good deal of sympathy with Deputy Killilea, but I could not give a more favourable reply than that which I gave, a reply which was in accordance with the facts as we find them. Since I became Parliamentary Secretary, I have repeated in the House a good many times and I want to reiterate to-night that we do not at any time propose to change the priority list set out for arterial drainage. If we did, we would have debates on the Adjournment every night and we would have people asking us to go ahead every time the Dáil met. I, therefore, have the greatest sympathy with Deputy Killilea because I cannot give him a more favourable reply. I do not propose at this stage to make a political football out of the arterial drainage scheme. The scheme is moving smoothly.

The Corrib catchment was known as the Corrib-Clare-Mask catchment, as stated by Deputy Killilea. The survey commenced on that catchment in 1948. So far as I can ascertain and as I am informed by my technical advisers in the Office of Public Works, is was intended to take the catchment as a whole, but in November, 1950, the decision was taken by the then Parliamentary Secretary to exclude portion of the scheme.

I am speaking of the facts as I find them, whatever colour bar may exist in Galway.

"Exclude" is not the word.

It was officially decided to proceed with portion of the scheme only.

That portion was treated as a separate catchment. The plotting took place and the design work was made out. It was put on exhibition as required by the provisions of the 1945 Act. I am surprised that when it was put on exhibition, more complaints were not then made to the powers that be against the decision not to include the entire catchment.

People were led to believe it was.

Wait a while.

The survey proceeded. The exhibition took place and the necessary statutory requirements of the 1945 Act were complied with in regard to the portion of the scheme which then became known as the Corrib-Clare scheme. The Mask portion was dropped. The work commenced in April, 1954. It is now proceeding and will take about three years to complete. When the survey staff were finished with that work, they naturally moved on to other catchments on the priority list. It would be a bit too much to expect that they should leave the Moy, the Inny and the Boyne and go back to do further survey in Galway where obviously they were content to do with portion of the scheme as was then decided upon.

They were not. It was inflicted on them.

When was the decision come to?

According to the files before me now, that decision was made in November, 1950.

When was it decided?

It was decided in November, 1950, to proceed with portion of the catchment. Those are the facts as I find them. I have no brief whatever for any particular portion of the scheme. I want to put the facts as I find them before me now. It would not be fair to withdraw the survey staff from the other catchments on the priority list and send them back to do further work in Galway. They must wait until such time as the other schemes on the priority list have been completed. The Inny is now completed; the Moy is about to be officially opened; and the Boyne catchment survey is nearing completion. Taking all these jobs on the priority list schemes into consideration, it would not be fair for me now to assure Deputy Killilea or Deputy Donnellan that the machinery can be retained after the present Corrib portion of the catchment is completed because it would not be possible to have the other portion of the Corrib-Mask, as it is now known, ready to commence at that time.

I do not think there is any point to be served by any recriminations as to what happened in the matter. I am giving the facts as I find them. The decision was taken but not by me. Perhaps, it is fortunate that the people in charge of the Office at the time were themselves all Galwaymen. In fact, if I checked correctly, it was Deputy Donnellan who was Parliamentary Secretary at the time the decision was taken.

It was he who destroyed it.

No. On 12th May, 1952, the decision was taken.

How much would this cost?

It would cost approximately a further £3 million.

God help us! We shall get our share in the east.

The case which Deputy Killilea makes with regard to the necessity for the work is, I am quite sure, in accordance with the facts as given in the report in these files which I have been looking over recently. But many people have come to me recently with regard to various other catchments. They have been able to make equally as good a case for their areas. If we started to chop and change now, we should land ourselves in queer street with regard to the programme. It is a programme of great magnitude. It is going smoothly. Let us not start changing it. If we do, we shall get nowhere. Although I should like to be able to give better information to Deputy Killilea, it would be wiser to leave the priority list as it is.

Deputy Killilea addressed a number of questions to me. What I said to a great extent covers them. It was one catchment area originally. We are all agreed upon that. It was decided to proceed with only portion of it in 1950. The survey continued on that portion. Plotting took place and the design work made out. That was treated as a separate catchment. It commenced in April, 1954. It is now proceeding and will take approximately three years more to complete. In the meantime, schemes like the Moy have gone into action. The Inny will shortly commence and the Boyne survey is nearing completion.

There are various other catchments from Donegal to Cork listed on the scheme. Various other Deputies would like to have their schemes commenced next year, if that were possible. The decision is that we must keep to the priority list. The best I can promise is now that we have increased the tempo in the carrying out of this programme, we can further increase it as time goes on and we may be able to overtake or surpass the timetable made out.

We shall reach the Suir and the Barrow.

On 12th May, 1952, Fianna Fáil decided not to go on with that.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 7th April, 1960.

Barr
Roinn