asked the Minister for Finance, if he will instruct the Office of Public Works to give top priority to silt clearance and channel maintenance work to be carried out by the Office of Public Works to alleviate the flooding problems in the Shannon basin which reached unprecedented levels in 1985; and in addition, if he will arrange for the provision of extra sluice gates to improve the flow at Meelick weir, where this particular problem is most acute.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Shannon Basin Flooding.
17.
Mr. Cowen
The Commissioners of Public Works are obliged, under the Shannon Navigation Acts, to maintain the river as a public navigable waterway. The river is so maintained and, in addition, the sluice gates at Meelick weir are operated so as to afford the maximum food relief possible. The problem of flooding between Athlone and Meelick arises, not because of inadequacy of sluice gates to Meelick but because of the capacity of the river channel to handle, at all times, the volumes of water in the channel.
The Arterial Drainage Act, 1945 prescribes that drainage works can be undertaken by the commissioners only on a comprehensive basis for entire catchments. The Act does not provide for the undertaking of piecemeal work such as silt clearance, channel enlargement or maintenance, or other works designed to improve water flows in any particular area of any catchment.
Mr. Cowen
The people in the area are quite well aware of what causes the flooding of the Shannon. It is the Shannon river and the lack of work done by the Office of Public Works to alleviate the problem over the past 30 or 40 years. In view of the disastrous situation, in agricultural terms which occurred last year in the area of which I am speaking, would the Minister seriously consider amending the Act to allow for — as mentioned in the reply — piecemeal work to be carried out at Meelick weir? Is there any possibility of amending the Act to allow for this?
That entire area will be under consideration when the review which I mentioned earlier which is with the Minister for Finance and on its way to Government has full discussion. I take the point raised by the Deputy. I think this whole area needs much rationalisation and consideration. The whole future of arterial drainage will be discussed.
Mr. Cowen
Further to the disastrous happenings of last year, is the Minister aware that despite the unprecedented flooding in the area at Ardnacrusha the ESB have confirmed that they are still not getting the maximum flow from Meelick weir? This obviously is due to the fact that silt at Meelick is causing unprecedented problems. Perhaps this review which has been spoken of earlier will get immediate priority because of possible future losses to the farming community.
It is frequently suggested by public representatives — and I appreciate Deputy Cowen's particular interest in this and, indeed, the interest of local landowners — that Meelick weir is a significant contributory factor to the flooding of the River Shannon. However, the joint OPW-ESB study of 1961 concluded that the lowering, or even the complete removal, of this weir would not have an appreciable effect on the flood problems unless accompanied by extensive excavation work from Meelick upstream through Banagher and Shannonbridge to Athlone. As the Deputy knows, Meelick weir is situated about four miles downsteam from Banagher. The weir is necessary in order to maintain the water level required for navigation during periods of low flow in accordance with the statutory obligation of the Commissioners of Public Works to maintain the River Shannon as a public navigable waterway.
Sluices in the weir are closed either partially or fully as the need arises, but they are always operated to afford the maximum flood possible. Manipulation of the sluices, however, have very little effect on flooding. Similarly, the provision of additional sluices at Meelick would have little effect on the flooding of the area. The basic problem, as I have said, is the capacity of the Channel in the 27 mile stretch between Meelick and Athlone which is deemed to be inadequate to cater for the volume of water involved. Enlargement of the channel is the only solution and this can be done only in the context of a comprehensive drainage scheme.
Have the Office of Public Works yet started the survey on the River Shannon which would be 50 per cent EC funded? If that is started, we may know where we are going on the drainage of the Shannon.
I am afraid that I do not have that answer for the Deputy, but I shall forward it to him.
Could I ask the new Minister of State in the most important Department of Finance if she could immediately initiate a co-ordinated programme to alleviate flooding in the River Shannon by liaising with the Office of Public Works, Bord na Móna and the ESB to lower the levels of water and ensure proper flow? Could she supply information to us, as Deputies for the area, on the water levels in the Shannon for at least one day per month over the last year?
It is a separate question, but I shall be delighted to forward that information to the Deputy. With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I do have the answer to the question raised in relation to EC funding of the Shannon. On 5 December 1980, the EC decided to make a grant of 40 per cent, up to a maximum of £400,000, available for the Shannon investigation from the Regional Development Fund. However, the previous Government decided, in October 1982 that a review of arterial drainage policy should be undertaken. In affirming that decision in February 1983, they directed that all arterial drainage planning should cease and that it be deferred pending the outcome of the review to which I have referred several times.
That was the Coalition Government.
I would like to differ from the Minister of State. It was the Coalition Government who made the provision that the survey of the River Shannon would not take place.
I confirmed that what the Deputy says is correct.
I must now take Questions nominated for priority. No. 20. If I did otherwise, Deputy Woods would still not be satisfied because he would not be allowed to ask a supplementary.