Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 May 1994

Vol. 442 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Ashbourne (Meath) Water Supply.

Mr. J. Bruton

I wish to raise the problems concerning the augmentation of the water supply in Ashbourne, County Meath. Ashbourne has had a bad water supply for a number of years. There have been instances of it being cut off and frequently it has been dirty. I am aware of cases where clothes were destroyed in washing machines because dirty water entered the machines. That is the standard of service for which the people of Ashbourne are paying Meath County Council a service charge of £105 a year.

Meath County Council has proposed works to remedy the position. It estimated the necessary remedial works to provide a proper water supply to Ashbourne residents and to allow it expand will cost £2.9 million, or more. In a letter of 28 March to Meath County Council, the Minister for the Environment announced he will allocate only £2.61 million towards the cost of the £2.9 million scheme. The shortfall of £300,000 is a departure from the previous practice of funding capital projects in full from the Exchequer on the basis of accepted costings. Meath County Council is of the view that the Minister's letter raises serious fundamental issues not only for Meath County Council but all local authorities.

The Minister's letter appears to indicate a major change of policy on funding of capital sanitary service schemes, which would have very serious financial implications for County Meath and all local authorities. Phase 2 of the proposed east Meath regional water supply scheme, which was to extend and augment water supply to Dunshaughlin, Rathoath and Dunboyne, has already been dropped.

The Minister, in referring to the £300,000 shortfall, said that "additional costs must be borne locally". If the £300,000 shortfall is to be met by the residents of Ashbourne it would mean a one-off payment of approximately £200 per household on top of the existing annual service charge of £105. If the shortfall is to be met by all the residents of Meath, it would mean a once-off payment of £25 or £30 by all the residents of Meath, including those living perhaps 60 miles from Ashbourne. Where does the Minister believe Meath County Council should find the money? Is he suggesting it should cut back on the already inadequate allocation for the maintenance of county roads? If he intends to find the money in Ashbourne by a £200 once-off charge on the residents there, I draw his attention to the fact that 95 per cent of the houses in Ashbourne are already mortgaged to the hilt and that these residents cannot afford such a change. The people who live in Ashbourne have been hard hit already by the Government's changes in mortgage interest relief, voluntary health insurance relief and so on. Are they now to be hit by an additional capital charge for a decent water supply, for which they are already paying an annual charge?

There is massive resistance in Ashbourne to this alarming precedent being set by the Minister for the Environment. It seems to be an attempt by him to introduce by the back door the super service charge to which the Taoiseach referred in his off-the-cuff but disarmingly honest remarks in Killarney when he indicated the true long term intentions of the partnership Government in this area. Does the precedent set by the Minister mean that all capital projects will be 10 per cent short of funding? Will a 10 per cent capital contribution have to be collected by local authorities in all counties where capital works are necessary?

As well as the need for a decent water supply in Ashbourne, there is a need for a sewage treatment works which would cost £4 million. Will that project also be 10 per cent short of funding and will the residents have to pay a further — perhaps £400 per household — for sewage augmentation works? If the precedent is accepted in this case, that would obviously be on the cards.

After the very controversial Dunboyne second level school issue, one is beginning to wonder whether Meath is being used as the testing ground for some of the Government's hare-brained policy solutions. The Meath people deeply resent being used as guinea pigs for some of the less considered ideas of the Government to extend central Government control and strangle local democracy.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I thank Deputy Bruton for raising this matter. The Minister's reply to Parliamentary Question No. 117 of 19 April from Deputy Bruton set out as clearly as is feasible at this stage the basis on which the Ashbourne water supply scheme should be financed. A maximum budget of £2.61 million is to be provided by my Department from Exchequer sources for the scheme; the final cost of this scheme cannot, however, be known until the tender process has been completed. It follows that it is premature to speculate on the detailed means by which expenditure additional to this sum, if any, would be met from local sources.

The Ashbourne water supply was also raised in a Seanad Adjournment Debate of 27 April 1994. In my contribution to that debate I outlined the background and the present position on the scheme.

My Department is aware of the problems associated with the existing water supply to Ashbourne. The town has in the past suffered water shortages as a result of being located at the extreme end of the east Meath regional water supply scheme. In response to this problem, Meath County Council developed a borehole source at Curragha, which was to serve Ashbourne and the surrounding areas. However, the yield from the Curragha borehole source, while adequate in quantity, was not of an acceptable standard for drinking water. This groundwater source has a high iron and manganese content which caused frequent discoloration of the Ashbourne water supply. Consequently my Department approved in November 1993, at a cost of £100,000, the installation of a filtration plant and chlorine residual unit; the purpose of this is to reduce iron and manganese levels in the water supply below the maximum admissible concentrations, as required by the European Union regulations, and reduce the amount of sediment from these elements which was getting into the system.

This work was completed in March 1994 and became operational recently; I understand the water quality has improved significantly. I stress that these works were carried out as an interim measure to effect an immediate improvement in the quality of the Ashbourne water supply pending consideration of the quantity difficulties-distribution network by Meath County Council and my Department.

Meath County Council has submitted a proposal to my Department to deal with the distribution difficulties. As I said, the council has been advised that the Minister is prepared to provide a maximum budget of £2.61 million for these works, on condition that any additional costs involved would be borne locally. This offer was made to Meath County Council by the Minister, Deputy Smith, following representations to him by a deputation of concerned local people. This scheme was not on my Department's national priorty list, but the Minister considered that a way forward could be found either through stringent cost control or by local contribution to reduce Exchequer outlay. The alternative would be simply to refuse any approval to the scheme or to put it on hold, as unfortunately, has to be done for many schemes around the country given the excess of demands over finance available.

If Meath County Council agrees to this arrangement the scheme can then proceed to contract document stage. It is, however, a matter for Meath County Council to determine how the scheme can be managed within the specified budget or, failing this, how any balance of cost should be met.

Deputy Bruton will appreciate there are many well justified water service proposals competing for funds around the country. Innovative approaches may help us to ease some of this pressure and to enable some schemes to progress ahead of schedule. Public representatives need to consider well the advantages of these approaches in terms of bringing services forward, rather than automatically objecting to them.

Mr. J. Bruton

That is not an answer. Where does the Minister expect the council to find the money?

The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 May 1994.