I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy John Browne.
Adjournment Debate. - Wexford Town Flooding.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I thank you for the opportunity to raise this issue. In January 1996, 11 houses were flooded in King Street in Wexford town. The ground floors of 11 houses were flooded up to one foot in depth. Newly refurbished sitting rooms were destroyed and electrical equipment had to be dumped. The Irish Red Cross, following strong representations, provided some compensation which resulted in more refurbishment and new carpets and new electrical equipment was bought and installed.
I drove through King Street on Tuesday, 19 November 1996 and the sight of sandbags at the doors and carpets, which had been laid in March and April, hanging over the walls opposite the terrace would bring tears to a stone. To see children, mothers and grandparents out on the street looking on in disbelief was heartrending, to say the least. This is the town of the Minister for the Environment. Will he condemn these decent families to more years of worry, expense and fear, remembering that already there has been a fatality in this street resulting from drowning? I accept it is not the Minister's fault but it is incumbent on him to provide a short-term and long-term solution in order that these decent people can live life in reasonable comfort.
The main drainage scheme and flash floods have been blamed but the bottom line is that this is a major problem for 13 families who fear another flood before the year is out. Adequate drainage is urgently required. Will the completion of the main drainage scheme ensure there will be no further flooding problems in King Street? It is expected that the scheme will be complete in 1998. Will compensation be paid to the 13 families?
I understand the problem is caused by a combination of four occurrences simultaneously: low atmospheric pressure; heavy rainfall; south east gales at 70 miles per hour or more and high tide, aggravated by leaves blocking the shores. On this occasion I understand the tide was not so high. What has been suggested to me by the Department of the Environment and by Wexford Corporation is not necessarily true.
The Department has had long enough to put a plan in place. The houses are over 100 years old and have always been flooded, but to a much greater degree in recent years. This severe flooding happened in January 1996 and again last Monday night. What has been done in the meantime? Shame on the Department of the Environment and on the Minister if we do not have a plan in place to protect these families. It is a disgrace to treat the people of King Street in this way.
Is it possible to provide drainage and sluice gates and a pumping station? Will compensation be paid? Some of the tenants have purchased these homes with loans from Wexford Corporation. I do not want any PR exercise. Give these people a sense of hope and do not condemn them any further. This problem will not go away on its own.
(Wexford): I thank Deputy Byrne for sharing his time with me. Earlier this week I called on the Minister for the Environment to initiate an inquiry into this most recent flooding of houses in King Street, Wexford. Millions of pounds have been spent on a main drainage scheme in Wexford town. Yet we discover that flooding has recurred in King Street. The Minister told us here last January that, because of the main drainage scheme under way, there would no longer be flooding in King Street. As Deputy Hugh Byrne said, some 13 houses were flooded this week, three more than previously, at a period when there were no tide problems, thus leading one to the conclusion that the flooding was caused in the street.
Residents inform me that new gulleys were installed in the new main drainage scheme but the water flowing down the street was of such volume they were unable to take it.
Residents also informed me that on 2 August 1995 the town engineer and Wexford Corporation promised them that extra gulleys would be installed. Over a year has elapsed, yet no extra gulleys have been installed by Wexford Corporation or the operators of the main drainage scheme.
Obviously, some major engineering fault has led to this latest flooding. The Minister for the Environment, not merely because he represents the Wexford constituency but any Minister for the Environment, and Wexford Corporation under whose direction the main drainage scheme is being carried out, should investigate what has gone wrong. It has caused severe hardship to families, old age pensioners, the unemployed and working families living on that street. They have become so annoyed at the present position they are seeking compensation for the damage to their homes from this recent flooding and transference from those houses in King Street to Upper King Street where a new housing scheme is about to commence under the direction of Wexford Corporation.
Someone must be held responsible for this latest flooding, not caused by high tides or the sea but from inadequate gulleys and bad workmanship on this main drainage scheme. Although almost a year has expired since Deputy Hugh Byrne and I last raised the matter but residents of King Street have experienced even worse flooding and more homes have been flooded in the construction of a main drainage scheme. The Minister has a duty to assure us that she will fully investigate the reasons for this most recent flooding.
The recent serious flooding in Wexford occurred as a result of very heavy rainfall in the area. I understand that almost 32 millimetres of rainfall was recorded in a six hour period which, on that scale, amounts to ten times the daily average for November. This, in combination with other climatic conditions, which included south east gales averaging 40 miles per hour, with gusts of 70 miles per hour, with high tides, gave rise to a substantial amount of surface water which could not discharge sufficiently quickly into the harbour from King Street. This resulted in a number of houses being flooded to a depth of approximately 350 millimetres.
I should like to offer my sympathy to those affected. I understand that Wexford Corporation is assisting householders in the area in the clean-up operation, which assistance included the provision of heaters and dehumidifiers, sand bags and manpower to help them.
As Deputies will be aware, in the first instance responsibility for dealing with flooding incidents such as occurred in Wexford lies with the local authority concerned. My Department has no direct responsibility for combating flooding but does approve and fund public sewerage schemes proposed by local authorities. In appropriate cases, these schemes may include provision for dealing with factors such as storm overflows and run-offs of excessive surface water. In the case of Wexford, the main drainage scheme at present under construction will address both the general waste water problem and the drainage requirements of streets such as King Street, where run-off of rain water from streets and houses appears to have contributed to the flooding.
The Wexford main drainage scheme involves the laying of some 27 kilometres of foul, storm and combined sewers and the laying of an interceptor sewer. Work is under way on these elements of the project while planning on other elements, including the treatment works, is being advanced. The cost of the overall project is estimated to be of the order of £40 million. The scheme is designed to provide increased accommodation for storm waterflows and, consequently, to alleviate the risks of flooding from this source at King Street and other areas of the town.
There are no special funds available to my Department to provide assistance to households whose homes may be affected by flooding. However, the health board may provide assistance under the supplementary welfare allowances scheme in necessitous cases.
I again sympathise with those affected by the recent flooding. All public representatives are acutely aware of the hardship and distrust associated with the flooding of homes. In the case of Wexford town the good news is that a major investment project is already under way which, when completed, should ensure that this type of occurrence is a thing of the past.
That is not acceptable; that is what is called a public relations exercise. The Minister should be ashamed of herself.