Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his attendance and for his time recently to meet to talk about nature-based solutions, such as soft engineering projects upstream that can work with nature to alleviate the downstream flooding that we see in many towns and villages. It is apt, following the last exchange, that we look at the financial aspects of that. It is my belief that investing in changes in land use, working with agriculture and different landowners upstream and engaging in nature-based, soft engineering solutions can have many benefits, including societal, environmental, tourism and employment benefits. This can also reduce the need for concrete walls to be put downstream where one is dealing with the end of the pipe solution. It is a combination. That could also be an opportunity to reduce the conflicts the Minister of State spoke of around planning and to talk about what some people see as a conflict with the environment. It is all part of the one hydrological cycle. Nature-based solutions have to become a bigger part of our flood defences and flood mechanisms. Regardless of how much concrete can be poured, how quickly it can be poured and how high one can pour it, nature has a lot more resources than we do at an engineering level downstream. I thank the Minister of State for his time on that. I know he has an understanding of that issue, which I hope to pursue further with him. We spoke about the massive-scale Avoca catchment project in County Wicklow. We need to look at this on scale because flooding in our towns and villages emanates countrywide in all parts of the country. We need to look at it on a catchment-based level.

I have two questions, both relating to flood defences in County Wicklow. The Arklow flood defence scheme is about to go to planning stage. There are ongoing maintenance costs associated with the River Dargle flood defence scheme in Bray, which was completed a couple of years ago.

On Arklow, when one builds a flood defence, the physical objective is to place a barrier between the people and their property, and the river. It is also really important that people can maintain a connection with the river. Over generations, people in a town or village develop a close connection and affinity with their river for its recreation and amenity value, even by sitting there to look at it. Often when we pour high concrete walls, we block off that connection. As part of the design of the Arklow scheme, it has been requested that glass panelling be installed that would permit views of the river to be maintained down along the South Quay. It is important to the people who live in that part of the town, having grown up there over the generations, to be able to see the river, to walk by the river, to have visual access and to enjoy the natural amenity. I appreciate that there are many engineering constraints in designing a flood scheme and that it is complex and difficult, but I ask that some mechanism be incorporated into the Arklow design to maintain people's visual link to the river while protecting the properties. The people of Arklow appreciate that the project is going ahead.

My second question is on the cost of maintenance. I understand that the large flood defence scheme on the River Dargle in Bray cost €46 million. As part of the scheme, there is a need for ongoing maintenance. Siltation and debris traps, etc., have to be cleared. Does the cost of that fall fully to the local authority or does the OPW have an ongoing role in meeting the cost of maintaining flood defences over a certain period of time, for example as part of a design-build-maintain approach?