Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is welcome.

Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach for selecting this Commencement matter for debate on what I expect is our last sitting day. I also thank the Minister of State for taking this matter and for all of his work to date regarding shorter and longer term flood relief measures in Crossmolina. He travelled there and met stakeholders this week, including the Government agencies Inland Fisheries Ireland and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, Mayo County Council, representatives of the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, and members of the Crossmolina flood action committee. It was a constructive meeting and it was great that the Minister of State could take the time to hear first hand from some of the people affected by the devastation caused by two floods last November and December.

At the meeting, we were given confirmation that work was progressing on some of the shorter term measures, namely, flood defences and mitigation works, including an embankment and the building of a flood wall, and that we might see works commencing on the ground come September. The Minister of State is pressing the issue of the provision of flood gates, which are helpful when floods are at a certain level, and has directed that a short section of the river downstream be cleared, which is welcome.

Today is our last sitting day and it is my last opportunity to raise this Commencement matter. There needs to be a clearing out of the river upstream of Crossmolina towards the Nephin mountain range. People are puzzled by how the OPW, Inland Fisheries Ireland, Mayo County Council and the NPWS are not responsible. The upstream is significant, as it is where the water comes from to flood the town. The OPW is responsible on the far side of the bridge downstream, although, a responsibility that arises from a drainage scheme that was implemented pursuant to the Arterial Drainage Act 1945. For people who are desperate for something to be done, it is difficult to understand how a body can be responsible on one side of the bridge but not on the other side upstream. They know that it is not the be all and end all of solutions but they want something to be done.

Much has been said about the need for a single authority to be responsible for rivers but we do not need a new one. We have the OPW, which is capable and has the expertise to do the work. Section 12 of the 1945 Act gives the Minister the power to extend upstream the drainage scheme that currently covers downstream of Crossmolina between the town and Lough Conn. This would answer the question of who is responsible for the upstream. Something must be done.We cannot simply leave people in no man's land; this is too serious. The Minister of State has heard about the devastation of people's homes and how they were flooded, as well as the damage to businesses and how businesses are and will be reluctant to invest because of the threat of more flooding.

I look forward to the response of the Minister of State to a point I have flagged in this Commencement Debate matter. What maintenance work has been done downstream where the OPW is responsible? My understanding is that the only work done involves some trees being cut, and they were below the waterline. To me, that is a simply a cosmetic exercise because those responsible believe something needs to be done.

Has a scoping exercise been carried out by the OPW? Has an action plan been put in place? These are more important than ad hocworks and would show that the OPW is carrying out maintenance as required and pursuant to section 37 of the Arterial Drainage Act. When the OPW has a scheme it is obliged to maintain and clear the channel. The Minister of State heard about it at the meeting. My understanding is that in the past ten years, other than the tree cutting - a futile exercise, in my view - the OPW has not been cleaning or clearing. All the way downstream vegetation is encroaching on the river channel. Silt is building up and nothing is being done with any of it. Not only is it a request on the part of the community, there is a statutory responsibility on the part of the OPW to do this work. It should be a simple job to do it.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for the question and for the opportunity to come to the House to speak on the matter of Crossmolina. I was down there on Monday - I will come to that later.

The River Deal downstream from Crossmolina is part of the River Moy catchment drainage scheme carried out by the Office of Public Works between 1960 and 1971 under powers set out in the Arterial Drainage Act 1945. As with other schemes carried out under the 1945 Act, the primary purpose was to provide outfall for the drainage of agricultural lands. The scheme also contributed significantly to reducing the flood risk in the urban areas it serves. The OPW continues to have statutory responsibility for maintaining completed arterial drainage schemes, including the Moy scheme, in proper repair and effective condition. In fulfilment of this responsibility, the OPW is responsible for the maintenance of over 11,500 km of channel, 730 km of embankments, 18,500 bridges and 750 ancillary structures such as sluice gates, pumping stations and tidal barges throughout the country. While the average cycle of maintenance is generally in the range of between four and seven years, the OPW routinely inspects all channels and structures for which it has maintenance responsibility. The timing of the work on individual projects is determined having regard to the need of regular maintenance and the prioritisation of urgent jobs. Maintenance work is carried out in accordance with OPW environmental management protocols and standard operating procedures which have been developed to minimise the potential environmental impact of the operations.

The original scheme for the Moy catchment was designed to cater for all arterial channels which could be included within reasonable cost limits and which would be practical from an engineering point of view. The legal responsibilities of the OPW in respect of the maintenance of the Moy catchment are limited to the arterial drainage scheme as confirmed by the Minister for Finance under the 1945 Act and as certified to have been completed. The OPW has no authority to carry out maintenance work in channels such as those upstream of Crossmolina that are not part of the scheme.

The Senator will be aware that apart from the responsibilities of the Moy catchment drainage scheme, the OPW is currently engaging in the development of a flood relief scheme for the town of Crossmolina. I am altogether aware of the extent of the damage there. I have visited the site. Since I come from Galway, where there has been extensive flooding, I understand well the suffering in Crossmolina as a result of recent and previous flood events. Moreover, I understand that flooding continues to be an ongoing threat to people and businesses in the town.

A public information day was held in the town in June 2014 to present an emerging preferred solution which involved flood defence walls in the town and raised parapets on the bridge. Since then, consultants have been working to finalise the design scheme and the environmental impact statement with a view to being in a position to bring the outline scheme forward to formal exhibition at the earliest possible date. However, new information relating to the bridge became available to the consultants which led them to conclude that the bridge was not sufficiently structurally sound for the purposes of the scheme and would need to be replaced. This would involve significant additional cost. While not affecting the overall economic feasibility of the scheme, it requires the options to be re-evaluated, including the option of diverting the channel.

A review of the options will also take into account the most up-to-date hydrological data and other relevant information arising from the Storm Desmond flood event, which recorded the highest ever levels on the river. To assist in the re-evaluation process, a hydrological assessment is under way to assess the local karst regime. It is critical to understand the nature of the karst drainage system and its relationship with surface water drainage before the diversion option can be brought further. It is likely that the assessment will take at least until the end of 2016. The options report will be finalised on completion of these investigations. While this has meant a delay to the scheme, the most important point is that the best possible solution is found for the town flooding problem.

A further public information day was held on 8 April outlining this information to the public. If the survey confirms that the diversion option is feasible and if design work on the option progresses satisfactorily, a public exhibition of this option is likely in the second quarter of 2017. In the event that the diversion option does not prove to be feasible, then the original option of walls and bridge replacement could be progressed at an accelerated rate since considerable work on this has already been completed. The public exhibition of this proposal could happen possibly in the first quarter.

If the proposed scheme is acceptable locally, it will then move to the detailed design stage, which will be followed by the formal confirmation stage, as requested under the Arterial Drainage Acts. As an interim measure to help mitigate any further flood damage and pending the completion of the flood defence scheme, the OPW and Mayo County Council are working together on a pilot project of individual property protection. The council has carried out a survey of households and has received expressions of interest from 60 homeowners for the installation of flood gates. The OPW hopes to appoint consultants shortly to undertake surveys of individual properties to determine their suitability for floodgates. This work will be funded through the OPW minor flood mitigation works and coastal protection scheme. In addition Mayo County Council is also preparing a flood emergency plan for Crossmolina.

In addition to meeting the people there last Monday, a further meeting will take place today involving Inland Fisheries Ireland, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Mayo County Council and the Office of Public Works to determine what works can be carried out upstream and to come up with a solution. That is the best I can do, because changing Acts will not happen today. I await the outcome of that deliberation today. I assure the House that the OPW remains fully committed to delivering an effective flood defence scheme for Crossmolina and has included provisions for the costs of this scheme in its multiannual profiles for the period 2016 to 2019.

Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome that a meeting is going to take place today. Ideally, this conversation with the Minister of State would happen after the meeting but the reality is nothing new will be discussed. The problem is that the upstream section is falling between two stools and no one is taking responsibility. My suggestion is a simple one. I am suggesting an extension pursuant to section 12 of the Arterial Drainage Act 1945 to include upstream as part of the existing drainage scheme. That would make it the responsibility of the OPW. It would assist in making it the responsibility of someone.

In the second part of the matter I have raised I asked what maintenance has been carried out. An official has provided the Minister of State with an answer but he has not described any work. No work has been carried out. The Minister of State will have seen the photographs of the vegetation and overgrowth downstream. I appreciate the Minister of State could not see the silt because there was water in the channel. Nothing has been done. I guarantee the Minister of State that if he asked his officials or the people in the area, he will find out that there is no action plan or scoping document on how the OPW is going to do the maintenance. It is not simply a case of us asking the OPW to do it, the OPW is obliged to do so.

I accept the point about the cost. We can all talk pie in the sky. This is a simple matter. We are not talking about dredging. I have made inquiries on the matter. The work involves putting a machine on the bank and taking away the vegetation encroaching into the river channel as well as the silt. This work would clear the channel and allow the water to flow more freely from the town to Lough Conn. This, in turn, would hopefully assist in mitigating the risk of flooding. The first flood saw two inches of water going in. One could not but argue that this work would at least assist in allowing water to move more freely.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You have made the point, Senator.

Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was talk about the birds directive and that we cannot go in. It is very simple: we can go in.There is already a derogation under the birds directive where public health requires works to be carried out. Local authorities use this derogation all the time for hedge cutting and there is absolutely no reason work cannot be done by the OPW to get into the channel from the river downstream to the lake. I cannot understand the resistance. I believe the Minister of State is grasping the nettle. In his previous capacity, he spoke about the problems of flooding in Galway. No more than myself, I am sure he is endeavouring to the best of his ability to get this solved. However, it is over to the Minister of State really. This is being complicated. There is a legal obligation on the OPW which it has not lived up to in Crossmolina in relation to the clearance of this channel. I ask the Minister of State not to allow people who have been at this for years to give him the run-around. This is an old chestnut within the OPW and it has not been responding. Given that there is no problem with the National Parks and Wildlife Service or the IFA, why is it not being done?

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have grasped the nettle and I reassure the Senator and the House that nobody will run around me for sure. Since I got involved in the project in Crossmolina, I have instigated the downstream cleaning of the river. It is going to happen as we told representatives last Monday. In fairness, the Senator must let that happen. I am not here to go into the technical issues and the type of machinery that should be used, but that is going to happen. I have made it happen.

Upstream is something we could talk about forever. Last Monday, however, I instigated that the four people involved would look at it and see what solution they can come up with. That is the best possible progress from Monday to the meeting today with all the people involved. That is as much as I am going to do until I see what emerges from that. Perhaps this matter might not need to have been tabled if we had waited until we saw the result of that.