asked the Minister for the Environment if he is concerned at the recent readings for pollution in Lough Sheelin; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Lough Sheelin Pollution.
18.
I am advised that the results of recent monitoring indicate that the overall condition of the lake water continues to be satisfactory.
Cavan County Council. Who have the statutory responsibility for water pollution in the area, are satisfied that the pig producers generally have been acting responsibly. The local authority have initated legal proceedings against one producer who is alleged to have breached the terms of the notice aimed at preventing pollution issued by the council and I understand that the case will be heard by the District Court shortly.
Will the Minister agree that there is great concern locally, since the withdrawal of the subsidy to transport sludge from the area, that there may be a recurrence of the serious pollution which has bedevilled the lake for so many years?
I would not agree because farmers in the area have been acting very responsibly and according to the terms agreed by all parties. The water quality of the lake is at much the same level as has been the case for the last few years and steps taken by Cavan County Council last October which prohibited spreading between 15 November 1985 and 15 February 1986, and restricted spreading in the months immediately before and after that period, as I am sure the Deputy is aware, have minimised the pollution load entering the lake by way of run off from the land. However, the consistently poor weather we have had since the beginning of the year has hindered the expected major improvement in the water quality. The windy cold weather in the earlier months of the years caused the water to stir up thus affecting the clarity. This had the knock-on effect of retarding the growth of the submerged vegetation needed for fish to feed.
The wet weather of the more recent months has also led to an increased runoff from land, that is an increase in nutrient input causing greater algae growth. The latest report available on the condition of the lake shows that there has been a slight improvement in water clarity and that growth in the submerged vegetation has commenced again. There is no need for any greater concern than heretofore.
Will the Minister agree that the improvement in conditions was due to the transporting of the slurry out of the area? Will the Minister accept that there is a fear locally that the continued use of the slurry on land which is on a catchment down to the lake will result in more problems? Those who are concerned about that have suggested that the transport subsidy system should be reintroduced.
I do not agree that we should revert to the transport subsidy scheme. The continuation of the subsidy scheme in 1984 was conditional on the pig producers giving an undertaking that they would assume full responsibility for the financing and administration of the slurry transport arrangements from 1 April 1985. This undertaking was given and the Sheelin Farmers Association also agreed to participate in the new management committee who oversee the implementation of measures necessary for the preservation and protection of the lake. Basically, there is no reason producers in the Sheelin catchment should be treated differently from others engaged in agriculture or, indeed, industry in the rest of the country. Effectively, that is what the transport subsidy was doing. There is a legal obligation on all producers to dispose of waste in a manner which does not lead to water pollution and I am satisfied that the pig producers generally in the Sheelin area have recently been fulfilling this obligation.
Will the Minister continue to monitor the problem?
Regularly.