JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT debate -
Tuesday, 8 Nov 2011

Supply, Storage and Disposal of Water: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Gerry Siney of the River Shannon Protection Alliance. He is joined by the following: Mr. Joc Sanders, who is the secretary and treasurer of the alliance; Mr. Damien Delaney, who is a director and former secretary of the alliance, Mr. Patsy Peril, who is a director of the alliance; and Mr. Martin McEnroe, who is the former chairman of the alliance. We are also joined by Mr. Jack O'Sullivan, who is the director of Environmental Management Services Limited. I thank them for their attendance here this afternoon.

I wish to draw their attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter but continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

A delegation from the joint committee recently visited the site of the proposed water extraction point at Terryglass, County Tipperary. We hosted a large meeting with local groups at the Derg Inn. We listened to the views, suggestions and concerns that were expressed with regard to the proposed project. The general consensus at the meeting was that those promoting this project have not given sufficient information to local community organisations. It was made clear that clarification is needed on many points. If this project is to be considered seriously, it is necessary for a full explanation to be given on issues such as the amount of water to be extracted, the times of the year at which it will be extracted and the environmental safety measures that will be put in place. It was suggested at the meeting that the alternatives to this project, including leakage reduction, rainwater harvesting and water conservation, have not been exhausted. The delegation from the joint committee was informed that there is an enormous supply of ground water under counties Fingal, Kildare and Meath. Many concerns were expressed about the threats to local employment and tourism, the dangers for the local environment and ecosystem and the potential for increased silting of Limerick Harbour.

We are glad to continue the discussion in plenary session with representatives of the River Shannon Protection Alliance and Mr. Jack O'Sullivan, who is the director of Environmental Management Services Limited. We are very interested in hearing what they have to say and in trying to work towards a solution that will benefit everyone involved - those living around the Shannon and Lough Derg and those in Leinster who need a steady and constant supply of useable water. I invite Mr. Siney to address the joint committee.

Mr. Gerry Siney

On behalf of the River Shannon Protection Alliance, I welcome the opportunity to appear before the joint committee to discuss the Shannon water extraction proposals that have been made by Dublin City Council with contingent involvement by Bord na Móna. We thank the committee for the invitation to do so. We highly commend the wish of members to inform themselves on the arguments for and against the proposal. We are pleased that they are prepared to consider all shades of opinion regarding this critical and highly complex issue. We admire their desire to listen to its promoters and opponents, as well as to the people in general. I will set out our stall. The River Shannon Protection Alliance consists of three branches - one in Athlone, one in Dromineer and one in Limerick. We cover a fair stretch of the full length of the River Shannon. We expect to establish additional branches in the coming months. The alliance is a registered company limited by guarantee.

When members of the joint committee visited Terryglass and Lough Derg on 26 October, they came on a fact-finding mission. In the spirit of that objective, they expressed a wish to hear from stakeholders and interested parties regarding their collective opinions, concerns and reservations. They heard from 31 speakers representing businesses, educational institutions, tourism groups, boating and angling interests, conservation groups, public representatives and scientists, etc. Members will agree that there is deep concern in the region about the prospect of large-scale water extraction from Lough Derg and the Shannon as a whole. These concerns were expressed clearly and calmly, and without being argumentative, in order to respond properly to the committee's wish to determine the level of opinion and concern of those who would be most affected by this proposal. There was a clear avoidance of arguing the merits or demerits of the proposed scheme on that occasion. To do so would have taken from what was supposed to be an exchange of information. We think that objective was largely achieved.

We hope there can be an emphasis on the merits and demerits of the scheme at today's meeting. We hope that by dealing with members' questions, we can show with clarity why the proposal of Dublin City Council and Bord na Móna for the River Shannon should not be approved. It is a bad scheme. It is ill-considered and badly defined. It has not been properly thought out. It is not necessary at all. It is risky in the extreme.

The members have a copy of our basic position paper. Our lead speaker, Mr. Sanders, will expand on its content as part of a our opening statement. We will be happy to take questions after that. The members of the delegation will try to answer them to the satisfaction of the committee. The invitation that was extended to us stated specifically that members wish to discuss the Bord na Móna aspect of the water extraction proposal. While we will make every effort to answer the committee's queries in that regard, we have to point out that no formal proposal has been made by Bord na Móna to date. We have very little to go on regarding its intentions and its possible involvement in the scheme. It was and remains a Dublin City Council proposal in the first instance. It is designed to address the future water needs of the greater Dublin area. No other proposal is in existence at present. We must conclude that if Dublin City Council is not successful in seeking approval, there can be no Bord na Móna involvement. However, we will do our best to address the Bord na Móna question.

As the Chairman has introduced the members of the delegation, there is no need for me to elaborate on their roles. Mr. Sanders, who is the secretary and treasurer of the alliance, is attached to the Dromineer branch. Mr. Delaney is attached to the Athlone branch, as is Mr. McEnroe. Mr. Peril and I are attached to the Limerick branch. I ask my colleague, Mr. Sanders, to continue our presentation.

Chairman

It was indicated to me that Mr. O'Sullivan would be the next person to speak.

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

I thank the Chairman. I am happy to speak now. However, if the delegation from the River Shannon Protection Alliance wishes to continue its presentation, it might be better to keep it together.

Chairman

We can accommodate that.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

It would be helpful for those of us who have to leave at 3.15 p.m. to hear from Mr. O'Sullivan at this point. I am familiar with what the River Shannon Protection Alliance is presenting to us. It will be on the record. Perhaps those of us who have to leave at 3.15 p.m. could be accommodated. Is that possible?

Chairman

I will come back to the alliance. I call Mr. O'Sullivan.

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

I thank the Chairman. I accept Deputy Dooley's good idea. The Chairman suggested that I should be brought in because he saw me as an independent environmental scientist, which I am. I do a great deal of work with the River Shannon Protection Alliance. I worked with the Shannon Protection Alliance before that. Therefore, I am aware of many of the alliance's views and agree with many of them. My viewpoint is that water should be seen in an ecological context.

I would like to make a few very brief points to the joint committee in three sections. First, I will speak about the importance of water. Second, I will comment on the whole issue of a water supply management policy for Dublin. Third, I will suggest a different approach to the way we look at water.

It is very good that the joint committee is tackling this issue because water is becoming a serious problem in Europe and elsewhere. It is a problem of scarcity and of nations competing for resources. It is connected to climate change, food production and interestingly, flooding. Given the disruptive effects of anthropogenic emissions in our climate, we are getting increased water in places where we do not need it while other countries are suffering from water shortages.

Ireland has a big problem. According to the EPA, approximately 270 public water supplies are insufficient or inadequate in some way and need remedial action. They supply water to 1.16 million people. If the committee wishes, we can discuss whether this is the result of previous problems with infrastructure, a lack of funding or a lack of management but there is a problem.

Quite a long time ago when I was growing up, I thought Ireland was a country famous for its clean water. I then began to read more recent environmental reports about Europe and it seems Ireland is now one of the countries which is marked by problematic issues in regard to water - the eutrophication of lakes, shortage of water supplies, ill-health effects and so on.

It seems there is a very strong need, which this committee could address, to look at water policy. When we come to look at water policy, what does it involve? There are many issues. We need potable water supplies to households, and not only good drinking water but healthy drinking water as well. It is very important for everyone. We need water for industry, which is extremely important, water for agriculture and irrigation and water for recreation and aesthetic uses. We need water quality in streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, the sea, coastal waters and so on.

Arising out of that comes conservation of aquatic species and aquatic habitats, including threatened and vulnerable species, and dealing with invasive species. We have a number of invasive species in our midland lakes which have caused major changes in the ecology. How do we deal with those? How do we get rid of them, if we need to do so? How do we adapt to them? Then there is the importance of our waterways for navigation.

We can harvest rainwater for domestic and commercial uses but we do not do so. That is another aspect of water policy. There is the effect of urbanisation on the flow of water and water quality. Every time we pave a road or create a housing estate, we change the water flow. Have we thought about the consequences of this? Are there ways in which we could keep groundwater quality good while at the same time drain our streets and townscapes effectively? The use of hydropower for electricity generation, for which Ireland became famous in the 1930s with the Shannon hydroelectric scheme, is also a very important issue today.

Understanding the water cycle is key to any policy on water. Understanding how water is transported and purified by the natural environment is called ecosystem services, that is, how the natural environment provides that treatment and fresh water which, if we had to do it ourselves, would be very costly and difficult. We then have to prevent water being contaminated by persistent organic pollutants, in particular those bioaccumulative pollutants which, if they get into the environment, can become disastrous. We must then deal with our wastewater. How is it treated, recycled and disposed of? That is another aspect of water policy.

What do we do with sludge? How do we address non-point sources of pollution? In Ireland, that is a major issue with agricultural run-off. Very often that run-off is highly nutrient enriched as a result of the spreading of fertilisers and slurry. That is a necessary thing to do but how do we ensure not too much fertiliser is used and that it is all taken up by living plants and does not find its way into water courses? We need long-term sustainable and integrated management of all these water resources and issues.

Who will pay for this management and for the water? How can water be seen as a service that is fairly and equitably distributed? Water should not become a commodity but should be seen as a basic human right. At the same time, the State must manage that right in a way that is good for all the citizens.

I might skip over my analysis of the water supply for Dublin because my colleagues-----

Chairman

I assumed Mr. O'Sullivan would address that matter specifically. We can come back to it when we ask questions but I assumed it was part of the presentation.

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

I can do that. I have a small number of points to make about it which will probably duplicate some of those made by my colleagues in the River Shannon Protection Alliance.

The first point I would make about the proposal is that it is very heavily front-loaded from an economic perspective. There is a very high front-end cost with no guarantee that the scheme will work, apart from what the engineers tell us. While I have great respect for engineers, they occasionally get things wrong.

I refer to a different kind of system where one can gradually build up the way in which one uses or supplies the water. For example, if we had a large number of wells tapping into groundwater in Meath, in north Dublin or in Kildare and two or three of those wells go wrong, it is not a big problem if there are several hundred such wells. However, if one has a single major source, which becomes the principal source, and if anything happens to that, then it is a very difficult issue.

When I first heard about this scheme, my mind was drawn immediately back to the proposal for a nuclear power station for Ireland which might have been a good thing. However, I do not believe it was because again it was putting all one's eggs into one big basket. If we have many small power stations and something happens to one of them, it is not a big problem. If one has one single major source and something happens to shut it down - a technological reason, perhaps human error - then one has a very big problem.

In that context I see this as a high risk project in which Dublin would become very dependent. That dependency creates another set of issues in that if anything happened to the River Shannon, which was not foreseen even by the best environmental scientists, who will order that the stopcocks be turned a little bit to slow down the abstraction? It would be very difficult when 1.5 million people in Dublin have become dependent on it. That is a major issue.

Is this the only way to satisfy Dublin's needs? I accept they are genuine needs but can they be satisfied by very good conservation measures, that is, leakage control - unfortunately, leakage in Dublin city is way above that in many European cities - and control of leaks on customer side premises. For example, the current proposal is based on Dublin continuing to lose approximately 53 million litres of water per day, which is significant. The current proposal also states there is approximately a 20% loss in the distribution network, which is approximately 160 million litres per day. All of these cannot be reduced to zero but if they could be reduced significantly, we would get to a point where Dublin was not in such a crisis. Customer side losses and distribution network losses could be reduced.

In terms of somehow managing demand, if, as economists tell us, people have a free good where they just turn on the tap and do not pay no matter how much water they use, people will use it to excess. If there is metering, it must be done in a way that does not impact adversely on poorer people. As I said earlier, one has a right to water. However, if we have a metering system and people are given a very strong incentive to conserve, then we will find a demand reduction and that, in turn, will reduce the need for water and the crisis.

Another big omission from this project is the question of wastewater. For every litre of water going into a household, factory or premises, a litre of wastewater comes out which must be treated. If the public authorities add several hundred million litres of water per day to Dublin, that is an extra several hundred million litres per day to be treated as wastewater. I saw no figures on that. Does it mean the wastewater treatment works at Ringsend would have to increase capacity and what would be the cost of that? That has not been factored in. I am dissatisfied with the manner in which issues such as the effects on living ecosystems in the Shannon and on the Shannon callows are dealt with. I read the submission by the Lough Derg Science Group and Bird Watch Ireland who are experts in their field. Both groups of scientists suggest this could have a damaging effect on ecosystems and birds.

Finally, the plan does not deal with the need to conserve water. It simply states that demand for water will, based on Celtic tiger population figures before the economic recession, increase and that we must, therefore, based on need supply it. I found that a simplistic approach. That is all I have to say for now.

Chairman

Mr. O'Sullivan will have further opportunities to respond during the questions and answers session.

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

Thank you.

Mr. Joc Sanders

The River Shannon Protection Alliance is a voluntary citizens' group organised as a company limited by guarantee with branches in Athlone, Dromineer and Limerick. We intend to set up more branches up and down the Shannon and elsewhere and have supporters in Dublin and overseas. We are a continuation of the Shannon Protection Alliance formed in Athlone in 2007. Our aims are broader than opposition to water extraction. They are, as expressed in the articles of association of the River Shannon Protection Alliance, to protect the River Shannon, its lakes and tributaries from any activity such as large-scale water extraction which threatens its precious heritage. A second aim is to safeguard the integrity of the land and human communities on its shores in order that they may continue to flourish in future. We will no doubt be involved in opposition to other things we believe to be damaging to our precious Shannon resource, which is a national resource for all of us.

The joint committee has access to our statement. I welcome the opportunity to outline our position to the joint committee. We oppose the plan and strategic environmental assessment put forward by Dublin City Council not because we selfishly seek to deny water to our fellow citizens in Dublin but because we believe this is a bad scheme not alone for the Shannon but for Dublin water consumers. We believe that in important ways this scheme for extraction from the Shannon is unsustainable. The first plank of our argument is that we do not believe assurances given by proponents of the scheme that the water extraction proposed in the plan will not damage the Shannon system. We believe this poses dangers in a number of different areas. We are concerned about what will happen during low flow of the Shannon. The Shannon is a wild river. Its flow varies between 800 cu. m. per second in floods to between ten and 15 cu. m. per second at low flow, which is typically in summer drought conditions.

The plan is to pump at the maximum rate, which is some 4.7 cu. m. per second for ten months of the year and at a reduced rate for two months of the year. It is not proposed to only pump from the Shannon at periods of high flow. We are concerned about the periods of low flow. Hydrological modelling shows that the low flow conditions extend not over two months but typically four months and often more than that. Examples of this are contained in appendix B, page 36 of the plan. However, it is only proposed to reduce pumping for two months. We are concerned that at low flow there will be a significantly reduced rate of flow through Lough Derg. An example of this is also contained in the hydrological modelling appendix to the plan. However, the detailed figures are not provided. The plan is disappointing in that it does not contain all the detailed figures we would wish to see. It does, however, include graphs. The graphs show clearly a reduction of between one quarter and one third in the flow of the Shannon during these periods of low flow. This means between one quarter and one third of the flow of the Shannon will no longer go down through Lough Derg but will be pumped to Dublin.

We believe this poses severe risks to water quality and that these risks have not been scientifically evaluated. We agree with the Lough Derg Science Group. I am sure Members have seen its stated position on this plan. The Lough Derg Science Group comprises scientists with an international reputation. They probably have the best information and understanding of the Lough Derg part of the science system and should not be idly dismissed. They say there has been insufficient scientific investigation to allow reliable predictions of the ecological consequences of reduced summertime flow in the Shannon system, particularly in Lough Derg. Their concern, having spoken to them privately, is that there might be a total collapse of the ecosystem in Lough Derg. It is a delicate ecosystem which has been already stressed in many ways. Low flow is the period of highest stress and there could be a total collapse of the ecosystem with deoxygenation and all sorts of knock-on problems. All of this is happening in a lake designated as an special area of conservation, SAC. The area around the proposed extraction site is protected under the birds directive. There could for instance be grave risks to Ireland's only endemic species of fish, the pollan, within the lake.

We believe this plan poses serious risks about which we do not know. It would be foolish in the extreme to proceed with this until those risks have been properly assessed. We also believe that when Dublin demands water in drought conditions, which is when it needs water, there will be pressure to open sluices higher up the Shannon system in order to maintain the statutory levels in the lower Shannon and to allow some flows through it. This would seriously damage the water levels and possibly the flows in the middle and upper Shannon, which could potentially threaten navigational water quality. There are also concerns downstream of Lough Derg, which I will not go into those at this point. All of this could damage and prejudice the natural heritage, recreation value and tourism industry on the Shannon system. We strongly believe that, irrespective of whether this scheme goes ahead, the Shannon needs to be protected by proper integrated management. We believe this integrated management to be extremely important irrespective of whether this water scheme goes ahead.

The second plank of our argument is that we do not believe the scheme is the best way to meet the Dublin region's needs for water. Many of the members here are from the Dublin region and they obviously have very immediate concerns to ensure that their area is not damaged by having too little water.

The scheme is said to be needed by Dublin City Council because demand is expected to increase by 50% in the next 30 years to 2040. We believe that this is unrealistic. Indeed, it is 50% if one looks at the figures the proponents of the scheme provide within their own documentation. We believe it is based on Celtic tiger-era growth forecasts. What is actually happening at the moment is that demand is not growing as has been forecast. Demand is flat and possibly reducing at present although no doubt, this is at least in part due to the current economic problems. However, the demand forecast that have been put forward are simply not proving to be accurate.

We also believe that planned and very sensible introduction of water metering and charging will reduce demand. This has happened in many other places. We also believe that there is scope for sensible action, in particular, through the planning regulations, to promote domestic rain water harvesting and the re-use of greywater which would further reduce the demand for treated water and may be very attractive to people in the context where water charges are going to be increased or are going to be introduced for the first time.

The next point I wish to make is that around 30% of the water that is currently treated - at very great expense - is wasted by leaks in the distribution network or in customer premises. We believe this is largely due to past under-investment in the sort of programme required to fix leaks. We contend that a concerted programme to reduce leaks to European best practice levels, could save 100 million litres per day. European good practice levels for water leakage in the system is under 10%. I have some figures available. In Denmark, it is at about 10%; in Germany, it is at about 7%; in the Netherlands it is about 6%. One can go around the major city regions of the world and see that they are achieving something very substantially better than we are. I refer the committee to page E4 of the demand review which is contained within the plan.

I have also done some digging to discover what is the situation outside Europe. In Japan, for instance, in the conurbation of Tokyo, the Japanese have reduced the leakage from about 30% down to 3%. The policy they operate is to very thoroughly monitor the distribution system so that they understand where the water is moving. When there is a change in the movement of water within the system, they are alerted to the possibility of there being a leak and in a proper Japanese approach, they try to fix leaks as they happen on the day they happen. This is how they achieve a figure of 3% leakage.

It would be a lot more sensible, rather than pouring expensive treated water into the ground, to put in a concerted effort to improve the network which, would, incidentally, produce a good many jobs in the short term which are badly needed in our economy.

If the demand, as we believe, turns out to be less than has been put forward, the cost per unit, per cubic metre, of the water supplied, will be relatively high. The cost forecast within the proposed plan is approximately 40 cent per cubic metre. This is not cheap water. One divides the quantity of water provided over a period by the costs incurred within the period in order to find out the cost per unit delivered of water. If, as we believe is entirely possible, the demand up to 2040 does not grow to anything up to half what has been put forward, the price per cubic metre will be at least 80 cent and could be over €1 per cubic metre. It cannot in any sense be of value to Dublin consumers or to our State, our nation, for water to be unduly expensive in the Dublin region. It certainly would not provide the Dublin region with a competitive advantage over other regions in the world to have excess amounts of unnecessarily expensive water.

The scheme is being presented as the only way-----

Chairman

There is a practice that I ask witnesses to be concise in their presentations because members wish to engage with Mr. Sanders and there are others who wish to make presentations. I invite Mr. Sanders to conclude by reiterating his main points and he may provide further information afterwards.

Mr. Joc Sanders

I will conclude. I will move away from the problems for Dublin; they are expressed in our statement. I will put to the committee the case for public funding of independent reviews. We believe this is necessary. The reviews are essential if we are to achieve a sustainable solution to Dublin's water supply needs which also protects the Shannon. These reviews must be independent because those involved with the project, in our view, are too close to it to be able to see and identify better alternatives. For heaven's sake, they have been working on it for years. Their minds are fixed. We also believe that the consultants employed by them will inevitably produce the results that those who commissioned their reports would like to see. We would prefer an independent team carry out these reviews, a sort of skunk works, so to speak, involving appropriate engineering and technical expertise which can be expected to critically review the situation and propose real improvements, suggestions that will be both cheaper and better. We believe that these results should be public and they should be injected into the Bord Pleanála process, alongside the environmental impact statement which will be prepared by the consultants working for Dublin City Council, a tender for which is about to be issued.

Our group, the River Shannon Protection Alliance, would like to commission and carry out these reviews ourselves but the expert advice that will be needed to do this will be expensive, costing several many tens of thousands of euro. We think this is small in relation to the money that will need to be spent on the environmental impact statement by Dublin City Council; it is certainly small in relation to project costs. As a small voluntary citizens group, we have no prospect of raising that sort of money so the reviews will only be carried out with public funding. I put it to the committee that it is essential that these reviews be carried out and it is essential that they be publicly funded to do so. We ask the committee in its recommendations to Government to make the recommendation that it would be worthwhile carrying out these reviews in the interests of ensuring that we get to the best solution but also in the interests of fairness. It is only through this sort of public funding that we can participate effectively-----

Chairman

Can I ask a question for the purposes of clarification?

Mr. Joc Sanders

Yes.

Chairman

Somebody will have to read through the notes, etc., when we are writing our report. Is the River Shannon Protection Alliance proposing that it should be commissioned to draw up its own submission with regard to this report? In other words, does it want the taxpayer to fund its examination of project on which it has already made a value judgment?

Mr. Joc Sanders

We are suggesting that public funds should be used to carry out these critical reviews.

Chairman

Does the alliance think it should be given tax funds to carry out this examination? Is that what it is suggesting?

Mr. Joc Sanders

Yes, in effect.

Chairman

The alliance has already made a value judgment on the matter.

Mr. Joc Sanders

It does not necessarily have to be taxpayers' money.

Chairman

It will be taxpayers' money.

Mr. Joc Sanders

It could be paid for by the proponents of the scheme.

Chairman

The alliance has indicated this afternoon that it has made a value judgment on the overall project. It wants taxpayers to give it money to draw up a report. It appears that the alliance might already have come to a conclusion.

Mr. Joc Sanders

I put it to the committee-----

Chairman

I am putting that to Mr. Sanders.

Mr. Joc Sanders

We have formed a view that it is necessary to carry out these reviews.

Chairman

I am not disputing that. I want clarification on it. The alliance has proposed this afternoon that the taxpayer should fund it to carry out a review of this proposal, even though the alliance has already made a value judgment on the proposal.

Mr. Joc Sanders

We certainly have a preliminary position, which we are outlining today. We believe it is essential that the two reviews we have mentioned be carried out.

Chairman

I need to clarify this with Mr. Sanders. Is he proposing that the River Shannon Protection Alliance be given taxpayers' funding to carry out an examination or review of this proposal? Is that what he is asking?

Mr. Joc Sanders

I am saying these reviews need to be carried out. The River Shannon Protection Alliance is offering to be responsible for managing that process and feeding the stuff through publicly into the Bord Pleanála process.

Chairman

Is it proposed that the alliance would be the lead agency in carrying out a structured review that would be funded by the taxpayer as a partial evaluation of this programme? Is that what the alliance is proposing this afternoon?

Mr. Joc Sanders

Yes, in effect.

Chairman

Fair enough.

Mr. Joc Sanders

We also-----

Chairman

I just wanted to clarify this for the record.

Mr. Joc Sanders

I hope I have clarified that for the joint committee. The very last point I wish to make is that we want to be involved in the review because that is the only way we can participate effectively in the process of making a decision on this environmental matter. Our right to do so is established under the UNECE Aarhus Convention, to which the European Union is a signatory. The proponents of the scheme essentially have unlimited funds available to them. Those of us who believe the scheme is misguided do not have any funds beyond what we can raise through sponsored swims and race nights, etc. In the interests of democracy and fairness, some public funding needs to be made available.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank the delegation for coming in and making its case. It has been very informative. I would like to ask some questions about this matter. Traditionally, when people think about the River Shannon, which flows through my constituency, they do not associate it with a shortage of water. I was one of those who proposed we should hear the views of the alliance. Obviously, there are concerns. The alliance has strongly held views on the possible environmental damage, including damage to the River Shannon ecosystem, that could be caused by the Dublin water project. We need to see scientific evidence to back that up. There is merit in the suggestion that there should be an independent review. It would have to be independent. I cannot see how it would be independent if it were carried out by the River Shannon Protection Alliance. I do not say that to be biased against the alliance.

(Interruptions).

Chairman

It seems that somebody's mobile telephone is switched on. He or she should switch it off because it is causing distortion to the recording equipment. If that persists, the comments being made at this forum will not be picked up by the Official Report or by the media. I ask everyone to make sure their mobile telephones are turned off.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I agree with the proposal to establish an independent examination. There is merit in it. The problem is that it has to be independent. It cannot be independent if it is carried out under the aegis of the River Shannon Protection Alliance, which is absolutely opposed to this project. I recognise its right to oppose it. The arguments it is making need to be teased out and examined carefully. If we are going down that road, we need to find a means of ensuring the review, examination or inquiry is truly independent. I accept the delegation's comments about water conservation, particularly in relation to Japan and some of the northern European countries that were mentioned. I take at face value the claim that leakage levels are between 7% and 10% in such countries, whereas 20% is seen as acceptable in this country. It is something we need to work towards. Further clarification is required on the issue of extraction and the question of the volumes and periods of time. I have heard figures of 2% and 5% mentioned in that context. It seems to be a movable feast. That needs to be clarified. I will conclude by reiterating that we have to find a means of ensuring any review that is carried out is completely independent. It cannot be done by any group or body that is partisan.

Chairman

I remind members that the representatives of the River Shannon Protection Alliance are witnesses before the committee this afternoon. Our engagement with them would be best served by asking questions to elicit their views and opinions. Our job will be to write up our views at the end of this process. We would be best served by trying to tease out these matters by asking questions.

Mr. Joc Sanders

I would be glad to respond. I might be able to help Deputy Stanley on the question of the percentage flow we are talking about. In the public briefings by those proposing this plan, it is unfortunate that there has been an emphasis on average flows and average extraction. That is actually quite misleading. Problems occur at low flow times and, from a flooding point of view, at high flow times. The proponents of this scheme are causing further confusion by changing the units they use. They are switching between cubic metres per second and millions of litres per day.

I will try to clarify the actual facts with regard to what is being proposed. The natural flow rates through Lough Derg range from approximately 800 cu. m per second to 15 cu. m per second, with an average of approximately 180 cu. m per second. That is what the project puts forward. We believe the flow into the lake at Portumna can fall somewhat below that. Of course, some tributaries flow into Lough Derg. We understand that the flow at Portumna Bridge is sometimes just 10 cu. m per second. The project is proposing to extract water at a rate of 4.75 cu. m per second, which is 410 million litres per day, for ten months of the year. That is the maximum possible extraction using the infrastructure they are proposing to use. They are planning to reduce that to 0.58 cu. m per second, or 50 million litres per day, for two months of the year with the lowest flow. The average rate of extraction over the year will be 4.05 cu. m per second, or 350 million litres per day.

The historic record shows that low flow conditions persist rather longer than two months. We understand that for technical reasons, it is not possible to drop the rate of extraction below 50 million litres per day. Basically, water has to keep flowing through the pipes, no doubt to stop siltation or something like that. It can be seen that although the average rate of extraction that is proposed is approximately 2% of the yearly flow, at low flow the proposed extraction could be as high as 32% of the actual flow. This is confirmed by graphs that were presented in the Shannon hydrological modelling report, if one cares to go and read that plan. We are very concerned about the impact in these low flow conditions of such a large reduction. Those are the facts. We also believe there could be effects up the Shannon and down the Shannon. We understand that even the Limerick harbour master is concerned that the flows may be reduced in low conditions sufficient to hamper port operations.

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

I wish to come in on one issue which is quite important, that is, funding being available to a body such as the River Shannon Protection Alliance. I have a view which I have come to over many years and which I think is shared by people in some other countries that when a state agency or a large body proposes something, if there is not a really detailed counter view of that proposal, the result is not often the optimum solution. If there is a mechanism - I am not suggesting this mechanism should be used - by which those opposed to a certain project can be funded in some way in order that they can obtain good advice, then the coming together of these views, albeit in a nice adversarial way, results in the best solution.

We have this tradition in Ireland where An Bord Pleanála and the EPA decide. However, there is one big problem in this regard with which I am very familiar. In 99% of cases, the proponents have very liberal funding while the opponents do not have that same level of funding. There is a very unequal balance.

Chairman

For the purposes of clarification, I understand that if this was to proceed, it would be an infrastructural measure which is underpinned by specific legislation. I refer to my constituency and the arguments made by Mr. O'Sullivan in regard to the movement of the Port of Cork. All those seen as Goliaths were on the losing side of the argument. I am not too sure it as clear as that but I understand a number of local authorities in the region may be opposed to this project. They would be Goliaths. I am not too sure if it is a case of one agency being for or against it. There could be a multitude of agencies on either side of the argument.

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

That would be more likely to give a balanced view. As the Chairman correctly said, I was involved in the opposition to movement of the container terminal of the Port of Cork to Ringaskiddy. At that time, I was acting on behalf of the Cork harbour environmental protection alliance. We put forward good arguments as did the Port of Waterford which had very good funding and very strong witnesses at the oral hearing. As a result of the evidence given by all parties, An Bord Pleanála decided against it.

Chairman

That leads me to my next point. Since it is an infrastructural measure, there is particular legislation governing it. There is the Aarhus Convention and the issue of public consultation and oral hearings. It will not be a case of a piece of paper being handed over the table. If this development was to go ahead, it would not be a case of proposals being issued. There would be a very extended period of public consultation, as is required under EU legislation. Am I correct in saying that?

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

The Chairman is correct in saying there will be public consultation and public hearings but the problem from my perspective, and I think from that of the River Shannon Protection Alliance, is that at these public hearings, I find that the proponents of the scheme arrive extremely well-funded and able to commission very detailed studies, which will support their view, whereas the others, whether opponents or people who are concerned about it in some way, do not have access to the same level of funding and, therefore, do not have access to the same level of expertise. Therefore, the playing pitch is not level.

Mr. Gerry Siney

I wish to respond to Deputy Stanley's point about the Shannon River Protection Alliance getting taxpayers' money. We need to do a parallel environmental impact study for the reasons Mr. Sanders gave. We do not have the money but Dublin City Council will carry out an environmental impact assessment. It will use taxpayers' money to do that, and probably a lot more than we would use. If we do not get it, our hands will be tied behind our backs. It is not a level playing pitch. On that basis, we can justify a request, or even a demand. We will probably have to take our opposition through to the planning stage and we need to arrive at planning hearings and whatever procedures we must go through as well-equipped as Dublin City Council and its consultants. There is justification for it.

Deputy Noel Coonan

I welcome the deputation which may not find the surroundings today as a scenic as we did when we visited Lough Derg. Even the day was a much better one. We are delighted the deputation has come here to brief us on this but in doing so, it may have added a little to the confusion. Mr. Siney said no detailed proposal has been put forward by Bord na Móna and yet Mr. Sanders spoke about a specific plan he has. We all know what happened to the best laid plans. We need to clear the air on this to see whether there is a concrete and specific proposal by Bord na Móna or anybody else in this regard. If we had that, it would eliminate a lot of the confusion because we would know exactly what it was talking about. Agencies of the State, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, would adjudicate on that, which might help a lot of us.

Serious issues of concern were raised today and during our visit to Lough Derg. They relate to the impact on the River Shannon but primarily on Lough Derg, which is a jewel in the crown as far as infrastructure is concerned to the people of Tipperary, Clare, Galway and Offaly and not to mention the other counties along the River Shannon basin. As a committee, I propose that we engage with North Tipperary Council, Galway County Council and Clare County Council, although we have done so to some degree. As it is of primary importance to those three counties, they should initiate a study on Lough Derg not only from the point of view of water extraction because the plan or proposal is that the water will be extracted from Carrigahorig Bay which is on Lough Derg. Whether it is a plan or a proposal, that area will be most affected. There is a State body which is competent to carry out that study. Whether it is paid for by the proposers, the beneficiaries, the taxpayer, the Minister or the Department, it should be done. I will ask my colleagues to consider such a proposal to engage local authorities to carry out an in-depth study on the consequences of such a proposal on Lough Derg and the River Shannon.

Mr. O'Sullivan probably got a little bit under my skin when he picked out agriculture as the main source of pollution and run-off. He failed to mention local authorities and industry and he did not give due recognition to the role played by the farming community in protecting our environment. He may or may not know that strict environmental measures are imposed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in regard to slurry spreading and run-off. I get a little bit peeved when people like him point the finger at the farming community-----

Chairman

I encourage the Deputy to use measured language in regard to-----

Deputy Noel Coonan

I assure the Chairman that I am being very measured.

Mr. O'Sullivan said he had the utmost confidence in engineers but that they sometimes get it wrong. Do environmental scientists ever get it wrong? Would he have the same degree of confidence in them? We are all concerned about this proposal which has very serious implications, but there is a duty on all of us to be realistic. If we are promoting something we tend to go overboard about our viewpoint, but I ask those opposed to the scheme to be equally conscious of a natural resource. One would never have thought that water would be scarce in Ireland. No one would have believed that day would ever come. We have a significant natural resource, and people need water. If all the concerns that Mr. Sanders has raised were proven to be unfounded or not likely to happen, would he then favour the project?

Mr. Joc Sanders

If it can be properly demonstrated that no damage whatsoever will arise to the River Shannon from a particular development, I would have no reason to object to it. We need, however, to get to that position. I suggest that a good way to get to that position, where we understand the issues involved, is by carrying out these reviews independently. If the proponents of the project are prepared to fund it, why not carry out independent reviews?

Chairman

I call Mr. McEnroe, to be followed by Mr. O'Sullivan.

Mr. Martin McEnroe

There is no scarcity of water in Dublin or in any other county. We have, however, a bad management system for the use of water. It is recognised that there is a 30% leakage of water from pipes in the Dublin region. We have no proper management system for the water resource in the Dublin region. As Mr. O'Sullivan said, if we put all our eggs in one basket, and a problem then arises, there is a problem nationally. There is no reason we cannot create other areas of ponding within the counties concerned in this project. For example, there is a surplus of water on every river system in the country and there is no reason we cannot create a wet area for water abstraction in high flows and flood times on the River Boyne, for example, and to conserve that water and use it for that county. The largest aquifer in the country is in north County Dublin and stretches right down to County Offaly. That has not been properly examined by the consultants because Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council have obtained planning permission to build the largest landfill site on top of that aquifer and will destroy that underground water source. The arguments have been made down through the years on that particular project.

I refute the assertion of a scarcity of water, what we have is a bad management structure. I was glad to hear that it is proposed to establish a new body, a water board. I hope that it will not be just another body to try to shield the Minister from major decisions. We need a proper water authority.

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

Let me put the record straight for Deputy Coonan, I did mention industrial pollution, urbanisation or run-off from cities, I specifically mentioned very serious toxic contaminants, which are non-biodegradable and bioaccumulate. Of course, I mentioned agriculture. It would be unfair not to mention agriculture because there is agricultural pollution. I certainly agree with him that farmers are under very strict obligations, particularly the farmers who are in REPS, to prevent pollution at all costs and any farmer knows not to use too much slurry or fertiliser and cause problems. Nevertheless, when one reads the EPA reports, one will see that like every other segment of society agriculture contributes its own share to the overall problem.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I welcome the delegates. I enjoyed the hospitality when we went on the trip to visit the lake. In the notes I made on the approach to be taken to water extraction from the River Shannon, was a strong desire that no harm should be done to the Shannon. Since man first walked on earth, human activity has had an impact on the environment. That brings me back to the question of whether there is a safe level of water extraction from the River Shannon to service other areas. There is obviously some damage to the Shannon from activities such as boating, fishing and from pollutants upstream. What we must consider is whether the river is safe if the level of water extraction goes ahead. People have expressed concerns about the activity of the ESB power station on the Shannon.

Mr. O'Sullivan referred to groundwater. I am aware that groundwater has been extracted in other countries for servicing open areas and for water supplies, but the source is quickly depleted. Are the groundwater resources in Ireland limited? Mr. Sanders referred to water monitoring in Tokyo, where the Japanese have reduced the leakage from about 30% down to 3%. Did he learn if the city had a high pressure or gravity feed supply? What was the cost of a litre of water in Tokyo?

Mr. Joc Sanders

I am not sure that I can help the Deputy with the latter question. I would have to search through the paper I have with me. I would be delighted to give the Deputy a copy of the paper I have with me, if that would be of interest to him.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Is it a high pressure system?

Mr. Joc Sanders

I am not sure, I would have to check.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

We have to be careful when drawing comparisons to compare like with like.

Mr. Joc Sanders

To be perfectly certain, I would have to read the paper, but my immediate impression was that it was a high pressure system.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

That is fine. Certainly at those rates, it is my understanding that it would be a high pressure system.

Mr. Joc Sanders

Perhaps I can return to the first question about the safe level. Water is already extracted from the Shannon. I drink water from the Shannon every day. Water that is extracted for use in the Shannon catchment would largely be returned to the river after its use. Extraction like that would be acceptable in principle, subject to proper evaluation of any such proposal to ensure the specifics of the scheme would not cause any undue problems. If water is to be extracted for use outside the Shannon catchment, I would see that as being problematic. What we would wish to do, and what we are seeking to do in the proposals we are making, is to examine any such proposal, including the one in front of us. There is one solid plan, it is a large document, which I assume Dublin City Council has provided to members of the committee. It would need to be properly examined to determine whether or not it is acceptable. That has not been demonstrated to our satisfaction with this plan. Certainly because of the specifics of the Shannon system, no extraction should be permitted at low flow periods, unless it can be scientifically demonstrated that this will pose absolutely minimal risks to the precious environment of the Shannon and all the human society and everything that goes with that. Have I answered the Deputy's question?

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I understand that water levels on the river at Ardnacrusha are governed by legislation.

Mr. Joc Sanders

Legislation states the ESB, through the use of sluices, must maintain the level of the Shannon between two upper and lower band widths of approximately 18 in. It does not always manage to achieve this during flood conditions. In the past, it had problems with embankments and had to reduce the level of the Shannon by several feet.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Does the current proposal state the level must be kept within the 18 in. band width?

Mr. Joc Sanders

That is my understanding of Dublin City Council's proposal.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

The level in the lake, therefore, must be maintained within this 18 in. band width.

Mr. Joc Sanders

Our concerns relate to the flow rates rather than the water levels in the lake but the Deputy is correct.

Mr. Damien Delaney

Deputy Humphreys asked if there is a safe level for abstraction. It is not about water levels but what is a safe time to extract water. As Mr. Sanders stated, the volume of water going through Lough Derg is constantly changing from 800 cu. m down to 10 cu. m or 15 cu. m. When we asked the Lough Derg Science Group about this, it stated it was concerned about extraction during low-flow times because it could reduce water circulation, leading to harmful effects on the lake's environment. The group actually stated it does not know what a safe level would be as it needs much more research. Dublin City Council does not know what a safe level would be either. The problem with the extraction plan is that much of the information required still has not been collated.

Due to the topography around Lough Derg, the ESB has had to build embankments. As it needs a head of water to drive its turbines at Ardnacrusha, it has been given the mandate to maintain various water levels at Lough Derg. The snag will arise in summer when Dublin needs to extract water from the Shannon as its reservoirs will be dry. At the same time, to keep the 18 in. level at Lough Derg, the ESB will have to draw water from Lough Allen, Lough Ree and the rest of the river upstream.

Chairman

Is it correct that if water were extracted from an underground water provision the size of Lough Derg, say 100 million cu. m, it may not be replaced easily. Are there significant differences in sustainability, contamination control and so forth when it comes to extracting water from underwater sources as opposed to a flowing and easily replenished source like that in Lough Derg?

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

I will answer that question as best I can. A fair bit of hydrogeology has rubbed off on me over the years. The rate at which one can utilise an aquifer — a body of groundwater — depends on its nature and rate of recharge. If it is a rock aquifer, through which water moves slowly, then the water can only be utilised at a slow rate. However, most rock aquifers are not homogenous and have cracks. I recall during the hearings for Fingal County Council's proposed north Dublin landfill, it was revealed that near to areas of little groundwater there were areas where rock was highly fractured. Several vegetable producers in these areas were obtaining up to 2 million litres a day from a single well. They informed the hearings they could actually supply water to their neighbours. Hitting a fracture zone in rock could lead to large amounts of water.

Water can be extracted more quickly from an aquifer in sand or gravel as the water will flow more easily through it. However, one is still dependent on the recharge rate. This depends on rainwater falling on soil and percolating through it.

Large amounts can be extracted from aquifers but it must be done with much greater care than abstracting amounts from a lake or river. While I am not a hydrogeologist, I would imagine an aquifer stretching from north Dublin to County Meath would require 100 boreholes to be drilled at €10,000 each coming to €1 million. All the same that would be far short of the cost of a Shannon extraction scheme.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I thank Mr. O'Sullivan for his helpful contribution. It would be interesting to get detailed information on recharge levels of aquifers. Other factors can affect the rate of recharge such as buildings, etc. It is not a simple case of taking water from underground.

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

If one draws down the groundwater too much, saline water can filter in resulting in groundwater not only being depleted but becoming salinised. The great example of this is Lagos Island in Nigeria where a whole city was built on a sandbank. Not only was the groundwater depleted with resulting saline intrusion, the borehole pipes became rusted making the city's aquifer useless.

Deputy Humphreys is correct that this is a much more complex matter but it is not beyond our engineering capabilities. I go along with the proponents of the Dublin scheme who argue an aquifer cannot by itself supply the needs of Dublin. The River Shannon Protection Alliance's argument is that an aquifer plus demand and leakage controls would make the proposed extraction scheme from the Shannon unnecessary.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The proposal has been presented as if it were from Dublin City Council. The city council is taking the lead on the proposal but it extends much wider than that. It is a regional proposal by seven local authorities, including authorities in the three adjacent to Dublin. Some of us have had the benefit of a presentation, as well as a number of revised versions thereof, which quantified the water required by the region and set out a range of options considered, including demand management. The River Liffey is not dissimilar to the River Shannon. The ESB has a major function on the river and holds abstraction licences which it is not permitted to exceed. There is, therefore, a prototype in place for managing a similar scenario in terms of water supply. Clearly issues such as ecology, habitats and a number of other factors must be respected in the Shannon water course, as they are in the case of any other water source. It is not the case that there is a lack of experience in managing some of the issues that have been raised.

Mr. McEnroe discussed the issue of water shortages. Today's presentation is one in a series of presentations. The expert opinion provided to the joint committee is that while Ireland does not have a shortage of water, an imbalance in respect of the location of water has resulted in a shortage of water on the east coast. One third of the population lives in the greater Dublin area and in my area people are subjected to interruptions in supply for days, both in winter and summer. From first-hand experience, it is clear therefore that difficulties already exist with water supply. I do not envisage the problem being resolved by demand management, metering or leak reduction. The joint committee received information from various sources setting out the best possible outcomes that could be achieved through leak reduction measures.

The possibility of draining the River Shannon has been discussed for decades. Cases of flooding in Athlone and elsewhere along the River Shannon illustrate the problem of excessive water. I understand the difference between low and high flows and so forth because, as a member of a local authority for many years, I acquired some experience of issues such as abstraction licences. The matters raised by the delegation are the type of issues that are confronted at each stage of the licensing process. Does the delegation accept that if the proposed project proceeds, it will be possible to manage it in a manner that does not adversely affect the River Shannon? Do they accept it is necessary to drain the river? If so, what should be the destination of the water drained from the river if such a scheme were to proceed?

I do not accept that the Dublin area has sufficient water or that sufficient water can be supplied by aquifers alone. Aquifers have potential for supplying water in County Kildare and we have examined some of the scenarios in respect of their potential. However, one in every three people in the country lives in the greater Dublin region and many of them come from areas along the Shannon basin. As a result of a population transfer, the water supply in the Dublin region is deficient. Perhaps the delegation will understand that some of the people living in the region wish to drink nice, clean Shannon water.

The Chairman teased out Mr. McEnroe's comments on the need for an independent study to quantify the amount of water required, its impacts and so forth. Is the delegation opposed to the proposed project in every way, shape and form? If so, would it be appropriate for it to do an independent assessment given that it has already taken a biased view of the project?

Mr. Martin McEnroe

We have never argued that no water should be supplied to Dublin. One must remember that the River Shannon borders 18 counties and services all of them. While the authorities in Dublin and Kildare may know what their water needs will be for the next 50 years, County Roscommon has not stated what amount it will abstract from the River Shannon. Incidentally, people in my county are subjected to hosepipe bans at certain times of the year, despite our proximity to Lough Ree. County Roscommon has not stated how much water it will need in future. If there is to be development along the entire length of the Shannon corridor, as will be the case along the east coast, we must examine the future needs of all the relevant counties. We do not have figures on future needs and collecting such data would form part of the research to be carried out by scientists.

If a company were to consider establishing a base in Athlone, although a workforce would be available, the lack of proper infrastructure in the midlands, parts of Country Leitrim and so forth would lead it to locate in Dublin, Kildare or some other area which is served by our water. As a result of the abstracting of our water, we will no longer have surplus water in 30 years. Our children who went to school in our towns and villages will then have to move to Dublin where the industry is located. Counties through which the River Shannon flows must also look to the future. If proper conservation measures are introduced in the Dublin region and elsewhere, it will not be necessary to drain the River Shannon or abstract from it the amount of water that has been proposed. When the plan to abstract water for the Dublin region was first announced, the target and the only option laid down was Lough Ree. We met representatives of Dublin City Council and RPS Consultants. We also employed Jack O'Sullivan as our consultant and his findings rubbished the report with the result that the Lough Ree proposal was abandoned. The findings available to us allowed us to rubbish the report on environmental grounds alone. It cost us a substantial amount of money from our own pockets to employ people to carry out the study. However, we found the money, had the study done and proved the proposers of the Lough Ree project wrong. They are also wrong in the case of the River Shannon.

Let us examine the needs of the Dublin region and identify what can be done to conserve water. Once the study has been done and all the facts are available, people can come to us and set out the position.

Mr. Joc Sanders

I will attempt to address Deputy Murphy's important question on whether the scheme can be managed in a way that is not damaging. On the evidence available to us, including the best scientific evidence available concerning Lough Derg, and based on certain other concerns that we have, we do not believe we know enough to answer the Deputy's question in respect of the scheme that is currently on the table. We are addressing the scheme being put forward by Dublin City Council, the lead authority for a consortium that includes all the authorities in the Dublin region, as the Deputy noted. It is possible the consortium extends beyond the Dublin region. All we can do is take the scheme that is on the table. Any other proposed schemes can be addressed on their merits. The Lough Derg science group has made a few suggestions and in its view it would be much less damaging if the extraction point was down in the Parteen basin, in which case the flows through Lough Derg would not be damaged. We can see that there would be a reduced risk to quality in Lough Derg from the reduced flow at low flow in those circumstances. Our concerns about the impacts above and below Lough Derg would remain.

This would not change our view that extraction of water from the Shannon is not the best way to meet the Dublin region's realistic needs. The group has made the suggestion that it welcomes the use of a storage reservoir in the midlands because that can help to reduce the impact during low flow. However, I agree with the Lough Derg science group that it would require further scientific study to be able to properly characterise what periods are high flow periods when the extraction would pose minimal risk to the River Shannon. This study has not yet been done. It may be that if extraction is only carried out during such periods, there would not be significant problems but this would not change our view that extraction from the River Shannon is not the best way for the Dublin region to have its needs met.

Nor are we convinced that anybody could give a guarantee that they would be able to stick to pumping only in periods of very high flow. If the Dublin region, with all its people, relies on the water and demands it then it will assuredly get it. Once the infrastructure is there, it could be used at any time. I do not know if that answer is of any help.

Mr. Gerry Siney

I will respond to some of the points raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy. When I said there was no other proposal on the table, that this is a Dublin City Council proposal, I meant precisely that. There is no other proposal. We are aware of no official document produced by Bord na Móna. This is the context I was describing. We do not know of any other form of proposal other than the one contained in this document. This is the non-technical summary put out by Dublin City Council and RPS. I refer to page 9 of this document:

This study has been undertaken for the purpose of identifying and recommending a preferred new major water source to meet the long-term supply needs of the Dublin region (water supply area). In carrying out the study, DCC acts in a lead role on behalf of seven local authorities in the Dublin region who receive their water supplies in whole or in part from the four existing sources of water treatment plants in the region called and operated by DCC and-or Fingal County Council.

This is a clear statement. It is a DCC proposal designed to meet the water requirements of the greater Dublin area. We have formed a view and therefore, we are biased.

However, Dublin City Council has already formed a clear view and so have its engineers. These could be the same engineers who will carry out the environmental impact assessment. Even if we were provided with the funding, none of us is qualified to carry out an environmental impact assessment. We will engage capable people to do the assessment and there are plenty available to us. If Dublin City Council has a view and if it is using taxpayers' money to foist this bad scheme on the rest of us, we should have the ability and the financial resources with which to put our case, particularly at the planning stage.

Deputy Patrick O’Donovan

The three members present are all former members of local authorities. When local authorities commission consultants to make reports, they do not always get the answer they expect and sometimes the consultants come back with a report with which the manager or the director of services does not agree. In many cases this is because a consultant will not wish to put his or her professional competence and reputation up for auction. Due process must be followed. When Dublin City Council, the lead authority for seven local authorities, engages a consultant to carry out an environmental impact assessment, we cannot presume to know the conclusions because otherwise we are presuming that the consultant is biased and that would be unfair, given that the person is probably not employed at this stage.

I was a member of a local authority and we spent years discussing the River Shannon at meetings, particularly in light of flooding. I remember a time when part of Limerick city and county flooded. The number of agencies with a remit of responsibility for the River Shannon extended from the ESB in Ardnacrusha to Waterways Ireland, all the bordering local authorities and OPW. A significant number of agencies had a role or responsibility with regard to the River Shannon and most of them did not talk to each other and had no engagement with each other. It was extremely frustrating because residents along the river bank were inundated every year with thousands of gallons of sludge, filth and dirt of every description flowing in their back doors and out their front doors.

I attended meetings with the IFA and other farming organisations along the River Shannon. They asked us as local authority members to explain what was happening to the river and why it emptied into their front rooms every year. They said they were sick of it. At the time, there was an extensive lobby on the subject of the navigation of the river, that this would be impeded if the levels were dropped. I asked a consultant engaged by Limerick County Council if deepening the bed of the river would have an impact on the flows of water. She likened it to a bucket of water, that if a foot of sand is put into the bucket, in her view, the bucket would contain the same volume of water with or without the sand. I thought this was remarkable; the whole concept of displacement seemed to have passed her by.

Down the years there has been a multiplicity of agencies concerned with management of the River Shannon, of its environment, the aquaculture, the ecology, the extraction, the power generation, the drainage and the navigation of the river. It is frustrating for people who do not know whom they should talk to about the river. In my view there should be a single agency with responsibility for the River Shannon. I know this view is not popular with my colleagues in local authorities but that is my view.

If an environmental impact assessment is carried out under the auspices of Dublin City Council as the lead authority for seven local authorities, we should wait to see what that assessment report contains. First, it will be vetted by An Bord Pleanála, the Environmental Protection Agency and probably also the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. I am sure it will also be vetted by the River Shannon Protection Alliance.

I would hate to think any of us would engage in a process and have a preconceived notion of what the result might be, or that just because Dublin City Council, acting for the seven local authorities, was commissioning this report we should oppose it. Money is in short supply around here at present. If the city council is to commission a report it should engage with the delegates or others like them to set out the terms of reference for the consultants who will be employed. Perhaps they should advertise the terms of reference in advance as well as engage with the delegates.

Ultimately, we all want to arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether this proposal is a runner. We need an independent report. The proposal may well be a runner and it may materialise. The more engagement there is with directors of services, the county and city managers for the seven areas and the elected representatives in each, the better. This is not an "us and them" situation. The delegates should not take the attitude that the people in Dublin are taking all their water. Ultimately, this is the property of the State and belongs to all the citizens in the country. The fact is that one third of the population faces a water shortage. We cannot ignore that. The solution may well be within this population's own boundaries and the consultants may report to that effect.

If I could encourage the delegates in any way, I would say not to go down the road of seeking a consultant and commissioning a report because that is what the other side is doing. If the report is independent and can be seen and verified as such, and if the consultant has no axe to grind, that is the way to proceed.

Mr. Martin McEnroe

May I ask Deputy O'Donovan a question? How does he see the role of the 18 counties that are using the River Shannon and need it for the future?

Deputy Patrick O’Donovan

I represent an estuarine county that adjoins the River Shannon. I saw a time when Montpelier, Castleconnell and Limerick city were flooded. When we went to try to find out what happened to those communities and why people in Shannonbanks and Westbury on the County Clare side of the river had four or five feet of water in their front rooms nobody wanted to know about it. It was everybody's responsibility and the buck was being passed all over the place.

The management of the River Shannon, as a national resource, is too fragmented at present. I may not be in agreement with national policy but for my tuppenceworth I believe there are far too many agencies with an input into the management of the Shannon and the Shannon Estuary. The result is that when something happens, or there is a case such as this, involving abstraction, or there is one local authority fighting with another about a planning application on one side of the river that might have an impact on the other side, be it a shopping centre, a block of apartments, or whatever, one finds there are too many people involved. It is very important that this be seen as a national resource for the future.

Mr. Joc Sanders

Deputy O'Donovan is right. Although there is a plethora of agencies for the River Shannon as well as of users and other interest groups, the management and control of water flows and levels up and down the system is critical towards accommodating all these different interests. There are problems already and the Deputy noted some of them in regard to flooding in the lower Shannon. There are also difficulties in maintaining adequate navigation levels in the middle and upper Shannon at present. There is difficulty in maintaining the necessary flows for wildlife in the old course of the Shannon below Parteen. There is a problem with the build-up of silt from Bord na Móna's midland bogs in the middle reaches of the Shannon and problems with the management of the Shannon Callows for biodiversity.

We have a number of concerns in regard to the proposals being put forward. First, there is a lack of clarity in them as to who is responsible for the management and control of those water flows and levels. Second, what objectives are to be met by whoever is responsible and, third, what mechanisms will be used to carry out those controls? What we would like to see is the development of an integrated, comprehensive and long-term management plan as a means to reconcile all these competing objectives and also as a basis for achieving the clarity we want in regard to responsibilities, objectives and mechanisms. That should happen irrespective of whether this project goes ahead.

A critical point, in our view, is that the primary objective of such a management plan must be the protection of the River Shannon. It would be a disaster if such a plan was set up with the sole objective of providing copious supplies of water to Dublin or places throughout the State. The primary objective must be the protection of the River Shannon. We are also of the opinion, along with the members, that the overall control should rest with a single statutory authority. It is the objective of the control that is probably the most critical aspect.

Mr. Gerry Siney

I live in Limerick city which is tidal, as Deputy O'Donovan well knows. We have been contacted by the harbourmaster for the Shannon Estuary who has expressed serious concern about this proposal. He wrote:

I contact you as the harbourmaster of the Shannon Estuary. I have responsibility for the safety of navigation from Shannonbridge at Limerick to a line joining Loop Head and Kerry Head. I have followed the argument about water extraction at a remove but following the figures on the daily amount of water to be abstracted I have become concerned. At Limerick we rely heavily on the current during ebb tides to scour out the river thereby making it easier to maintain and accessible for deep-draughted ships If this scheme goes ahead the net result will be more siltation at Limerick resulting in the reduction of ship size using the dock and consequently a loss of income to both the city and port company.

He continues:

I intend to contact RPS who I believe wrote some reports on the proposal. I shall also contact Jack O'Sullivan, who we know, for more detail. Following those contacts I will revert with the port company's official stance on the proposal.

Best regards, Alan Coghlan, Harbourmaster, Shannon Estuary, President International Harbourmasters' Association.

That is a very serious concern. Even if, as the Lough Derg Science Group perhaps suggested, the water were to be extracted from below Lough Derg - the group was probably referring to the Parteen basin - this will not do Limerick any good. If any part of the River Shannon is touched it affects the rest of it in one way or another.

Mr. Damien Delaney

In reply to Deputy O'Donovan, the view which we are trying to have established is more to do with having sufficient information available. It is not necessarily that we want our group of consultants to come in with an opinion that either favours us or is in opposition. As the Deputy noted, and I would agree, there is an entire planning process to come down the line and we will take part in that process. However, we would like to be armed with sufficient information to make a proper decision, one way or the other. In regard to Dublin city, when we questioned the Lough Derg Science Group about the low flow and other possible effects that might be caused to Lough Derg, it told us there was insufficient information available and thus it could not give us an answer. Dublin city does not know any more or anything different.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Will there not be more information prior to the environmental impact statement?

Mr. Damien Delaney

That may well happen in the future, but as of now-----

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

That is my point. The attitude to the document is based on the stage it is at. I have no particular bone to chew as to whether this goes ahead or not. However, there must be a scoping document in the first instance in order to get the deep level of detail we agree is not present now. Therefore, for anybody to make a decision a great deal more information needs to be acquired during the scoping period with regard to any environmental impact study that may take place.

Mr. Damien Delaney

I agree, but does it necessarily follow that somebody will declare a need for another review or will it be decided to proceed on the basis of the information already included in the Dublin city plan?

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

That is the role of the scoping document. Those studies must take place before a decision is made.

Mr. Damien Delaney

Yes, and we must be allowed to feed into that scoping document.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

It is important that anybody who has an interest should feed into the scoping document in order to ensure any gaps in information are put on the table and reviewed in a proper manner.

Mr. Damien Delaney

I agree, but does it necessarily follow that if we say there is insufficient information, somebody will say we had better do a review?

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I have had my disagreements with An Bord Pleanála in this regard. The most recent instance I recall was in respect of the infill in Dublin Bay where the applicant was told to go off and produce another study because the information made available was not adequate. That was done, but An Bord Pleanála subsequently made a decision against the applicant. That can and does happen, as alluded to by Deputy O'Donovan. Sometimes consultants come back with information to one side or the other which it does not want to hear. Nevertheless, we should not pre-empt any decision by An Bord Pleanála.

Deputy Patrick O’Donovan

Do we know what level of engagement Dublin City Council and the seven local authorities have had with, say, the other-----

Chairman

I wish to make something clear. This committee will not be making a decision on this project. Let us be clear on that from the outset. Members should be under no illusion that we will be deciding the outcome of the process. Our job is to examine the water provision structure nationally, with particular regard to the creation of Irish Water. This particular discussion might be described as an elective module of that broader review. Members will have views on the module, but they should not for a moment proceed under the misconception that we will be feeding into a consultation process. It is important to clarify that for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Deputy Patrick O’Donovan

May I phrase my question differently? As part of this modular investigation or modular consultation, have we a plan to invite representatives of Dublin City Council to appear before the committee?

Chairman

They have already attended a meeting of the committee.

Deputy Patrick O’Donovan

Has Dublin City Council engaged with the people who have been referred to here?

Chairman

That is a matter for those persons and Dublin City Council. Representatives of the council and of Bord na Móna have been before the committee.

Deputy Patrick O’Donovan

Perhaps I can put a question to Mr. Sanders. Has Dublin City Council engaged with the River Shannon Protection Alliance?

Mr. Joc Sanders

Dublin City Council has presented its proposals to us on more than one occasion and we have made our views known to it. We have approached the council to see whether it could provide the funding we consider necessary to undertake the independent reviews, under the precedent that funding was provided to opponents of the incinerator project. The council responded to that request with a statement that it receives funding from the Department specifically to progress this project, which is a national project, that it functions as the lead authority on behalf of a consortium, and that it has no funding for such reviews nor was there any precedent for the provision of such funding. The council's advice to us was to ask the Government whether it could make such funding available. I am accordingly asking this committee whether it can give advice to Government as to whether it should provide that funding.

Chairman

That is not our remit-----

(Interruptions).

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

To clarify, the opponents of the incinerator were not funded by Dublin City Council. We would have liked to receive such funding, but we did not.

Mr. Joc Sanders

Some independent legal advice was paid for by Dublin County Council.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Only during the scoping process, which I outlined. I can state categorically that we did not receive any funds.

Mr. Joc Sanders

I do not wish to disagree with Deputy Humphreys.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I thank the delegates for their presentation today and for the extremely informative on-site presentation they organised some days ago. Most of my questions were answered during that site visit. The job for us all, from a legislative point of view and from an official point of view, is to recognise the importance attaching to the River Shannon in its own right. It has been developed over centuries in a haphazard way, with different initiatives taking place, including the generation of electricity, development of tourism, impact of Bord na Móna and so on. All of that has fed into what the River Shannon is.

Before we proceed with something which would have such a dramatic impact as would the proposed levels of water extraction, we must have a completely independent management plan and a completely independent analysis of the economic, environmental and other effects. It is easy for some to suggest - and I have heard it in my own constituency - that there are people in the southern area, as Deputy O'Donnell said, who support the proposals in the belief that they may reduce flooding in their areas. However, there is no guarantee that the extraction of water anywhere on Lough Derg will alleviate that flooding, no more than it would be right of me to suggest that Dublin City Council should look to the floods that befell the city in recent weeks as a way of meeting its water needs. Both claims are, in the same way, an irrelevance.

We must look to the River Shannon as an entity and consider what it does, what it seeks to do and the benefits deriving from it for the whole country. Moreover, we must consider a completely different approach to the development of our major centres of population. That requires us to consider the future projections for Dublin. People looked at growth and development projections in the boom times, and that was all important and necessary. However, at some point we must look at the environmental aspect of feeding that development and growth. We should consider whether a threshold can be reached beyond which a particular centre should not go. If there is already water that can be extracted in a less impactful way, then why not allow, for example, Limerick and Galway to grow?

What is at issue here is a principle that has been talked about by successive Governments, namely, the notion of balanced regional development. I am not claiming to have the answer, but it requires that type of analysis to be done in any future management plan. I accept that Dublin is facing significant difficulties, but the information in that regard is based on projections. I do not mean to suggest that Dublin City Council got its projections wrong or that, as some have suggested, predictions made in the boom times will not be fulfilled as quickly as expected. The question is whether we should be seeking to facilitate that development at all. Should it not be the case that we do not have the water and, therefore, we cannot plan. I come from a constituency where if a person in a rural area cannot provide the capacity to treat sewage, or there is no percolation in the area, he or she will not receive permission to build a house. I have constituents who have had to accept that. They must move to a more urban area or an area where the local authority is prepared and in a position to treat their effluent.

In other words, patterns of dispersal are regulated in some respects in rural areas. When it comes to this project, at some point we must be realistic and consider whether there is another way. I accept that Dublin City Council rightly has its own agenda and proposals, but somebody needs to stand back and reassess. The Department must not be herded into a decision. That is why this discussion is very helpful. Members of the committee have different viewpoints, but we are debating and discussing the issue in an open forum.

Mr. Siney's reference to the harbourmaster is an important point. It is another of the elements of our economy in the region that benefit from or are affected by changes in the levels of the Shannon river. It might be useful if the joint committee were to write to them.

Chairman

We have done so.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

That is fine. I thank the witnesses for attending. The River Shannon Protection Alliance is a voluntary group with limited resources, which is being set against the might of Dublin City Council. I am sure Mr. Tierney, if present, would say that his financial might is restricted in the current climate. However, he has available to him a significant number of professional people who will make a strong case for this proposal. Bord na Móna and RPS are also behind it. I believe an independent economic analysis of the proposal, not funded by or seen to be funded by any interest group, should be carried out on behalf of Ireland Inc. If this committee achieves nothing else, it has by virtue of having given oxygen to the various interest groups, done its duty as a committee. I do not wish to force my point if it is proven not to be the best way forward. The people I know who are involved for all the right reasons on both sides of the lake and along the River Shannon would be happy to see such analysis undertaken.

Chairman

I now call Deputy Coonan following which we will have to wind up. There is another committee meeting in this room at 5.30 p.m. and we must wrap up at least half an hour before that.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I apologise but I must leave at this point.

Chairman

I had hoped Deputy Dooley would be present to hear some of the response to his long-winded address. I call Deputy Coonan.

Deputy Noel Coonan

As stated by Deputy Dooley, funding should be provided by the local authorities in the Lough Derg area. Perhaps the local authorities in the Shannon region should come together as a group to seek that funding. There is a dearth of information available but many questions remain unanswered. It is important these questions are answered to everyone's satisfaction.

On the aquifer, I live on one of the largest aquifers in Europe, namely, the Lisheen Mines, County Tipperary. Currently, it is pumping in the region of one million gallons of water a day into the Drish River and has been doing so for the past ten or 12 years. One wonders why this water could not be captured for use in Dublin. Many rural group water schemes, households and farms, were left without water because of that dewatering. We would not want that to happen in the greater Dublin-Meath area because its impact on rural Ireland would be enormous and detrimental. That point has not been noted. It is important these issues are addressed.

Do the witnesses have confidence in the systems in place to protect rural Ireland? Large-scale planning permission is required for this project. Do they have confidence in the systems, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to scrutinise this proposal? I accept we are operating a little in the dark given there is no definite proposal yet. However, do the witnesses have confidence in An Bord Pleanála, the Environmental Protection Agency and local authorities involved to evaluate this proposal in the best interests of local people and the country?

Chairman

I now invite our witnesses to make their concluding comments and responses. We will hear first from Mr. O'Sullivan.

Mr. Jack O’Sullivan

Deputy Coonan made a good point not previously made. I should be familiar with the issue raised by him given I have worked for people living close to the old Galmoy Mine. The primary problem in that area was that when dewatering occurred causing the water table to fall, many wells within a five or six kilometre radius around the mine, depending on the size of the cone of depression created by the dewatering, dried up. The Deputy made a very good point.

As regards whether I have confidence in the system, that is a deep question. Many environmental issues have been argued down through the years. Unfortunately, in many cases the development lobby has won. I do not believe that is the fault of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which has been growing in strength and stature and doing its best. I do not believe either that it is the fault of An Bord Pleanála, which even though it is not an environmental agency comprises some good people. I believe the problem is the way we as a population think. To put that in perspective, in a recent euro barometer approximately 61% of people said the environment is the most important issue facing us. I do not believe a similar number of people in Ireland believe that. Some 70% of people might suggest the most important issue facing us is the banking crisis and approximately 20% or 30% would say it is the environment. As a population, we do not put the environment first. This is reflected in the activities and thinking of our Departments, agencies and local authorities.

For that reason and bearing in mind much of what has happened, I do not have much confidence in the systems. Some good decisions have been made and some terrible decisions have been made.

Mr. Patsy Peril

In my opinion, water is the elixir of life.

Chairman

Mr. Peril is under privilege and can say whatever he likes.

Mr. Patsy Peril

Like thousands of other people, I require water for my livelihood. I am an artisan on the River Shannon. The River Shannon basin district stretches from Kerry to Fermanagh. Any disruption to the flow of the Shannon will affect all parts of it environmentally. The Shannon is not a free flowing river. There is a man-made damn on it, located at Ardnacrusha. It has been stated that several agencies control the levels of the Shannon. That is not true. Only one group, the ESB, has the autonomy to do so by way of powers granted to it by the Oireachtas in 1935. The remainder of those involved in work on the Shannon deal with only one or two feet of water. They have no powers when the water goes below or above that level.

The flooding of Castleconnell was a man-made problem. Had the river been free-flowing the flooding might not have occurred. Also, there is boundary between salinity and fresh water. Fresh water coming down from the Shannon joins the sea at Limerick. In an area off that osmosis takes place and fish transfer between the fresh and salt water, which is critical. Also, the dolphins, which are ensuring great business and attracting many people, could be disrupted as a result of this proposal. Mr. Simon Barrow, with whom I have had a meeting and who also holds seminars, has received reports of strange behaviour among the dolphins, some of whom are venturing off into different territories. I accept, however, that this could be as a result of the floods.

We need to dilute the chemical waste from manufacturing plants. I will not name any of the companies involved. Fresh water is needed to dilute waste from manufacturing and fertiliser plants, including Aughinish Alumina, Wyatt and others on the River Fergus. As an artisan and fisherman, I have seen changes take place along the shorelines during high and low levels of water. I make my own deductions in that regard. However, not being a scientist I cannot say what causes these changes. I do not trust anyone. Who will be in charge of the tap? There is no regulation in this country.

The River Shannon is controlled by a tap at the dams. To whom are we to hand over this responsibility? Can we trust them? I cannot.

Mr. Joc Sanders

I would like to respond in two ways. Deputy Dooley asked about the possible need for a different approach to development. I am an engineer and get the Engineers Journal. I will read a quotation from that publication with respect to water:

The future trend will be to reduce the mass transfer of water from remote reservoirs. More rainwater harvesting at homes and businesses will be required to limit the need for bulk transfers at a high energy cost.

Essentially this means that for sustainability we need to review such matters as the mass transport of water. That is a very broad consideration. The scheme as proposed is certainly unsustainable using those criteria.

Regarding my confidence in the institutions, by my nature I am inclined to believe the best of individuals. Most people try to do their best for their neighbours and for their country. However, they also need to operate within political systems, economic systems, and systems of rules and regulations - the law. If I look at our country at the moment, it seems very difficult to have much confidence in the systems of regulation, control, law and politics that have brought us to a very sad state. However, I like to think the best of everybody and I have no doubt that every member of this committee wishes to see the correct decision taken on this issue.

Chairman

That concludes our consideration of the matter. I thank Mr. Siney, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Peril, Mr. McEnroe and Mr. O'Sullivan for their assistance in our deliberations. I again thank them for the hospitality when members of the committee visited them a few weeks ago. The committee will continue to examine this topic and if there are any other ideas the witnesses should feel should have been put to the committee they can send them to us at a later date.

Mr. Gerry Siney

I thank the Chairman and the committee members for their patience, their excellent questions and comments, and for affording us the opportunity to put our case to them. We hope our presence today will have been of assistance to them in evaluating the issue of water extraction from the Shannon. We also hope that what has been discussed on this occasion will feed into the preparation of the committee's eventual report.

In many ways the River Shannon, which is the longest river in these islands, is the jugular vein of Ireland. It covers a vast swathe of the country. It is not only of ecological and environmental importance, in economic, cultural and social terms its importance is incalculable. Rivers such as this must be jealously guarded, drawn down upon only as a last resort, and preserved, nurtured and even improved for the sake of the nation's children and grandchildren. These rivers will serve us well if we allow them to do so, but not if we abuse them with wanton profligacy.

Climate change and over-extraction are wreaking havoc on countless rivers and lakes throughout the world. Ireland will not be immune to these effects. While I do not want to prolong this meeting, I could mention many rivers, much larger than the River Shannon, that have to all intents and purposes disappeared off the face of the earth, including the Colorado river and the Jordan. The BBC recently broadcast a "Panorama" television programme entitled "Drinking Our Rivers Dry?". We have an opportunity-----

Chairman

I must conclude the meeting. The record has stopped recording what Mr. Siney is saying at this stage because the meeting has concluded. I gave all the witnesses the opportunity to address the committee before I made my concluding remarks. Regrettably Mr. Siney did not take me up. I must conclude the meeting now.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.55 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 November 2011.