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-----