I will come back to Deputy Connaughton's points in a moment. We do not need a statutory authority for flooding. That is an essential point to make at the start of this debate. In fairness to Deputy Connaughton, he spoke about a range of issues about which I am deeply concerned. I am genuinely trying to find a mechanism and a way to move forward. That is why – I hope the rationale will become clearer when I speak – I have done what I have done in the context of the committee. I concur with Deputy Connaughton's view on what happened in January with the two committees. It was very helpful to me in the contact which has been made in terms of how the committee might see a role for itself in assisting me in pursuing this matter.
In terms of the authority I have in this area, I am very limited. However, I can say to the House that as far as my Department is concerned, we will co-operate fully with the committee and will help it. We will provide it with all the information which may be available in terms of coming to a conclusion on this matter. I say to Deputy Connaughton that I want to see this matter expedited by the committee as quickly as possible. I expect it will do so. It will have the authority to call any person, to form a view and to present a report, which I welcome. I will welcome whatever emerges from that report because I have no doubt the quality of the work of the committee involved will be up to its usual standard.
I am here this evening because of the general responsibility of the Office of Public Works in relation to arterial drainage and flood relief issues. However, I want to make it clear at the outset that the Office of Public Works does not have any specific responsibility in relation to the main channel of the Shannon River. I am not saying that to excuse us but Members might understand the difficulty I have in my own responsibilities and that is why I need to put that on record in terms of what I can deliver. What I might want to deliver and what I can deliver may be best served, as I have suggested, by the course of action I outlined in the amendment.
The issue of this motion, the formation of a Shannon River Authority, has been discussed previously. There are many bodies, State, semi-State and private sector with interests in the Shannon River. The purpose of this amendment is to bring these interests together to engage in a meaningful discussion of all the issues in this complex problem. The issues are enormous, diverse and complex.
I would like to set out the background to the issue under discussion. The River Shannon, as we know, is the largest river in these islands and drains an area of more than 14,100 square kilometres – about one fifth of the total area of the country. The river has a total length of 336 kilometres and can be divided into four distinct reaches. First, the head water area above Lough Allen which is mountainous with steep and torrential river channels. Second, the central 250 kilometres from Lough Allen to Killaloe within which the Shannon is joined by five major tributaries and drains much of the central plain of Ireland. Here the river has a very flat gradient with a total fall of about 17 meters and is characterised by low ill-defined banks and wide adjoining callows. This reach includes a series of large lakes, including Loughs Allen, Ree and Derg which exercise a considerable modifying effect on the flow regime. Third, the 29 kilometres from Killaloe to Limerick where a fall of about 30 meters is concentrated and the major portion of the flow is now diverted through the head and tail race channels of the Ardnacrusha power development. Fourth, the 83 kilometre tidal estuary from Limerick to the Atlantic ocean.
There are very many organisations, national and local, with statutory obligations for the management of the catchment through an assigned responsibility for a particular aspect of river or catchment performance. For example, Waterways Ireland has responsibility for navigation and, as such, will exercise limited control over water levels in lakes and river stretches. Similarly, the Electricity Supply Board, ESB, has statutory responsibility for the control of lake levels arising from water requirements for hydroelectric generation of electricity at Ardnacrusha. Local authorities – ten county councils – in the catchment monitor water quality with the assistance of a number of laboratories and have responsibility for its control.
The Office of Public Works' only responsibility is for maintenance on those tributaries where capital works have been carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. The Office of Public Works hydrometric service gathers water level and discharge information at a number of sites on the river.
Requests for the setting up of a single statutory authority for the River Shannon have been made on numerous occasions over the years and have been rejected by successive Governments. This current request seems to be prompted by the recent winter flooding of the Shannon catchment.
The problem of drainage in the Shannon basin is long standing and has a history of reports and investigations over the past 200 years. River Shannon flooding over the years has been the subject of much study by local and Government authorities and steps have been taken at various times to achieve some degree of control of floods and some amelioration of the resultant damages. By and large, however, the problem has been so extensive and complex that proposed schemes have been found too costly in relation to benefits obtained.
A number of studies and reports on this problem have been prepared in the past and are the sources of much valuable information. I intend to make these reports and any further information I have in my Department available to the committee as it will be a helpful starting point for it. The first of these reports is (a) 1939 – by the Board of Public Works – Report on Shannon navigation, Statement of Evidence for Drainage Commission 1938. This report, in addition to its coverage of navigation, contains much valuable and authoritative information on the River Shannon flood problem, especially from the historical aspects and with respect to possible solutions. The second report is (b) 1938-1940 – By the Drainage Commission, Ireland. This comprehensive report on flood and drainage problems throughout Ireland included consideration on the River Shannon. The report reviews the general flood problems of the basin together with the past history of flow control; discusses certain alternative solutions including (1) channel enlargement by excavation and (2) protection by embankments with provision of pumping plants, neither of which were found feasible on a large scale and recommended the allocation of £345,000 for certain limited works which would provide some amelioration of flood conditions. Due to World War II and other unfavourable factors, little work on the main stem of the River Shannon was undertaken along these recommendations. However, drainage works were completed on the River Brosna, a principal tributary.
The third report is (c) 1951 – by the Electricity Supply Board – Informal report on "proposal for Power Development and Drainage of River Shannon as Outlined in Mr. Boland's Memorandum of July 1951", having special reference to a suggested scheme for hydro-electric power development on River Suck. The fourth report is (d) 1952 – by the Electricity Supply Board – Description of Board activities and principal generating in Ireland. Other reports available are (e) 1954, Annual Report of Electricity Supply Board; (f) 1955, a general review of the River Shannon flood problem in the light of the 1954 flood by Mr. J. P. Candy, the Chief Engineer, Board of Public Works; (g) 1955, a memorandum from the power development aspect, including consideration of storage by Mr. J. W. MacDonald, Chief Civil Engineer, Electricity Supply Board; (h) 1955, a memorandum report on Shannon River Flooding (1954), including a suggestion for evacuation of flood areas by the Irish Land Commission; and (i) 1955, an informal memorandum on agricultural aspects of the flood problem by Dr. Walsh, Department of Agriculture.
These reports all highlight the complexity of the problem in both technical and financial terms. The most significant studies were carried out at the request of the Government by Louis E. Rydell of the US Army Corps of Engineers in the mid-1950s and the Office of Public Works and the Electricity Supply Board in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The Rydell report is constantly referred to by everybody and its contents have much merit. These bodies jointly examined and reported on the proposals contained in the Rydell report. All the reports were published. They concluded that there is no simple or obvious solution to the flood problem in the Shannon Basin; any solution would be both costly and complex. This is further substantiated by the report commissioned by the Irish Farmers' Association and launched in Athlone in October, 1998, which came to the same conclusion.
An unusually large flood in December, 1954, which caused severe and prolonged hardship again highlighted the problem of inadequate drainage of the Shannon. The Government of the day sought the services of the US Army Corps of Engineers, a recognised world authority on flood control and, in August 1956, Mr. Louis Rydell of the USACE made a detailed report outlining the problem and some possible solutions. He suggested inter alia (i) undertaking preliminary engineering investigations to test a number of the more favourable possibilities of the control of floods, selected from those postulated in his report; (ii) establishment of a Shannon River Basin Inter-agency Committee or Commission, which would serve as a medium for correlating various points of view, advising on procedures relating to an overall investigation programme and co-ordinating its effective execution. This committee would exercise advisory rather than executive powers – actual prosecution of engineering, economic, agricultural and other studies would normally be retained as a function of the appropriate, regularly constituted, department or agency.
Subsequently, the Government approved in principle the recommendations of the Rydell report and initiated a first stage investigation of the problem. This investigation was carried out between 1958 and 1961 under the joint auspices of the ESB and the Office of Public Works combining the drainage of the main Shannon stem with a comprehensive plan for the tributary catchments, due regard being given to other users of the river. The joint report recommended a more detailed second investigation which would establish costs and benefits with an accuracy sufficient to enable decisions to be taken in regard to carrying out selected works. The report also agreed with the Rydell recommendation that consideration be given to the establishment of the inter-agency committee, which would necessarily include representatives of a wide range of authorities and interests, national and local. A recommendation by Mr. Rydell that a small, specially qualified, task force, capable of adequately representing all the various interests, be set up to carry out detailed examination and design of drainage proposals was reiterated in the joint report.
In 1987, the Irish Farmers' Association commissioned an independent report by consulting engineers, Delap and Waller. They were asked: "to advise and report on the technical aspects of the River Shannon flooding problem, with particular reference to how it affects the interests of the members of the IFA". The scope of the report included an evaluation of the technical information available and, if appropriate, to identify and recommend remedial works to effect significant local amelioration of the flooding problem.
At that time, the Office of Public Works made available to the consultants whatever reports, information and hydrometric records it had. The conclusion of the consultants at that time was as follows:
There are no obvious localised engineering works, apparent to us, which if undertaken, would significantly improve the regime of the River Shannon. Removal of the weir at Meelick and the silt banks downstream would not have a significant effect.
It is important that Lough Allen be operated within the fullest range of its current limits and that Lough Ree is drawn down to the absolute lowest level compatible with navigation requirements so that as much storage as possible is available to delay or ameliorate the onset of some of the mid to late minor summer floods. It appears to us that the suggestion for lowering the current minimum water level for navigation between Athlone and Meelick, as an additional storage facility, has no merit other than providing improved drainage to callow lands while the level is lowered.
The possibility of providing viable localised flood relief by the construction of embankments or the carrying out of drainage works on small tributaries or on part of some tributaries, without sensibly exacerbating existing conditions in the main river should be pursued.
Bord na Móna seems to have provided a reasonably satisfactory system for preventing large quantities of peat silt from entering adjoining rivers. The success of the system is very dependent on proper maintenance of their siltation ponds.
An experienced management and operating structure is available for attending to such controls as exist in the River Shannon. The ESB and the Office of Public Works do so in tandem and although there is no formal link between them a reasonably effective liaison exists.
In October, 1988, my colleague, Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy Noel Treacy, then Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, on the occasion of the launch of the IFA-commissioned report on the Shannon flooding problem, announced the establishment of a forum at which the views of the various bodies interested in the Shannon could be co-ordinated.
The Shannon Forum, comprising representatives from elected members of local authorities along the River Shannon, local authority officials, boating, fishing wildlife and tourism interests, the industrial and agricultural sector, the ESB and the Office of Public Works, afforded the various parties an opportunity to express the views of the organisations which they represented. It was intended to co-ordinate the use of the resources of the river and ensure that consensus was arrived at in the more efficient management of those resources. With such a multiplicity of interest groups, open discussion on the varying viewpoints was considered beneficial to all concerned. Among the matters discussed, considered or resolved by the forum were planning and development matters, pollution incidents, navigation matters and flooding events.
The proposed EU Framework Directive on Water Policy sets a framework for a comprehensive management of water resources within the European Union, within a common approach and with common objectives, principles and basic measures. Deputy Connaughton was somewhat dismissive of this in the context of the points I am trying to make and which I made some weeks ago. There are elements of importance in regard to this. The proposed water management framework will be based on the river basin, as the natural unit for management and will require the development of the River Basin Management Plans. Member states will have to ensure that a co-ordinated approach is adopted for the achievement of the objectives of the proposed directive and for the implementation of programmes of measures for this purpose. Intense negotiations have been ongoing for some time between the EU and the Department of the Environment and Local Government. It is not something that has been put on the long finger, quite the opposite – I am trying to accelerate the pace substantially in moving my amendment. The proposed directive addresses surface waters, estuarine and coastal waters and groundwater, and will repeal and replace several existing EU directives in relation to individual aspects of water management.
The objectives are: to prevent deterioration of water quality; to achieve "good quality status" in surface waters and ground waters within a 16-year time frame generally; to protect ecosystems, which is vitally important in the Shannon, and achieve compliance with any standards and objectives for "Protected Areas", which is a huge issue in that area, (for example, areas designated for the protection of habitats or species) within a 16-year time frame generally; to ensure supplies of water for drinking and other purposes; to promote sustainable water use; and to mitigate the effects of floods and droughts. There is a huge range of issues that Deputy Connaughton and other Deputies touched on which come specifically within the remit of that directive.
The proposal requires that measures be taken within each river basin for matters such as: the determination of the characteristics – type – of waters concerned; the operation of monitoring programmes in respect of water quality; the control of direct and diffuse discharges to water; the review of the impact of human activity on the status of the waters; the establishment of environmental objectives aimed to achieve quality targets; the drawing up and implementation of a programme of measures to achieve the established environmental objectives; and the carrying out of an economic analysis of water use.
The problem of eutrophication or over enrichment has been shown in a number of studies to be the main threat to the water quality of the River Shannon. This has been clearly attributed to excessive inputs of nutrients, particularly phosphorous, to the inflowing rivers and their tributaries. These studies have chronicled the decline in water quality over the past 20 years, and this deterioration in water quality has endangered the general quality of these waters and also reduced their value as public amenities, particularly as a source of potable water.
The Lough Derg and Lough Ree catchment monitoring and management system has been developed to promote a catchment-based approach for reducing phosphorous inputs to rivers and lakes from all sources. The system undertakes to identify river stretches experiencing the effects of pollution, to catalogue the principal causes in each instance and to propose a range of key management measures which may be implemented by individual local authorities in problem areas. This approach is in keeping with Government policy which envisages a more integrated approach between authorities in promoting water quality management and in recognising the catchment as the most appropriate basis for developing and implementing water management strategies.
The Government has responded to the ongoing decline in surface water quality with the introduction in 1998 of the phosphorus regulations which have, for the first time, established statutory environmental quality standards for phosphorus. Target time frames have been set for the elimination of seriously polluted river stretches, incremental improvements in river channels currently slightly or moderately polluted and the restoration of lakes that are eutrophic to satisfactory conditions.
The two most relevant European Community legislative instruments are the birds directive, adopted in 1979, and the habitats and species directive, adopted in 1992. The birds directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, as the title suggests is concerned with bird species whereas the habitats directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, in many respects represents a broadening of the Birds Directive to the full range of fauna and flora and also habitats.
The birds directive requires EU member states to provide for the conservation of all bird species, including by ensuring that the habitats of all species are adequately conserved. The directive further requires that protected areas, special protection areas, are established for species that are rare, vulnerable, in danger of extinction or otherwise require special attention, and migratory species.
The aim of the habitats and species directive is to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity and it requires member states to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and species at a favourable conservation status in the Community. Under the directive, member states are required, inter alia, to designate protected areas, SACs, for certain natural habitats being ones which are in danger of disappearance, are rare or represent outstanding examples of their type and for a more limited number of species which are listed in the directive. Both the birds and habitats and species directives have been transposed into Irish law by way of regulations introduced in 1985 and subsequently and in 1997, respectively. The European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997, transposing the habitats and species directive, are the more significant as they provide not only for the designation of SACs but also for the protection measures that apply to SPAs as well as SACs. It is expected that the proposed Wildlife (Amendment) Bill will provide, inter alia, for the establishment of a national network of protected areas of both wildlife and geological importance – national heritage areas.
Waterfowl winter on the Shannon system and its tributaries, notably the Little Brosna and the Suck rivers, in internationally important numbers. Wading species breed there particularly in the section between Athlone and Portumna. This is especially the case for the corncrake which is the subject of a special scheme with farmers on the Callows where particular management practices such as centre cut mowing and delayed cutting are essential.
The lakes and rivers are also important habitats for many other species of plants and animals. The two main lakes, Lough Ree and Lough Derg, are thought to still contain the very rare and endangered fish species, pollan, which also exists in Lough Neagh and possibly Lough Erne. Outside Ireland, the other main populations are in Siberia, Canada and Alaska. The Shannon river is also important as the Irish centre of distribution for several aquatic and marsh plants. There are many sites designated for nature conservation purposes along the river for a range of habitats including lakes, fens, rivers, adjacent turloughs and bogs. Overall, the Shannon is, in ecological terms, one of the most important sites in Western Europe. It has, however, up to now been treated as a series of separate sites, not as one large system that needs to be managed as such if it is to be conserved from a series of threats from eutrophication, siltation, increased water colour from bog drainage, increased recreational pressure and the introduction of alien species, zebra mussel, which is spreading throughout the Shannon system.
I appreciate the way Deputies listened to my remarks. If we are talking about a Shannon authority it will impinge on a huge range of issues. It is not as simple as me, as Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, marching in on my own with a Shannon authority. That is why I have taken what I hope is the correct action of putting it in a forum that can, once and for all, tease out all the issues and question all the players, some of whom may not wish to be questioned.