JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

The Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government, at its meeting on 5 March 2003, decided to scrutinise the proposal for a directive on bathing water - COM 2002/581. I welcome Mr. John Sadlier and his colleagues from the Department of the Environment and Local Government, along with Dr. Micheál Lehane from the Environmental Protection Agency and Dr. Batt Masterson from University College Dublin to this meeting today. Unfortunately, we are clashing with the taking of the Local Government Bill 2003 in the Dáil and some of the members are in the Dáil Chamber. We had to divide our talent, but I like to think we held on to the cream for this meeting.

I draw to the delegations' attention that while members of this committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. John Sadlier

I am accompanied by three colleagues from the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Mr. Pat Duggan, Mr. David Moore and Mr. Gerry Flannery. Dr. Micheál Lehane from the Environmental Protection Agency and Dr. Batt Masterson from University College Dublin are also present. With the permission of the Chair, I wish to give a general outline of the proposed new directive. We will be happy to answer any questions or enter into any discussions members might like to pursue.

There is a proposal from the European Commission for a new directive on bathing waters. It aims to update and replace the management regime for bathing waters which is contained in a directive from 1976. This is more than 25 years old and there are weaknesses perceived in it which need revision. The 1976 directive is regarded as somewhat static in regard to bathing water quality management. It is also considered that the parameters by which the quality of water is measured could be improved, particularly in focusing more clearly on providing a more accurate parameter for protecting public health. Another element in the revision of the directive is to take into account legislation developed in the EU since 1976. There have been several other directives on water quality adopted since then. It aims to fit the bathing water regime into the general scheme of things with other directives. Two other aspects of the new directive are that it aims to provide better information to the public and involve a broader range of stakeholders, including public authorities, in water quality management in bathing areas.

The criteria by which water quality will be measured are being reduced by a total of 19 parameters in the existing directive, which ranged from health related ones to aesthetic ones, such as colour and litter floating on the water. The new directive focuses specifically on two criteria. Micro-organisms relate specifically to public health. In the first instance that focuses much more specifically and definitively on the public health aspect of it and on the other broader elements. It also takes into account that there is now under a separate directive, the water framework directive, a requirement on all member states to monitor all coastal waters, irrespective of whether they are bathing waters.

The water framework directive, which was adopted in the year 2000 and is gradually being implemented on a phased basis with a specific timetable, addresses all water, be it inland water, coastal water, estuaries or ground water. All are covered. They knit together more neatly that way.

On the management of beaches, a feature of the existing directive is that local authorities are required to monitor water on a regular basis every two weeks by sampling and testing it. The test shows whether the water complies with the set standards. If one does not comply, one does not comply and that is more or less it. Obviously, there is an onus to do something about it, but it is black and white in that one either complies or not with particular parameters.

Under the new regime, the focus is on a much more active approach to beach management. In the first instance, one is required to develop what is called a beach profile for the management authority, which in our case would be the county councils. This profile would include a comprehensive description of the beach, of the features of the beach, the type of beach water, the different pressures and impacts on the area and the different types of use, such as the usual recreational use and general frequency of customers of the beach. It is a whole beach profile so that one will know the danger points and the pattern of compliance. It also gives a template for managing the beach.

Under the three criteria in the proposed directive, water would be classified as either poor - which is basically failing - good or excellent. If all the necessary monitoring is carried out and the water is good, one is in conformity with the directive. If all the monitoring is carried out and the results come in as poor, one is not in breach of the directive immediately. One is required to click into place the necessary management measures to bring the waters up to good status within three years. That is a different, much more active approach, and the beach profile, as initially set out, must be regularly updated. The approach in the proposed directive is one of continuing active management of beaches and bathing waters. It also gives flexibility, even in the case of a poor status result, to respond quickly and to maintain conformity with the directive, even though one may hit an occasional poor quality result for whatever exceptional reason.

Those are the main items I wanted to highlight. The directive as we have it is as proposed by the European Commission. It has been under active debate within the European institutions since it was presented by the Commission. A number of issues of concern to different member states have been raised. To be adopted the directive will have to be agreed jointly by the Council of Ministers and by the European Parliament. The Parliament has not considered it yet so we do not know what its view of it may be. The proposed directive is in ongoing discussion in a working party of the Council.

Regarding the impact of the proposed quality standards for water, they are not 100% clear and do not relate directly to the old standards. There is no table where the new standards correspond exactly to the old ones. A certain amount of research is required to be able to see precisely how the new standards will affect our performance levels. Will it mean we will have more or fewer beaches meeting the quality standards? Research is being carried out for the Department by the Environmental Protection Agency and University College Dublin. The first results indicate that the standards proposed in the directive would involve a reduction in our level of compliance. In other words, the number of beaches that would meet the proposed standards is less than the number of beaches that meet the existing standards. That is the first broad brush results of the research. We have to go into those more deeply and examine each site. That work is ongoing.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Sadlier for his presentation and the summary forwarded to members yesterday. We will take questions.

Deputy Kelleher

I thank Mr. Sadlier for his presentation. We welcome the new regulations with the proposed aim of ensuring good quality water for bathing. Given that there will be a reduction in compliance with the new directives, can a period of transition be brought about to ensure we avoid headlines to the effect that, all of a sudden, the quality of Irish bathing water has fallen because of the change from the old regulation to the new regulation and the standards it requires? It would send out very bad signals about Ireland in general and our efforts in marketing it as a tourist destination for us to have very poor water quality all of a sudden. Have any efforts been made to ensure there is a transition period?

Who are the greatest offenders in polluting bathing water? We would argue that councils have not been great at monitoring water quality over the years. One could have visited many beaches in many parts of the country in the past, and I am sure it is still quite evident in some areas, where the water had not been monitored to the satisfaction of communities, primarily because the greatest offenders were councils themselves. Can it still be considered impartial observation if councils monitor water quality? Do they have enough resources to ensure the monitoring takes place every fortnight as outlined? Who monitors councils?

Chairman

We will take a few questions and then Mr. Sadlier can deal with them.

Deputy Haughey

I thank Mr. Sadlier for his presentation and thank the other members of the delegation for attending.

Is there a timescale for the implementation of this regulation? I know it has not been considered yet by the European Parliament so maybe it is difficult to give an answer to that question. Is some form of timescale envisaged for the implementation of this directive through the European Union process and its subsequent transposition into Irish law to ensure we comply with it?

I presume we are talking about improved standards. It seems like a contradiction to say that 19 different tests for pollutant parameters are being eliminated and replaced by two measurements. That would appear to suggest that standards are falling, but I presume that is not the case and perhaps Mr. Sadlier might explain how we are improving the situation.

I am familiar with the Dublin Bay project which is almost completed. This project was put in place by Dublin City Council to clean up Dublin Bay. It involved the construction of a submarine pipeline to deal with sewage generally. One of the major claims of Dublin City Council is that, when this has been completed, beaches like Dollymount, Merrion and Sandymount will meet EU water bathing standards for the first time. It suggests it may be possible that these beaches will qualify for blue flag status, which would be very welcome. Will this new directive change those claims? Will we end up back at the drawing board regarding Dublin Bay and other coastal areas? The Dublin Bay project involved a massive investment. Will other local authorities be obliged to invest massively in sewage treatment facilities to comply with this directive or has that been looked at by the Department?

Mr. Sadlier

Regarding the transitional phase, the rough timescale is that the directive will come into force two years after being adopted by the Commission or being published in the official journal. Subsequently, under the directive, water quality will be classified according to the results of the past three years, so it will be five years before it will come fully into place. There is, accordingly, a reasonable transition period before this comes into operation.

Deputy Haughey raised the timescale for adoption. That is not clear as this is in the hands of the Council and Parliament and in fact it may not be adopted at all, or at least not in its present form. It has already happened in relation to bathing water; the European Commission came forward with proposals in 1994 with which member states were not happy. It went back to the drawing board and re-wrote those proposals. That situation obtains here as well, with member states raising questions about a huge number of issues in the directive, so many that there is at least a question mark over the directive in that it might not be adopted or the Commission may have to start again and re-write it. It might not be adopted by the Council or Parliament for 12 months and then there are two and three year subsequent periods.

We are talking here about health-related pollution and microbiological organisms in the water. The predominant sources of these are animal or human waste. One would point at either human sewage, from either treatment works, septic tanks or otherwise, or similar pollution from agricultural sources. In most cases those are carried into bathing water by streams which either enter that bathing water directly or close by. It is difficult to quantify the biggest offender. That information would require a more accurate and comprehensive beach profile with regard to what is happening on the beach and what is having an impact on it.

Will this lead to huge investment costs for local authorities? We hope not. When water quality is poor, for example with evidence of human or animal waste in water in many cases the solution can be quite simple. If bathing water is the stretch of water from shore out to 100 metres, one can possibly solve a problem by piping the water out perhaps 500 metres; in that case there is a level of dilution which has no impact on the environment and it is an acceptable solution. That is acceptable where there are sewage pipes close by.

Another solution arises where a stream crosses a beach and comes through either an agricultural or urban area, with pollutants from different sources. One simply diverts the stream slightly as it approaches the beach so the pollutants are diverted and dispersed without impacting on the bathing area. There can be quite simple solutions to these problems.

We do not expect large scale investment arising from this, subject to ongoing research in particular sites, because there has been a massive programme of investment in sewage treatment facilities in coastal areas of Ireland. The urban waste water treatment directive, a separate directive, requires that by end 2005 every agglomeration with a population over 2,000 must give its waste at least secondary treatment before it is discharged. That level of investment is more or less done - we are approaching the final stages so I hope that will not be a problem.

Senator Bannon

We must eliminate the causes of the problem. I come from a rural area and there are few sewage treatment plants in such areas so this is a serious problem. Many applications for funding for small sewage schemes have been in the Department for ten to 12 years and still await action. I know of two or three villages on the Shannon with very substandard sewerage systems and they have to abide by the traditional septic tank system. Until we get our act together on providing treatment plants for smaller towns or villages, then like it or not we will continue to have raw sewage running into our lakes and rivers.

The facilities on our waterways are insufficient to deal with waste from boats, which is a separate problem. That problem should be monitored in coming months and the facilities to prevent it happening should be provided.

Senator Brady

I am following on from Senator Bannon's points about shipping. One of the associated Departments is the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Does the directive take into account the governance of waste from shipping? We recently had the case of hundreds of sealed packets of children's nappies washing up on a beach. Is that covered by the directive, or should it be?

Mr. Sadlier mentioned testing being carried out every two weeks under the previous directive. Is that increased under this directive or is monitoring of quality ongoing?

Chairman

I realise it is the responsibility of local authorities to test bathing water and to classify it as poor, good or excellent. When water is assessed as poor, whose responsibility is it to restore it to an acceptable standard?

Mr. Sadlier

The short answer is that it is the local authority in the sense that it is its responsibility to identify the source of pollution and take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate that source of pollution.

I neglected to respond to a question from Deputy Haughey on reducing the number of parameters from 19 to two. My colleague Mr.Duggan will respond to that.

Mr. Pat Duggan

The question was whether the reduction in parameters from 19 to two is essentially a lessening of the standard as currently applied. The answer is "No". The approach taken under the new directive is that two key microbiological parameters have been chosen, and these are the parameters most closely associated with public health risk. The standards proposed under the Commission proposal are based on WHO standards. They provide for a higher level of health protection than previously applied under the standards of the old directive. For example, the risk of contracting gastro-intestinalitis would have decreased from approximately 5% under the old directive to approximately 1.5% under the new directive. There is a better level of health protection provided by the new standards for microbiological parameters in relation to the wider range of standards that applied under the old directive, but no longer applying. These are covered by the general provisions of the water framework directive, which requires monitoring, and the provision of good status for all waters. It is a structural re-arrangement of things to allow the new directive fit in to the wider requirements of the water framework directive and focus the new directive on the specific public health requirements that arise for bathing areas.

Mr. Sadlier

The main public health illness caused is gastro-enteritis. If one swallows polluted water, gastro-enteritis or some respiratory illnesses can occur.

The Senator referred to shipping and monitoring. The bathing water directive does not refer to shipping or boating. It focuses on the quality of the water rather than particular activities. The water framework directive, which is our master plan in European law, requires every square inch of water to be addressed. In regard to the River Shannon, the Shannon itself has been the subject of a catch and management study. A study, which ended recently, was carried out over a three year period on the Upper Shannon, Lough Derg and Lough Rea. For the purposes of meeting the water framework directive, which requires that one addresses an entire river basin - not parts of it - we have again established a river basin management project for the whole Shannon Basin. It requires a huge amount of work to carry out a complete inventory of all the waters in the area, including each activity or land use to identify everything in the area that may create pressure on the water quality or water quantity, or may have any impact on the water quality or quantity or eco-systems based on water. A specific programme of measures must be drawn up by all the public authorities involved under all directives. It requires a co-ordinated approach by all the public authorities involved to produce one river basin management plan which identifies all the problems in the area, all the standards to which we should aspire and all the things public authorities are doing to meet these standards. This will be a programme of measures in the river basin management plan which will take into account all activities in the river, including recreational uses, boating, peat extraction, electricity generation, farming, septic tanks and urban waste water treatment systems.

Senator Bannon

With regard to the Shannon, as long as I have been on this earth I have been listening to reports, proposals, plans, studies and so on which have not been implemented. What guarantee is there this time that the findings of a particular study will be implemented at Government level? While there are plans, studies, reports and so on, the problem continues in the Shannon catchment area.

Chairman

We did not bring the delegation here to deal with that issue. Do members of the delegation wish to reply to the question?

Mr. Sadlier

It is not true to say plans have not been implemented. From the time monitoring began in the early 1970s up to the late 1990s, water quality in Ireland has been deteriorating over that 30 year period. A river length classified as polluted to some extent, either slightly, seriously or moderately, increased from approximately 16% polluted to some extent in the early 1970s to 33% by 1997. The first time there was a reversal of that recorded was in the most recent report up to 2000, where the extent of polluted rivers has decreased from 33% to 30%. We can now say that we have hit the peak and we are on the way back. It remains to be seen whether this is just a blip on the graph or a trend of improvement. What the Senator is saying is correct over a longer period.

Given the amount of investment in sewage treatment plants, particularly on the Shannon, there has been, and should continue to be, a significant improvement. The area we need most to address in regard to inland water pollution is agriculture. Agriculture is now being addressed in a much more significant way by way of measures being taken by the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government is implementing further the nitrates directive. The nitrates directive is aimed specifically at protecting water quality against pollution by farming. That will be brought forward significantly over the next few months.

There are two different types of pollution. The main type of pollution in inland waters is eutrophication, that is, over-enrichment by nutrients which causes plant growth. This depletes oxygen, therefore, fish and essential species cannot survive. The main sources of nutrients are farming - approximately 80%. Our focus on bathing waters, in the first instance, is protecting public health, so that when people are swimming in the waters they do not contract illnesses by virtue of organic pollution in the waters.

Deputy Grealish

I welcome the delegation. I come from Galway where the directive will do a great deal of good for many beaches, particularly in Salthill. I am pleased the Mutton Island treatment system will soon come on-stream at a cost of approximately €80 million to taxpayers. We lost out on EU funding, which is an issue. I hope the directive is implemented. The state of our beaches and rivers has implications for the numbers of tourists who visit Galway and Salthill particularly to fish. The implementation of the directive should ensure our beaches, streams and rivers are cleaned up.

There were two spillage incidents recently into the Claddagh Basin which resulted in the death of a number of swans. No one has been prosecuted for this. Unless those responsible for contaminating our streams and rivers are prosecuted, this directive will not work. I would like to know what role the Environmental Protection Agency will have in this regard? Is there provision in the directive to prosecute people who contaminate streams by allowing effluent to flow into rivers and on to beaches?

Senator Brennan

I, too, welcome the delegation. The River Shannon was mentioned, including the vast sums of money being spent on waste treatment plants throughout the country. The new treatment plant in Limerick will be in operation in November. The success of these directives depends on the investment made. The treatment plants have been put in place but their maintenance costs have enormous implications for the farming community and householders in rural Ireland who have been using septic tanks.

Future costs to the Exchequer and the public for environment programmes will be huge. In each local authority environment programmes are now the second largest expenditure. The success of these directives will depend on how these programmes are financed. While this directive will cost little, the overall package of all directives which must be implemented will cost enormous amounts of money and pose a huge challenge for the Exchequer in the years ahead.

Deputy Kelleher

Perhaps Dr. Lehane can answer a question in regard to bio-cycle systems. There is a new type of bio-cycle system for housing schemes throughout the country. It seems to comply with water quality regulations but does the proliferation of these systems affect drinking water quality? We have situations in Cork with large scale developments where because there are no main sewers available there is pressure on housing schemes to put in these bio-cycle systems. Are they a contributory factor to the problems regarding water quality?

Regarding the levels of prosecution, is there any link between county councils and the Department of Agriculture and Food, primarily with regard to farming activities? In the event of a farmer being prosecuted for contaminating or causing problems in bathing water, where the person prosecuted is incapable of making the investment required because of financial constraints, is there any mechanism, or should there be one, to address the issue of the original contamination? Is there any liaison between the councils and the Departments of the Environment and Local Government and Agriculture and Food to address this on a hands-on basis? Mr. Sadlier's earlier evidence is that farming activity is a major contributory factor to bathing water quality.

Mr. Sadlier

I will take the last question first. In regard to the question of liaison and prosecutions, the last option taken by local authorities is prosecution. It is not the way they want to do things. They prefer to engage with whoever it is, farmer or urban person, to improve the situation and put it right. For example, we get statistical returns from local authorities on the different types of enforcement actions they take such as serving notice, visits to farmers, inspections or serving a warning notice. We have a total of about 12,000 actions in a year of which about 60 would be prosecutions. Prosecutions are only a tiny percentage of the total enforcement actions by local authorities.

There is liaison between the Department of Agriculture and Food, local authorities and ourselves. It is developing all the time and we would like to see more of it. There will certainly be more liaison as we move towards implementing the nitrates directive which will, essentially, protect water against pollution by farming. Local authorities are the enforcement agencies under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act but the Department of Agriculture and Food will take a major role in bringing farming forward. There is a good degree of liaison but there should be a higher level in the future.

There can be some problems where a person is convicted of causing pollution but cannot or will not rectify the situation. Our starting point at the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the starting point of European and Irish policy and law is that a person cannot pollute water or carry on an activity which involves causing recurring pollution. If any person carries on an activity which involves the threat of water pollution the primary responsibility to ensure that the pollution does not happen rests on that person, whatever the activity, whether farming, boating or industry. If there is a higher level of investment required in some areas, for example farming, it is usual that the home Department tries to respond and find out where the investment or assistance is needed. It tries to provide as much as possible but is a bit limited in regard to the amount of State aid that can be provided under EU rules. The Department of Agriculture and Food, even in recent times in the context of partnership negotiations, has proposed expanding the level of financial assistance available to the farming community to help it respond to the nitrates directive.

Mr. David Moore

I understood from the Deputy's question that he was asking if there was evidence that the new bio-cycle systems for domestic housing were causing problems for drinking water quality. I am not sure whether he is concerned about a particular type. In recent years there have been new developments and alternatives to the conventional septic tank. These are accredited to what is referred to as the Agrémont certification. I am not aware of any evidence that any of these cause pollution of ground water, drinking water or surface waters. However, there is substantial anecdotal evidence that the older conventional septic tanks have caused pollution of ground water and have been non-compliant in regard to drinking water - group water schemes in particular.

The EPA is in the process of publishing a manual on domestic effluent treatment. It recognises that there are technologies other than septic tanks which have been shown to be reliable and have been proven for treating domestic sewage effluent. The guidelines produced by the EPA are likely to replace the old septic tank standards. They will also replace the need for the Agrémont certification of the new bio-cycle systems.

Deputy Kelleher

There is some concern that whereas they may meet the criteria now, they must be maintained and kept in prime working order. Some groups are concerned that because they meet standards now there is no encouragement to developers and councils to install proper main sewers. The concern is that these systems will be left to serve large numbers of houses forever. People fear that as time passes they will not be maintained to the standard required or will not function as well. The concern is that while there are no problems in the short-term, difficulties could arise in the long-term.

Mr. Moore

I agree with that.

Mr. Sadlier

The Deputy's concern is valid. Looking back over the years, the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 is the starting point here. It first instituted licensing of industry, the easy area to police as one can see the pipe, measure what is coming out, impose controls and see if standards are being complied with. We moved on then to sewage treatment plants in which there has been a massive programme of investment. Farming was addressed along the way at a certain level, but it is now recognised that a larger programme is required. It is the major area which needs to be addressed.

Pollution from septic tanks, particularly from individual domestic sources, warrants a higher level of control than at present. It certainly has to be on the agenda for increasing controls in future. The problem arises not so much in relation to bio-cycle plants but with older, traditional septic tanks which, in many cases, are probably not ideally located, well constructed or maintained. That area needs to be addressed but, in the bigger picture, it is not a huge problem. The sources of pollution have been addressed in order of priority, in terms of their impact. However, the area of septic tanks certainly needs to be addressed.

Senator Brennan

My question relates more directly to waste water plants and sludge disposal. What measures have been put in place by the Department for safe disposal of sludge in the major plants coming into operation in 2003?

We should propose that at the very minimum the Department of Agriculture and Food or whoever would be the responsible body should try to have some forward planning so that in the event of undue hardship being placed on people immediately there would be some financial provision made available to address it. Otherwise, though it would be unintentional, agricultural holdings could be closed down wholesale.

Can we repeat it again to see if Deputy Healy-Rae is in agreement?

Deputy Kelleher

It is that there would be some form of forward planning between the Departments of the Environment and Local Government and Agriculture and Food and local authorities to analyse the impact this EU directive could have. Financial assistance may be required.

Senator Brennan

We could bring in a measure that adequate finance be made available to assist in the implementation of the directive. If anything comes to light that is not foreseen at this stage, that could also be included.

Deputy Cregan

We should flag the fact that there is a possibility that this could create financial hardship for individual farmers or co-operatives, as Deputy Healy-Rea said.

Chairman

There are two aspects to what you are saying. On one hand, you are trying to guess the impact this will have and, on the other hand, deal with the provision of finance.

Deputy Kelleher

I do not want to be seen as just looking for grants for their own sake. I accept that people have an obligation to ensure the environment is protected. I am saying this could have unintended consequences which could create huge financial hardship for individuals. For example, a fellow in a house next to a beach might have to spend up to €15,000 on a septic tank.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht - Wednesday, 14 May 2003

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Mr. John Sadlier

Mr. Sadlier

Mr. Sadlier

Mr. Pat Duggan

Mr. Sadlier

Mr. Sadlier

Mr. Sadlier

Mr. David Moore

Mr. Moore

Mr. Sadlier

Mr. Sadlier

Mr. Sadlier

Mr. Sadlier

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 May 2003