JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Mar 2010

Management of Severe Weather Events: Discussion with State Bodies.

Chairman

As part of our proposed report on the management of severe weather events in Ireland, we have discussed the experience and thoughts of several groups as to how best to provide the emergency response. Today, we will discuss the ongoing flooding in the Shannon Callows and the flooding in the midlands in November 2009. First, the State bodies dealing with the flooding of the Shannon Callows will make their presentations and members will be able to put questions to them. In the second part of the meeting, members will have an opportunity to discuss the flooding in the midlands in November 2009 with the relevant county managers.

The speaker from each delegation will be called in the following order. I welcome the following: Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh, Dr. Elizabeth Sides and Mr. Jim Ryan from the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Ms Clare McGrath, Mr. Tony Smyth, Mr. John Curtin, Mr. Les Lennox and Mr. Neil Ryan from the OPW; Mr Michael Starrett and Ms Beatrice Kelly from the Heritage Council; Mr. Michael Silke, Mr. Gerry Gunning and Ms Elaine Farrell from the IFA; Dr. Ciaran Byrne, Mr. Eamon Cusack, Dr. Cathal Gallagher and Ms Lorraine O'Donnell from the fisheries board; Mr. Pat O'Doherty, Mr. Nicholas Tarrant, Mr. Glen Pope and Mr. Tom Browne from the ESB; Mr. Brian D'Arcy and Mr. Martin Dennany from Waterways Ireland; and Mr. Gabriel Darcy, Mr. Gerry Ryan, Mr. Paul Riordan and Mr. Gerry McNally from Bord na Móna.

Before commencing, I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute legal privilege but this same legal privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I propose that each delegation will make a short presentation and all the presentations will be heard before the question and answer session for the members of the committee and other Oireachtas members who have joined us. Our purpose today is to elicit information, which can only be done by members being focused on questions. If members want an answer to one or two specific questions, do not ask ten questions. To be fair to the Government and Opposition sides, I will take every second question from the Opposition side. At our next meeting in a fortnight, members will have an opportunity to make all the points they want to make.

When we finish this part of the meeting, we will suspend the sitting while the visitors leave and the county managers take their seats and we will resume with the second part of the meeting.

I now call on the National Parks and Wildlife Service to make the opening presentation. I understand Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh will make the presentation.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

Mr. Chairman, Deputies and Senators, I thank you and the joint committee for this opportunity to discuss the issue of flooding in the Shannon Callows. I am accompanied today by my colleague, Dr. Elizabeth Sides, who has responsibility for habitats, including wetlands and marine issues.

I am one of three directors of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which is part of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and have responsibility for designated areas and legislation. I am conscious that in January the joint committee met other officials from the Department who deal with the national response to flooding and other emergency events. I am also aware that the committee met the Minister, Deputy John Gormley last week to discuss these issues further.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government takes the lead in protection of the State's ecological assets such as habitats, species and ecosystems. This is achieved within the legal framework of the wildlife Acts and the European Communities (Habitats) Regulations which transpose the birds and habitats Directives into Irish law. As the committee is aware the birds directive was agreed in 1979 by the member states of the then EEC for the protection of Europe's wild birds. The 1992 habitats directive was similarly agreed and aims to protect a range of endangered European habitats and species.

The directives oblige member states to designate special protection areas, SPAs, for birds and special areas of conservation, SACs, for habitats and species. In the State, we have 423 SACs and 150 special protection areas for birds and both are afforded protection under EU and Irish law. These sites are also referred to as Natura 2000 sites.

The Shannon Callows are the most extensive river meadows in Ireland and stretch for a distance of 50 kilometres from Athlone to Portumna. The Upper River Shannon is designated as both an SPA and a SAC and two of its habitats, namely the Molinia meadows and the lowland hay meadows are listed in annex 1 of the EU habitats directive. Two further annex 1 habitats, alluvial forest and limestone pavement, both listed with priority status under the directive are also present on the site. The Shannon callows are important for over-wintering and breeding birds including corncrake, lapwing, curlew, redshanks, snipe and shoveler. For the information of the committee, I have provided the secretariat with a site synopsis of the River Shannon callows SAC and the middle Shannon callows SPA. I have also provided an indicative map of the designated area for the committee's information.

Winter and spring flooding is a feature of the callows and has generally restricted the agricultural intensification in the area. These combined factors have resulted in its current rich biodiversity and occurrence of a broad range of birds in internationally and nationally significant numbers. Summer flooding in recent years has had an adverse impact on the breeding of the corncrake in the area. The habitats directive provides a framework in which conclusions must be reached by any public authority, whose decisions might have a significant impact on Natura 2000 sites.

Under Article 6 of the directive, which applies to both SACs and SPAs, a public authority, before consenting to any plan or project that could have a significant impact on such a site, must undertake an appropriate assessment of its impacts. This is an ecological assessment. If it finds that the proposed plan or project, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, would be likely to have an adverse impact on the integrity of the site, in light of the site's conservation objectives, it may not provide its consent. However, if alternative, less damaging solutions do not exist and a case of imperative reasons of overriding public interest can be made to justify proceeding, the proposal can be consented to but only where compensatory measures can be taken to ensure that the network of Natura 2000 sites is no poorer as a result of the damaging plan or project proceeding. In such cases there is also a requirement to consult the European Commission where priority habitat is present on the site and to inform the Commission of compensatory measures in all instances.

These requirements apply to a wide range of consent systems and activities, including land use plans and planning consents, local authority developments, forestry consents, aquaculture licensing, foreshore licensing and drainage works, including maintenance programmes. The implications of the legal requirement are that public authorities must fully inform themselves of the impact of any proposal they are considering on the interest for which the Natura sites have been designated. The provisions are designed to assist such authorities to avoid unforeseen negative impacts. In many of these cases the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is a consultee and provides observations to assist the public authority in question to undertake an appropriate assessment. The Department regularly provides such assistance and guidance to planning authorities and to the Office of Public Works.

Ireland has been found wanting in its implementation of Article 6 of the habitats directive. In case 41804, delivered in 2007, the European Court of Justice found that Ireland had failed adequately to apply the provisions of Article 6(3) across a number of consent systems and public authority works. The planning system, aquaculture licensing, foreshore licensing and drainage works were specifically cited in this court case. The Department has recently produced guidelines on appropriate assessment for planning authorities and has been in discussion with the OPW regarding compliance with the habitats and birds directives in its operations.

The provisions of Article 6 of the habitats directive prescribe a level of ecological investigation and assessment that is designed to offer decision makers greater clarity in terms of the implications of proposals before them. When considering flood alleviation on a site as complex and significant as the Shannon Callows, appropriate assessment is a legal prerequisite. If correctly undertaken, it will allow decisions to be arrived at with a fuller understanding. Article 6 assessment is not a block to development but it prescribes how decisions must be taken and compels decision makers to consider their impacts and whether the public interest is being served by proceeding with a proposal.

It should be noted by the committee that almost the entire length of the River Shannon, including its lakes, many of its tributaries and the estuary, as well as many of the country's other rivers are designated as Natura 2000 sites and these requirements apply on a much broader scale than in the Shannon Callows.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Ó Raghallaigh. I turn now to Ms Clare McGrath, chairperson of the Office of Public Works.

Ms Clare McGrath

As Chairman of the Office of Public Works, I am grateful to the committee for being given an opportunity to bring members up to date on recent developments in the area of flood risk management. I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. Tony Smyth, director of engineering services and chief engineer of the Office of Public Works.

I use this opportunity to express my deep sympathy to all those who have been and continue to be affected by the devastating flooding experienced at the end of 2009. Having visited a number of locations in counties Limerick and Clare I saw at first hand some of the damage and hardship suffered. Those exceptional events have reinforced the strategies being implemented by OPW to address flood risk issues.

I know the committee wishes to focus on matters relating to the River Shannon but much of what I have to say applies equally to all the other national river catchments.

It might be useful if I commence our appearance before the committee with a brief review of the recent operational context for OPW in flood management and then outline where we will proceed in the next five years.

At national level, the need for a proactive approach to the management of flood risk was recognised by the report of the flood policy review group. As the lead agency for flood risk management, the OPW's strategy for the management of flood risks is founded on that report, approved by the Government in September 2004. A primary element to deliver on this strategy is the catchment flood risk management and assessment, CFRAM, programme. This programme commenced with pilot studies on the rivers Lee, Dodder and Suir and the Fingal East Meath area. The objective is to complete the programme nationally to meet the requirements of the EU floods directive, which requires that the level of flood risk in each catchment, including that of the River Shannon, should be identified and that a prioritised plan of measures be drawn up to address the risk in areas where it is significant. The OPW will take the lead co-ordinating role in carrying out these studies.

The CFRAM studies are comprehensive catchment-based studies, which focus on and identify areas at risk from flood events for a range of severity and on the production of a prioritised plan of measures, including the non-structural, and actions for dealing with areas where the flood risk is significant. The Lee CFRAMS is the primary pilot project for the national CFRAM programme within Ireland. Among the stated objectives for it are: to assess flood risk, through the identification of flood hazard areas and the associated impacts of flooding; to identify viable structural and non-structural measures and options for managing the flood risks for localised high-risk areas and within the catchment as a whole; and to prepare a strategic catchment flood risk management plan, CFRMP, and associated strategic environmental assessment, SEA, that sets out the measures and policies that should be pursued by local authorities and the OPW to achieve the most cost effective and sustainable management of flood risk within the Lee catchment.

Where flood risks are significant the study has identified a range of potential flood risk management options to manage these risks, including structural options, for example, flood walls and embankments, and non-structural options such as flood forecasting and development control. The CFRMP does not aim to provide solutions to all of the flooding problems that exist in a catchment which would be neither feasible nor sustainable. What it does is to identify viable structural and non-structural options for managing the flood risks within the catchment as a whole and for localised high-risk areas.

The draft plan for the River Lee catchment study was almost complete when these devastating floods occurred in Cork. The value of the CFRAM studies is that they clearly identify all areas within the catchment at flood risk through detailed flood maps, and set out a framework of proactive and co-ordinated actions to address these flood risks across the entire catchment. This medium-term framework, or flood risk management plan, includes a detailed programme of measures planned for various locations, along with an indicative expenditure budget for its implementation across the catchment. This enables the OPW, local authorities and other relevant stakeholders to identify exactly which works and resources to implement in the areas where they are most needed in an efficient, cost-effective and strategic manner. The measures included in the flood risk management plans are underpinned by robust technical and economic analyses. Once the flood risk management plan has been prepared, informed planning decisions can be made, and works such as flood relief schemes, flood forecasting systems and so on, can be taken forward without the need for further justification or extensive additional analysis.

I mention the role of the OPW in major flood events. The OPW has several critical functions, which must in so far as possible be completed. We are not a front line response agency, but the resources of the OPW are made available to emergency services on request. Our primary functions during a flood event are to ensure that all critical OPW flood defence measures are operational and to collect hydrological data sets.

The fundamental principles of the EU floods directive requires the State to put in place a system to assess and manage existing and future risk. The targets for the assessment phase are set out in the directive but each member state must develop its own approach to management. By the transposition of the EU floods directive into national law, the OPW will become the national competent authority with overall responsibility for all matters regarding the assessment and management of flood risk in the State. It will provide a statutory basis for co-ordination of management of flood risk across all bodies and agencies. The relevant statutory instrument is currently with the Minister for Finance for signature.

A comprehensive management programme for the River Shannon is being addressed through the CFRAM programme, under the direction of the OPW. The Shannon CFRAM study, which will commence in mid-2010, will involve consultation with all the main stakeholders, including the public, the ESB, Waterways Ireland, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Heritage Council, local authorities and representative organisations. Organisational stakeholders will be involved in all the national studies through a stakeholder group. They are represented in the studies on an ongoing basis to ensure they have an opportunity to make an input into the process. The public will be consulted at regular intervals during the studies. People will have a formal opportunity to make submissions on the key outcomes — the maps and framework management plans. Strategic environmental and habitats directive assessments are an integral part of the CFRAM study process, as is co-ordination on implementation of the water framework directive.

The extreme floods that occurred in November 2009 had a severe impact on several towns and communities in the Shannon catchment. It must be recognised that the farming community in the Shannon callows has suffered flooding over several years during much smaller flood events. The CFRAM process will examine how we can address this issue. Previous reports examined various schemes for this area. We will now be in a position, in consultation with key stakeholders, to examine potential measures to mitigate the flood risk in the area. Pending completion of the study for the Shannon catchment, the OPW, through its minor works schemes, will work with the relevant local authorities to identify areas that may benefit from interim localised mitigation measures. The OPW recently invited applications for funding for such measures from local authorities, subject to specific economic and environmental criteria. A decision on funding applications for localised mitigation measures that have been submitted by local authorities will be made shortly. I understand that more than 20 local authorities have made submissions under this scheme. The OPW and Galway County Council have established a joint working group in County Galway. It has identified several areas, including parts of the Shannon catchment, on which it will focus its attention initially.

The 2010 budgetary provision for the OPW's flood relief activities, capital works, drainage maintenance and hydrometric activities has been increased to €68.3 million. This is a significant increase on the provision of recent years. During the six years to 2009, the OPW has invested €130 million in capital flood relief projects, with a further €112 million being spent on drainage maintenance and hydrometric programmes. Major flood relief schemes involve complex engineering and construction operations and invariably have lengthy lead-in times. Variations in the timelines and associated expenditure on such major engineering projects can arise for a variety of reasons, including adverse weather conditions, archaeological finds or other local environmental or ecological issues.

On maintenance of rivers and channels, it has been suggested on several occasions that this issue contributed to the recent flood events. It is the OPW's opinion that the magnitude of the events was such that additional maintenance would not have contributed significantly to mitigation of the damage that arose. Maintenance is effective in maintaining the conveyance capacity of the river channel. It reduces the frequency and duration of lower return period floods. I thank the committee for its attention and for the opportunity to set out the OPW's responsibilities in respect of flood risk management.

Chairman

I thank Ms McGrath. I invite Mr. Michael Starrett of the Heritage Council to address the committee.

Mr. Michael Starrett

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for inviting the Heritage Council to send representatives to this meeting. The council has made a fairly detailed submission to the committee. In the short amount of time available to me, I will try to highlight some of the more salient points.

The Heritage Council published its first policy proposal on inland waterways in 1999. We were concerned about the need for an overall strategic plan for Ireland's waterways and their corridors. The need for a co-ordinating agency to be established was spelled out clearly in a 2005 document, Integrating Policies for Ireland's Inland Waterways. The consequences of the lack of real co-ordination — the failure to develop real leadership — were brought home acutely by last November's flooding events, which caused great frustration and suffering in affected communities throughout the country.

Following adoption of the flood policy review group's report in 2004, the OPW was given the major responsibility of co-ordinating flood risk management. The Heritage Council welcomes the new clarity that has been brought to the role of the OPW in that regard. This is not the same as co-ordinating the response to flood events. It appears, since April 2008, that this role has been given to local authorities, with advice from the OPW. We need to try to ensure there is a degree of greater co-ordination. A clearly defined and agreed leadership role needs to be exercised.

The Heritage Council has brought its extensive experience of bringing together various organisations and groups to tackle complex and conflicting issues to bear in a number of areas. In the context of today's discussion, the most important issue is the five Shannon waterway corridor studies that have been compiled by the Heritage Council in partnership with the relevant local authorities, Waterways Ireland and Shannon Development. All the parties engaged in these studies have experienced the benefits, frustrations and difficulties associated with bringing people together and coping with this natural landscape feature. The main linking objective of all the studies is the recognition of the River Shannon as a national asset which should be managed as an attractive place in which to live and work, as well as to visit. This should be balanced with the need to conserve the waterway, its landscape and its heritage for future generations.

Local authorities and Waterways Ireland are in the process of implementing many of the proposals that arose from the water corridor studies. As the chairman of the OPW said, we need to be clear that none of these proposals would have overcome the problem we are talking about today. Better protection of flood plains and clearly defined structures for working across the riverbanks and around the lakes could have improved the response. I wish to reinforce what Ms McGrath said — while the Heritage Council's expertise in this area is focused on the country's longest river, the Shannon, the lessons that have been learnt about agency co-ordination and leadership apply equally to all our other river catchment areas.

Unfortunately, the current flood risk management policy could perpetuate the weaknesses arising from the multiplicity of administrative units involved. They do not truly support a co-ordinated response to flood events along the Shannon. The 2003 floods review report stated that we must learn to live with flood events as a natural phenomenon. That means we have to ensure new houses and developments are not built in areas that are at risk from flooding. The current work being undertaken by the OPW will bring that into sharp focus and identify areas of flood risk. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's guidance on the planning system and flood risk management, which was touched on by the Minister in his presentation to the committee, gives clear direction on this.

An initiative that is already in existence merits consideration as a model for co-ordination to build on the existing work on flood risk management and the response to floods. I refer to the river basin districts proposal that arose from the water framework directive. The plan for the Shannon river basin district, which is being finalised by the district team, which comprises representatives of all relevant agencies and local authorities, treats the river as a single entity and has a structure involving all relevant agencies. I do not list them all. The number of them is an indication of the complexity of trying to pull it all together.

The Heritage Council recommends that resources be allocated to allow the river basin district plans, their management and implementation to become a reality. That will require each of the agencies accepting that this is a priority and allowing the allocation of their own resources to make it happen. This will help deliver the best outcome for the sustainable development of the waterways and their hinterlands. This includes spatial planning to take account of appropriate tourism development, infrastructure, transport and recreational activities to support sustainable communities and employment. Most importantly, it will allow people to continue to live near and enjoy the River Shannon.

We know there is a public appetite for the allocation of resources to this, and the events in November and December will have amplified that appetite. The research carried out by the Heritage Council in 2007 shows that the waterways and rivers are valued most highly among the many landscape features, and the public would support an allocation of resources. We also know from our recent joint report with Fáilte Ireland that extreme weather events like that of November last may become more frequent.

There is no shortage of plans, blueprints and recommendations. There is a range of entirely legitimate interests that must be taken into account. We need to find a balance between thinking we can engineer ourselves out of this problem and ensuring the inherent economic, social and environmental values of the River Shannon are retained for those communities who live and work alongside it, and those who visit it. For its part, the Heritage Council will continue to work with all communities and agencies towards achieving that objective.

Chairman

Thank you Mr. Starrett. We will now move on to the presentation by Mr. Michael Silke of the IFA.

Mr. Michael Silke

I am leader of the IFA's flooding project team. I am accompanied today by Mr. Gerry Gunning, executive secretary of the IFA rural development committee.

The flooding of the River Shannon in November and December 2009 once again highlighted the neglect of the river over many years. Essential maintenance work has not been done, despite the fact that various reports over many decades indicated that remedial work in key areas along the River Shannon would have a massive beneficial effect for farmers, the wider community and the protection of our globally threatened wildlife. The consequences of the failure to maintain the river since the foundation of the State has also had serious impact on the tributaries into the Shannon, particularly the River Suck. The River Suck flows through County Galway and County Roscommon. There is a 45 foot drop over a 22 mile stretch of that river from Athleague to Ballinasloe, but there is just a five foot drop over the eight mile stretch from Ballinasloe to the River Shannon. When the flood waters of the River Shannon rise to excessive heights, they flow back up the river and flood the town of Ballinasloe.

It is clear that one of the many problems with the River Shannon is the plethora of agencies that have a say in water levels. We have Waterways Ireland, the ESB, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the various fisheries boards, Bord na Móna and all our local authorities along the river. All of these agencies have their own interest in the River Shannon, but none of them has any responsibility for flooding. Some have a veto on whether remedial work goes ahead. For example, the National Parks and Wildlife Service recently stopped essential maintenance works which it deemed damaging to the SPA and SAC environment designations in the area. This is particularly galling in the context of the serious suffering being experienced by people living in these areas, as well as the fact that we have lost most of our globally threatened wildlife species that are unique to the area.

I can give examples of the decline in the curlew, corncrake and wider wader bird populations. We had 60 calling male corncrakes in the River Shannon in early 2002, but we had only five calling males last year. That species has been decimated, along with the wader bird species, by the continuous summer flooding of our callows over the past three years.

It is clear that holding back water at crucial times by the ESB has contributed massively to serious summer flooding. Last October was the driest in living memory, yet there is no doubt that water levels in Lough Allen and Lough Ree were maintained at an artificially high level. My information is that water taken from the River Shannon for domestic use in Dublin will result in compensation to the ESB for the loss of electricity that would have been generated by that water. What will the ESB do with this revenue? Is it prepared to spend this money on a maintenance programme in the River Shannon?

Last week I spoke with our counterparts in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Farmers Union, on this issue in respect of Lough Erne. It is clear that similar problems exist there. The remit of Waterways Ireland is solely for navigational and recreational purposes, and this body consistently allows the rivers to reach artificially high levels, which has contributed greatly to serious flooding. However, it claims to be working with the ESB through a so-called 'gentleman's agreement' to maintain the river and the lakes at a certain level. This is unacceptable.

The aim should be to reduce the water levels to the lowest level for navigation purposes so that the river is able to take additional water at critical times, such as times of heavy rainfall. Why were Met Éireann forecasting procedures not used in anticipation of the horrifying realities that unfolded last November? Why were the levels in Lough Ree tampered with in the 1970s so that they rose by 0.6 metres? This was given statutory effect in 1979. Was this done to facilitate a wider navigation course all over Lough Ree? Can Waterways Ireland and the ESB state today that the navigation route along Lough Ree has not been changed? Bord na Móna has allowed billions of tonnes of peat to drift into the River Shannon. Has Waterways Ireland allowed for the rise in the water levels of Lough Ree to get over the silt? What is Bord na Móna's responsibility for taking this silt out of the River Shannon?

It is clear that the only way to address the ongoing issue is establishment of a single agency with the necessary powers. This agency must have responsibility for all waterways in the country, with the specific remit of carrying out essential maintenance on our river networks, so that damage caused to farmlands and households can be avoided. The opportunity now exists to put such an agency in place with the implementation of the EU floods directive. The lead agency should be the OPW. It should be given the power to protect people, property and businesses. Appropriate legislation must be put in place to give the OPW the remit it needs to tackle this issue directly.

At its public forum in Ballinasloe in January, the IFA set out what was needed. This was overwhelmingly supported by the 700 people in attendance. Of most concern to us is the serious summer flooding that we are enduring on an almost annual basis and the very serious winter flooding. We are not talking about draining the Shannon or removing the chance of flooding in the area because that is not possible. All we want to do is stop the serious summer and winter flooding which is getting into people's houses as we speak.

The onus is on Dáil Éireann to act and put this structure in place so that, in future, a meaningful effort can be made to mitigate the effect of flooding in the Shannon Callows. In 2000 an all-party Dáil committee went through a number of motions and came up with findings but those findings were never acted upon. Many studies have been carried out over the decades which have clearly stated that we can stop summer flooding and serious winter flooding. It is time we acted on the issue as there has been a great failure to do so since the foundation of the State.

Can we take it as given that this committee will come back to us on this critical issue? Can the Chairman set a timeframe for doing so? This is an emergency situation and, as a member of the IFA, I do not wish to see again the level of human suffering I have seen in November.

I will answer any questions members have.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Silke and call on Dr. Ciaran Byrne of the Central Fisheries Board.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I thank the Chairman and committee members for inviting me and my colleagues to talk about the recent severe weather events, the emergency response to and management of said events, and the flooding of the Shannon Callows. I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. Eamon Cusack, CEO of the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board. I will discuss the first part of the question relating to the recent severe events and Mr. Cusack will discuss in more detail the issue of the Shannon callows.

The Central Fisheries Board is tasked with ensuring that any fishery, hatchery or fish farm which is in possession or occupation is managed, conserved, protected, developed and improved or otherwise dealt with properly in accordance with any direction given by the Minister. That is our core function and the guiding Act is the Fisheries Act 1980. The Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards do not have a statutory responsibility for emergency responses relating to flooding or the management of severe weather events.

I will put the flooding of last November into context. According to a climatological report from Met Éireann, the rainfall of November 2009 was notable for the number of stations which recorded the highest ever November monthly rainfall, the number of wet days and the number of heavy precipitation days. Rainfall totals for November were the highest on record at most stations, including the long-term stations of Valentia observatory, whose records extend back over 100 years. Valentia's total of 366 mm was the highest of any month since observations began in the area in 1866. Last November saw a particularly severe and unique weather event.

The committee will see two diagrams in the handout I prepared. One is of an aerial photograph of January 2009 showing normal flooding events between Shannonbridge and Banagher in County Offaly, an area which floods on a regular basis. In November 2009, however, we received between 250% and 400% more rainfall than we would expect for that time of the year.

Although we have no statutory role relating to the emergency management of such events or of severe water events, the Central Fisheries Board and all the regional fisheries boards provide services to local authorities and agencies. We made boats, tanks and water pumps available where required and have direct contact with Cork City Council, Dublin Fire Brigade and the Civil Defence. To this day the Civil Defence holds a number of our boats in reserve in case some other severe rainfall event happens over the winter. We have volunteered equipment and staff as required to help with the management of these events and we will do so again if called upon.

The Central Fisheries Board has worked very closely with our partners in the OPW in the past 30 years. A previous project, the environmental drainage maintenance programme, has been superseded by the environmental river enhancement programme and we have worked hand-in-glove with the OPW in its drainage programmes to achieve our fisheries objectives, namely, the conservation, development, management and enhancement of fisheries.

Mr. Eamon Cusack

I thank members for the invitation to address the committee. The Shannon Regional Fisheries Board has a role in protecting fish and their habitat and aims to use this natural resource for the benefit of local communities. Any proposal to drain a river must be assessed by the board for its potential to cause damage to the fishery environment. The board must seek all available information and identify gaps in information. It will discuss any proposals with developers and put forward suggestions to remedy any issues arising. We think of ourselves as a proactive agency rather than one which simply reads from the legislation.

The Meelick project involved a proposal by the OPW to relieve summer flooding in the Meelick Callows. We had a look at the proposal and came to a number of conclusions which we put to the OPW. One conclusion was that the project needed to be looked at in the wider context of a sustainable management system for the Shannon which took into account the water framework directive. Following on from what other agencies have said, including the Heritage Council, our board felt we were the logical co-ordinating agency, apart from the OPW. We have already formed the river basin district group to form a co-ordinating organisation within the Shannon region. We would look at alternative strategies to alleviate flooding, such as the construction of relief channels as in the Cappaghmore area on the River Mulkear. The successful OPW strategy has reduced flooding in that area and, with climate change needing to be dealt with, we should look at such options more closely.

The board also had issues with the potential negative impacts outlined in the environmental study and sought a review of the document, which the OPW undertook. We also pointed out that angling in the area was of considerable importance and would be put at serious threat by the proposal. We also had issues regarding the cost-benefit analysis of the proposal, which called for the removal of large amounts of silt and would have been cost-prohibitive. In the event, the OPW carried out tree removal and pruning over 300 m of the riverbank, which was cost-effective, environmentally sustainable and led to improved water conveyance in summer flooding conditions.

Similar projects have been carried out with minimal impact on fisheries. A project on the Shannon at Plassey in Limerick, to widen the channel by removing obstructions such as trees and other vegetation, is nearing completion and has also significantly increased water conveyance under high flood conditions. The OPW has also carried out a flood relief programme on the River Fergus in Ennis, to which the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board contributed its views at the outset. We continue to work with the OPW to minimise damage to fisheries.

As regards flooding, we should also look at the wider picture. It is not just about the drainage of rivers — we must question the drainage of our mountains, bogs and wetlands, which leads water to enter our rivers and streams at a much faster rate and in greater volumes. We must also address unsustainable development, such as new houses, offices, etc., on the flood plains which hold up the water. In the past, water gradually percolated through our bogs and natural flood plains, slowly entering our waterways and flowing to the sea but now the water rushes from our mountains and bogs, overwhelming our waterways and flooding our houses. This process is accentuated when the water makes its way to the natural flood plains which are now covered by impermeable concrete and tarmac, flooding the houses and businesses constructed on them. High flood events also impact on fisheries through severe bank erosion causing damage to the structure of the river and displacing juvenile fish.

When assessing the impact of drainage on rivers and so on, it is important to look at the use and assessment of land and to carry out a survey in conjunction with any proposal to drain any part of the Shannon. For example, it is reported that afforestation and its associated drainage patterns will increase flood risk levels by 30% and, as we know, huge amounts of afforestation have taken place throughout the Shannon catchment area and elsewhere. Drainage of rivers is not the only answer; we must also plan correctly. In doing so, we must try to work with all stakeholders and, where possible, take their views on board.

The Shannon Regional Fisheries Board has been to the forefront in putting forward solutions for dealing with water displaced by development. We have also worked with the farming community to clean and drain rivers while restoring habitat. It is important to state that while our primary function is the protection of fisheries, we will and do work actively with any agency, the farming community and other stakeholders to seek to minimise the damage to fisheries while allowing developments to go ahead. One of our recent publications, issued during the famous Celtic tiger years, dealt with planning water courses in urban environments. We must look at the entire planning issue. As I said, we are willing to take on board the contributions of colleagues in other State agencies. Many of the issues are known and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Other countries have successfully married flood drainage with maintaining habitats, and we should try to emulate that.

Chairman

I now invite Mr. Nicholas Tarrant of the ESB to make his presentation.

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

I am accompanied by Mr. Pat O'Doherty, executive director of ESB Energy International. We thank the committee for inviting the ESB to discuss the November Shannon flooding and to describe the ESB's role on the Shannon. Many people in the Shannon region suffered significant hardship as a result of the floods and we sympathise with all of them.

I will begin by briefly describing the Shannon scheme. A map of the River Shannon is shown in appendix one of our submission. From source to estuary, the river is approximately 250 km long and has a fall or gradient of only 15 m between Lough Allen and Lough Derg. The river is composed of a series of lakes connected by narrow channels, and these channels cause significant restrictions to flow. It has a large catchment area of some 10,400 sq km. These factors create a situation where the river is prone to flooding, particularly during prolonged rainfall. This flooding can be widespread and because of the low river gradient and very flat terrain, it is also slow to rise and slow to fall.

The Shannon scheme was set up under statute, under the provisions of the Shannon Electricity Act 1925, Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 and Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1934, and consists of a power station and associated dams and headrace at Ardnacrusha, along with the weir at Parteen and associated embankments. It was built between 1927 and 1932. Ardnacrusha can generate 85 MW of electricity and is part of the ESB's hydroelectric portfolio, which provides a sustainable and renewable electricity resource. Ardnacrusha power station is located some 2 km upriver from Limerick city. The diagram in appendix two shows the general geographical layout of the station with headrace, tailrace and Parteen Weir.

Most of the water flowing down the Shannon normally travels through Ardnacrusha power station to generate electricity. A small flow is maintained down the original channel at all times. In flood conditions, surplus water is discharged down the original Shannon river route at Parteen Weir. The operation of Ardnacrusha in such conditions provides flood alleviation in that it reduces the amount of water that passes down the original river channel.

The ESB's statutory role on the Shannon relates to the generation of electricity at Ardnacrusha. In this context, the ESB is primarily concerned with the water level in Lough Derg in so far as it impacts on the operation of Ardnacrusha. The ESB no longer has a strategic interest in storing water in Lough Ree or Lough Allen for electricity generation. In broad terms, under the legislation mentioned above, the ESB must generate electricity and, towards that end, control, manage and maintain in good repair the weirs, sluices and other works that are vested in it.

The legislation sets out the extent of the ESB's statutory responsibilities. The points at which the ESB can exercise control of lake levels are at the sluice gates at the outlet of Lough Allen, at Bellantra, at Athlone Weir and at Parteen Weir upstream of Ardnacrusha. The ESB has regulations for the management of Ardnacrusha, Parteen Weir and the Lough Allen and Athlone sluice gates. Lough Allen was originally used as a strategic water reserve. However, it is no longer used for that purpose and the outlet sluice gates are now used to maintain navigation levels in the lake, discharge floods and provide a minimum flow to maintain the downstream channel. Lough Allen outflows are small compared to main channel flows.

On Lough Ree, the ESB exercises limited control during non-flood periods. Minimum safe navigation levels are maintained in the lake during the summer months. Athlone sluice gates are used to augment low flows downstream of Athlone Weir and are opened in non-flood conditions if the level downstream is such that no waterlogging or flooding will result in the callows area. On Lough Derg, the ESB uses Parteen Weir and Ardnacrusha to manage the level in the lake. However, this is limited by the channel restriction through and below Killaloe. The operating range of Lough Derg is small, some 0.4 metres between the upper and lower levels, and when in flood, Ardnacrusha station is put on maximum load to take as much flood water away from the original river channel as possible. This arrangement provides significant flood relief downstream of Parteen Weir. During floods, the only significant control on the river is at Parteen Weir, where water can be discharged down the original river channel to assist in managing the level in Lough Derg. The effect of the level in Lough Derg does not extend upstream beyond Meelick Weir.

Significant amounts of rain fell in the Shannon catchment in November 2009, up to three times the November average in some places, with the result that water levels rose in all parts of the river to very high levels. The highest water levels since the building of Ardnacrusha were recorded in Lough Ree, at approximately 0.5 m above the previous record, and in Lough Derg, at some 0.3 m above the previous record. At the peak of the flood, approximately 80 to 90 million cu m of water per day entered Lough Derg. The graphs in appendix three show the levels in the lakes for the period of the flooding.

During the November flooding, the maximum possible amount of water was flowing through Ardnacrusha station at all times, with all units in operation. However, when the level started to rise above the maximum normal operating level in Lough Derg, it also became necessary to discharge water down the original river channel at Parteen Weir. The graph in appendix four shows the flows in the Shannon at Parteen Weir from 1 November to 13 December 2009. The procedures laid out in the ESB regulations were followed during the flooding.

As it became clear that the ESB would have to discharge water at Parteen Weir at rates likely to cause problems downstream, the various local authorities and the Garda were contacted. The ESB had previously provided copies of inundation studies, which show the likely effect of flooding in the lower Shannon area, to the mid-west emergency planning group. The response to the flooding was co-ordinated and led by an inter-agency group comprising the mid-west local authorities and the emergency services. The ESB attended emergency management meetings with the various agencies involved and maintained close contact with these agencies throughout the flood period. Contact was also maintained with Waterways Ireland. The ESB issued public statements on a daily basis over the peak flooding period, along with updates to public representatives, the Government and the national emergency co-ordination centre. The Office of Public Works, as the lead agency in flood risk management, is embarking on the development of a catchment flood risk assessment and management plan for the Shannon and the ESB will be supporting this work.

To summarise, the ESB's statutory role on the Shannon river relates to the generation of electricity. The operation of Ardnacrusha provides flood alleviation in that it reduces the amount of water that passes down the original river channel during floods. The ESB no longer has a strategic interest in water storage in Lough Ree or Lough Allen for electricity generation. Lough Derg's level does not influence the levels in the channel upstream of Meelick Weir. The ESB has regulations and procedures for dealing with normal and flood conditions on the Shannon, and during the flooding of November 2009, those procedures were followed. The ESB participated in the multi-agency response to the Shannon flooding crisis. The catchment flood risk assessment and management plan for the Shannon region will be developed under the auspices of the OPW and the ESB will support that work.

Chairman

I now invite Mr. Brian D'Arcy of Waterways Ireland to make his presentation.

Mr. Brian D’Arcy

Good afternoon, Chairman, Deputies and Senators. Thank you for your invitation to address the issues surrounding the November 2009 flooding on the River Shannon. I am accompanied by Mr. Martin Dennany, who is director of marketing and communications in Waterways Ireland.

Waterways Ireland is the largest of the six cross-Border bodies set up under the British-Irish Agreement and has been given its statutory remit as set out in the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999. Annex 1 Part I of the British-Irish Agreement states that Waterways Ireland is a body with the following functions: to manage, maintain, develop and restore the inland navigable waterway system throughout the island, principally for recreational purposes. The waterways under our control are the Lower Bann Navigation, the Erne System, the Barrow Navigation, the Grand Canal, the Royal Canal, the Shannon-Erne Waterway and the Shannon Navigation. As we are dealing specifically with the Shannon, the relevant legislation is the Shannon Navigation Act 1990, which gives Waterways Ireland its powers.

Section 2 of the Shannon Navigation Act 1990 states:

The Commissions [now substitute Waterways Ireland as the successors to the Commissioners of Public Works] shall have all such powers as are necessary for the performance of their function under the Shannon Act and shall 'have power to undertake the care, conservation, management, control, maintenance, restoration, repair, improvement, extension and development of the Shannon navigation and to----

This is followed by nine subsections, (a) to (i) which deal with the navigation channel only.

Section 3 of the Shannon Navigation Act 1990 states that the commissioners may make by-laws for the care, conservation, management, control and maintenance and the regulation of the use of the Shannon navigation and in relation to the restoration, repair, improvement, extension and development, etc. This is followed by 13 subsections (a) to (m) and deals with the navigation channel only.

What is very clear from the statutes is that Waterways Ireland's role is one of a navigation authority and its responsibilities relate to navigation matters only. The other statutory bodies involved in the Shannon work from equally clear legislation and their roles are equally well defined.

The water levels required for navigation on the various stretches of the Shannon are defined by the crests of the downstream control weirs. These weirs were constructed as part of the 'improvement of the navigation of the River Shannon under the Act 2nd and 3rd Victoria of 1839'. The water level retained by these crests has always been and remains the navigational requirement. Since the works, which were completed in 1846, some changes have occurred. In the 1880s sluice barrages were introduced to most of the weirs to improve flood conveyance. In the Meelick-Victoria Lock area further flood relief sluices were installed on a back channel and the crest of Meelick Weir was lowered but adapted to cater for the installation of weir boards to maintain the navigation level at periods of low flow in the river. At that time management of the water levels on the entire navigation lay with the Shannon Commissioners, subsequently the Office of Public Works. This changed with the introduction of the Electricity Supply Act 1925 and the construction of the Ardnacrusha power generation plant. Control of the outflows from the three major lakes, Lough Allen, Lough Ree and Lough Derg passed to the ESB. While the outfalls of Lough Allen at Bealantra sluices and Lough Derg at Ardnacrusha and Parteen Villa changed, the crest levels at the intervening controls remained exactly the same. The OPW continued to operate the sluices in Athlone at the outfall of Lough Ree but on the daily instruction of the ESB. Waterways Ireland, as the successor to OPW as the navigation authority, continues to manage the water levels under its control to the same operating criteria to achieve the minimum level required for navigation at times of low flow and to afford the maximum flood relief at all other times.

In regard to Lough Ree, I should clarify the position of the navigation level regime for the lake that was agreed between the OPW and the ESB in the 1970s. The design crest level of the weir at Athlone is 123 ft above ordnance datum Poolbeg and this is the design navigation level for Lough Ree. The agreement reached allowed the ESB to draw the level of the lake down to 122 ft above ordnance datum towards the end of August each year and to 121 ft above ordnance datum towards the end of September each year, a total drop of 2 ft. There has been some confusion relating to the background of this arrangement with some opinion being that the OPW and subsequently Waterways Ireland raise the level of the lake each year by 2 ft, for navigation. In fact, the opposite is the case with Waterways Ireland continuing to honour the agreement with the ESB to lower Lough Ree toward the end of the navigation season as the ESB sees fit for either power generation or flood conveyance purposes.

Water levels and rainfall amounts recorded daily at each lock on the Shannon coupled with Met Éireann's weather forecasting and years of operating experience by Waterways Ireland personnel inform the management decision as to whether adjustments are required to the sluice control and-or weir boards in the case of Meelick weir. As inflows increase, adjustments are made to retain the water at the crest level of the weir. When all sluices are open and weir boards are removed, Waterways Ireland has no further control over the level the flood will attain.

Leading up to the November 2009 rainfall event, which was described by Met Éireann as "extraordinary", all sluices were open and all weir boards were removed in the Meelick area prior to 31 October. It is not to Waterways Ireland's benefit to have the water level exceed the crest level of the weir during times of flood. It results in less airdraft for craft passing under bridges. Increased velocity in the channel poses problems for our customers and can cause damage to the navigational infrastructure. The cost of repairs to jetties, marker posts and buoys, locks, service blocks and pump-outs added to the costs in delays in completion of projects following the winter of 2009 will run into many thousands of euros for Waterways Ireland.

Since its inception at the turn of the millennium, Waterways Ireland has been charged by both the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly through the North-South Ministerial Council with managing, maintaining, developing and restoring much of the island's inland navigation network, principally for recreational purposes. On the Shannon alone, over the past decade, Waterways Ireland has increased the number of mooring berths by more than 50%. Visitors can now reach new destinations such as Boyle and Ballinasloe. Design work on the restoration of the Ulster Canal has commenced with the re-opening of the stretch from Upper Lough Erne to Clones due in late 2013. Most notable is the restoration of the Royal Canal which was abandoned as a navigation route in 1961. The re-opening is due for late September-early October this year. As well as attracting tourists on to the island and reaping the benefits of the financial inflows, the facilities provided are enjoyed by local people through boating, angling, walking and so on, thus contributing to better health and well being.

It is Waterways Ireland's opinion that any changes to the existing navigation regime that would lower water levels could render much of the infrastructure inaccessible and the investment from both Exchequers, North and South, would have been wasted. Such changes would have a wholly detrimental effect on the economic and tourism product provided for visitors and locals alike.

Chairman

Thank you. The final presentation of part 1 of the meeting is by Mr. Gabriel Darcy from Bord Na Móna.

Mr. Gabriel Darcy

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Bord Na Móna welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the significant issues and problems arising from the recent flooding of the Shannon.

We have submitted a detailed agenda and I hope all the members have received it. It is worth remembering and I think it has been alluded to by quite a number of people at this stage, that the floods were caused at the time by an unprecedented level of rainfall during a relatively short period. This rainfall occurred after a wet summer, which meant that the water levels and the water tables generally were high, lessening the capacity of the river system to absorb the rainfall.

The total land area in the Shannon catchment is 1.8 million ha. of which 200,000 ha. or 11% of the total catchment is bog. The number of hectares of bog under the control of Bord Na Móna is 37,000 ha. or 2.1% of the total land area, with 12,500 ha. or 0.7% of the total land area being actively worked by Bord Na Móna. The element which is being worked on by Bord na Móna, namely, what is active and used, amounts to 12,500 hectares, or 0.7% of the total land area about which we are talking. Most of Bord na Móna's peatlands are below the normal water level and do not add water to the river when it is in flood. Over 160,000 hectares of non-Bord na Móna peatland which is owned by commercial interests and private operators is virgin bog and includes national heritage areas, special areas of conservation, SACs and so forth. Again, to put this in context, the area Bord na Móna controls represents 2.1% of the total land area and the active area of peatland that Bord na Móna actually works on in this area represents 0.7% of the total area involved.

I shall speak very briefly about our practice and what we do in our work. We operate under IPCC, integrated pollution control, licences which are issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. There are a number of conditions within those licences that specifically relate to water discharges. All discharges go through appropriately designed silt ponds. In our area of operations in this catchment region we have more than 500 such silt ponds. Our compliance is monitored frequently and regularly by the EPA. I might add that we have an excellent record of licensed compliance and of co-operation with the relevant agencies. Bord na Móna is the only licensed peat producer in this region and this usage represents 18% of the total area of peatland in the region. We operate the silt ponding control system and did so for more than 20 years prior to the licensing regime which was introduced in 2000 by the EPA. The silt ponds are inspected every two weeks and cleaned twice a year, using best practice. The EPA regularly and randomly inspects the silt ponds. Our compliance rates are in the range of 95% to 100%.

The flooding that occurred last November had a substantial impact on Bord na Móna as well as in the hinterland of the region. A substantial area of peatland was flooded and there was substantial damage to feedstock. It created a significant amount of difficulty for us in meeting our customer requirements.

I shall detail some of the steps we took in this period. Obviously, all pumping of water from peatlands was suspended during the period of flooding. Interestingly, the peatlands held an estimated 10% of the peak flow for a four to five-day period. The total volume of water on Bord na Móna land was estimated at 35 million cu. m. which in its own right provided a certain attenuation from the flood. As a result, peak flooding was deferred somewhat. During and after the event, Bord na Móna provided assistance to householders, farmers and other affected parties. The pumping of water from these peatlands only resumed, on a planned and managed basis, as the flood level receded. The monitoring evidence is that no silt emissions arose as a result of this management process.

During this period Bord na Móna, with the significant amount of resources available to it in the region, redeployed people and machinery to assist in the pumping of water from flooded areas in towns and villages and helped to strengthen some of the flood barriers. We worked with many people, including our friends from the IFA and others, to provide bedding materials to farmers. Indeed, we continue to do so and thus in some way alleviate the undoubted humanitarian disaster which occurred. We supplied significant quantities, some thousands of tonnes, of fuel products to affected householders via the St. Vincent de Paul Society and Midlands Gateway Chamber.

To speak very briefly about the future, there is no doubt that cutaway peatland presents an opportunity to assist in flood attenuation. An increasing amount of Bord na Móna's peatlands will become cutaway bog in coming years — a significant amount already has. We already declared publicly we are not opening any more new bogs for working. We are open to co-operating with all relevant agencies and authorities in regard to this potential use.

Over the years Bord na Móna has developed an expertise in the management of water via work carried out on rehabilitation of peatlands, supporting biodiversity, habitat formation and reformation and fauna and flora propagation. We are the recipient of a variety of awards that reflect, on a European and global scale, our capability in rehabilitation in a sustainable manner. We have experience in planning, operating and managing significant engineering projects. We have a significant engineering division within the organisation.

Very interestingly, our land holdings, some 200,000 acres in total, are strategically located between what I would term "water rich" areas and "water poor" areas of Ireland. Going into the future, this is something we must look at in regard to how we manage water, which is a resource. In this instance we are talking about damage but in the future water will be seen as and must be treated as a very valuable resource. We have an opportunity to capture, store and manage water much better than we have done. Bord na Móna looks forward very much to assisting in the development of this type of strategic approach.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Darcy. We will now take questions for the various people who made presentations. We shall get to everybody. I ask for questions and answers because we must move quickly and there are many people present. We will be able to talk further about this subject at subsequent meetings but I ask speakers to try to elicit information rather than make speeches to the delegates.

I call Deputy Bannon.

Deputy James Bannon

I am particularly pleased that this meeting of the committee is taking place and I welcome all the bodies to it.

I ask the representative bodies how often they meet to discuss problems in regard to the River Shannon. There is a view that there are far too many bodies working separately in this area. We feel they should come together. As long ago as 2004, I proposed the establishment of a River Shannon authority to manage the river. In the past we have heard promises from various politicians concerning the draining of the River Shannon. That is not possible but management of the waterway is possible.

I did not hear the ESB or any other body mention the river fall from Lough Allen to Lough Ree and from Lough Ree to Lough Derg, and further down to the River Shannon Estuary. It is important to know the extent of the fall and whether the basin was cleaned out properly with the removal of silt, etc.

On the possibility of having a single agency to manage the country's waterways, I ask Mr. Silke of the IFA to outline his proposals.

Like me, Mr. Silke is pressing for a single agency to manage the country's waterways. Will he outline his proposals? While I fully support the concept of a single authority to manage the River Shannon, would the single agency for all waterways as mentioned by Mr. Silke not have too wide a scope? It would not give the River Shannon the concentration it deserves. A large number of statutory bodies exercise authority over various aspects of the management of the River Shannon. A considerable number of private organisations also have a vested interest, including bird watching groups, yachting, angling and boating clubs, etc., but none of them has a representative in attendance. Having all of these bodies under the single umbrella of a River Shannon authority would be beneficial to the river's management. Seven local authorities from Fermanagh to Limerick are involved. We have held meetings on this matter. A River Shannon authority would be a tool under which everyone could work, including State agencies, the general public, local authorities and voluntary groups with vested interests in the Shannon.

We all witnessed the extent of the devastation caused to so many people by serious flooding in November and during the Christmas period. I am delighted that some of those who have not yet been able to return to normality in their homes are present in the Gallery. I visited many of their homes in counties Longford and Westmeath, my constituency. I fully understand the extent of the situation.

When the Minister attended our meeting last week, he blamed bad planning. Mr. Cusack of the fisheries board also referred to bad planning, but Government policies have forced people to build on low lands and flood plains as opposed to prime sites on their farms, a practice that was the traditional safeguard against flooding. The overdevelopment gave no consideration to outlets for flood waters. The permission given to speculators to build on every square inch of land without leaving green areas has caused water traps for unsuspecting purchasers. I am aware of situations in the midlands in which drains were closed and homes built on the sites. We should learn serious lessons from this. As the evening progresses, I will have a number of questions for the region's county managers.

Chairman

I propose to take questions from a couple of members. I ask each witness to take note of the points that are relevant to themselves, as we cannot go over and back for every question. I cannot have eight answers for every question. We will stack up the questions to await an opportunity, since there might be two or three that are relevant to different people. Deputy O'Sullivan indicated first. Following him will be Senator Cannon and Deputy Naughten. We are moving as quickly as we can.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I thank the bodies for their submissions. The amount of paper that has accumulated before me in the past hour and a half speaks volumes and is probably a part of the problem.

We are referring to the River Shannon, but I would like to broaden the discussion a small bit. I come from an area in the south that has experienced serious flooding problems to which some of what has been stated today is relevant. Ms McGrath of the OPW stated that the maintenance of rivers had no part to play in November's flooding but I would like to differ with her. When I was growing up, one of the main functions of the OPW was the regular desilting of rivers. In my area, it was done every five, six or seven years. Unfortunately, this practice has been discontinued and those rivers have not been desilted in 30 years or more. This matter had a considerable bearing on the flooding. Will Ms McGrath comment on this point?

The people from the fisheries claim desilting upsets fishing and spawning. However, I am old enough to recall the volume of fish in those rivers 30 years ago and I assure everyone that it was 20 times more than the current volume. Those rivers were regularly desilted. I would like to tease this point out with the fisheries board.

We must put the River Shannon's situation in its proper context. The people to whom we must give priority at this meeting are those who live, have houses and farms and seek out a living along the banks of the Shannon, which flood regularly. Everything else has its place in the scheme of things but the farming community and those who live along the river's banks are the people we must consider when making a decision on what is to be done.

I have made my points, although I might make some more later.

Senator Ciaran Cannon

I thank the bodies, which made informative contributions that have allowed us, as representatives, to have a more holistic view of how each group plays a part in managing the wonderful resource that is the Shannon catchment and every other river.

I have a few questions to direct towards the OPW primarily. I am not singling it out, but it is the body best positioned to answer. Given that the Shannon drains one fifth of our nation's landmass, why were smaller rivers, such as the Lee, the Dodder and the Suir, chosen for the first pilot studies in 2004 instead of it? The Shannon was the river most urgently in need of such an assessment.

Ms McGrath stated that the OPW is not the front line response agency when a major flooding event occurs. I thank Mr. Starrett for being honest. He stated that, in his opinion, no agency or Department took a leadership role, which caused great frustration among the various communities affected by the floods. A major issue from the public's point of view was that no body or group took a leadership role in assessing and addressing the serious crises that arose during November's flooding. My sense from listening to Ms McGrath's contribution is that there is still no lead agency in place to handle an event were it to occur next week, for example. Towards the end of her contribution, she referred to the transposition of EU legislation that will somehow make the OPW the national competent authority. Will this also oblige it to manage a crisis? Were a flooding crisis to occur next week, would the OPW become the lead front line response agency?

Is it true that the final report of the Shannon CFRAM study, which is due to commence next year, will not be produced until 2014? This was stated to me in a recent letter from the Minister of State, Deputy Martin Mansergh. Why will it not be reported on until 2014?

I note that east Galway, in which a number of members are based, had a report commissioned into the River Dunkellin and its catchment that has been in place since 1998. However, as that report has not produced a single substantial remedial action on any part of the Dunkellin since then, I do not have much confidence that a report due to be produced in 2014 will have a different outcome.

Mr. Smith might be able to respond to my next question. I have no expertise in the field of civil engineering. The final paragraph of Ms Clare McGrath's contribution states "It is the OPW's opinion that the magnitude of the events was such that ... maintenance would not have contributed significantly to mitigation of the damage that arose." She then went on to state "Maintenance is effective in maintaining the conveyance capacity of [a] river". If one concedes that maintaining a river is effective in increasing its conveyance capacity, I cannot discern how one also could conclude that it was not a major factor in the mitigation of damages arising recently.

Chairman

We will take all the questions together and then will seek a round of responses.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Will Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh revert to the joint committee with an accurate map of the special areas of conservation, SACs, in the Shannon catchment? I note that at least one SAC definitely is missing from the map that was presented here today. Several years ago, a presentation was made to the joint committee that was similar to that made by Bord na Móna today regarding the potential for attenuation in respect of cutaway bogs. I recall that some of the officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government were extremely excited about it and that Bord na Móna was anxious to make progress in this regard. The proposal included flooding a cutaway bog in east Roscommon and Longford, extending over tens of thousands of acres, to a depth of 4.5 m, which would have had a major impact on attenuation regarding the severe flooding. If flooding is such an issue with the aforementioned Department, Mr. Ó Raghallaigh should comment on the progress, if any, it has made in this regard.

Based on Senator Cannon's comments, the Chairman of the Office of Public Works, Ms Clare McGrath, should outline the timetable for putting in place maintenance works. Will the Office of Public Works then have the authority to overrule Mr. Eamon Cusack in the future, should the need arise? From what I can gather from today's presentations, consideration appears to be given to everything except human beings. While they can be flooded out of it, everything else must be protected. There are laws to protect everything except human beings. I invite Ms McGrath to comment on this point.

Mr. Cusack should comment on the second last sentence of Ms McGrath's presentation, which pointed out that maintenance is effective at maintaining the conveyance capacity of the river channel. His contribution left me with the impression that everything except the issue of maintenance is a problem but that the latter is not really an issue. Deputy Christy O'Sullivan's presentation has made it quite clear that maintenance is effective in protecting fish stocks and in removing silt. Anyone who knows the River Shannon will be aware that a significant amount of the silt in that river is comprised of peat and I cannot discern how that could be effective in protecting fish numbers or stocks, as everyone accepts that angling is an important part of the economy in the Shannon catchment.

I revert to Ms McGrath's presentation. She made the point that maintenance is effective in maintaining the conveyance capacity of the river in normal flood periods but not during the recent flood period. I ask Mr. Nicholas Tarrant to respond to that comment and I refer to the tables he presented to the joint committee in appendix 3 of his submission. Interestingly, based on today's presentations, the water levels in Lough Ree at the time of the severe heavy flooding in November were 5 ft. higher than the lowest statutory level of 121 ft. at which the ESB is supposed to operate. As the water was 5 ft. higher than this by the end of October, would maintenance on the river have ensured the lowering of water levels by the ESB to that level? Lough Ree contained a significant volume of water in advance of the heavy rainfall and flooding and when one considers that October was one of the driest months in living memory, it seems strange that the water levels in the lough were so high. Moreover, at the operating level in Lough Allen, levels were 2 m, that is, 7 ft. higher at the time of the commencement of the heavy rains.

Had the levels in loughs Ree and Allen been reduced to the minimum statutory requirement, there would have been additional capacity available to cope with some of the heavy rainfall, which would then not have led to serious flooding of homes in Carrick-on-Shannon, Athlone and the adjoining lands. Given the water levels Mr. Tarrant presented to members today, why did a real jump in the flow of the Shannon only take place from the middle of November? Why had the ESB not ensured the lowering of water levels in Lough Ree and Lough Allen during the month of October when it was so dry? I accept that serious heavy rainfall was experienced at the start of the summer, which cannot be helped. However, surely proper maintenance of the river would ensure that the ESB could lower the water levels quickly. In this case, it appears as though the ESB was negligent in not reducing levels to the lowest possible level in advance of the heavy rainfall that came in November. Everyone knew such rainfall would occur at some stage and if not in November, it would have happened in December or January.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I wish to thank Mr. Tarrant of the ESB for providing me with daily updates during the entire crisis, which I really appreciate. However, I wish to address a question to him because at a meeting held in Ballinasloe, the ESB stated it no longer had an interest in Lough Allen or Lough Ree for generation purposes. When the sluice gates were opened at Parteen and Ardnacrusha, why did the water level drop? Another question is whether all the sluice gates were open. Were the sluice gates at Bellantra and Athlone open consistently from October until the end of the crisis?

My next question is directed to the OPW. Some of my colleagues already have asked about the extent of the OPW's power to mandate Waterways Ireland or the fisheries boards. If a species such as pollan is causing trouble or if the National Parks and Wildlife Service or the fisheries boards have a serious issue about a particular species, does the OPW have the power to state that it is important to de-silt a river to prevent people from being flooded as my colleague, Deputy Naughten, has observed?

As for reports, I welcome Mr. Michael Starrett's honesty and directness. We do not need any more reports and I despair to hear that the OPW intends to start work on a report in the middle of 2010. As Mr. Michael Silke has observed, this is a crisis and I refer to the utter devastation experienced by families around the Athlone and Golden Island areas, some of whom have not yet returned to their homes. Consequently, the idea that the OPW intends to commence a report in mid-2010 really worries me. Second, Ms McGrath stated that the European Union directive is awaiting the Minister's signature. When will that happen? Another question pertains to silt. I understand Bord na Móna has stated that it removes silt twice a week from the silting ponds. Is that not correct?

Chairman

While we will come back to the witnesses, we will take all the questions first.

Senator Nicky McFadden

To where does the silt Bord na Móna removes go? I understand that the National Parks and Wildlife Service has an issue about spreading silt on land. I cannot understand how there is a problem with spreading silt on land when the corncrake and other wildlife species about which the service has concerns are being utterly destroyed by summer flooding. What is the difficulty with spreading silt on lands when it is going to assist in clearing the lakes? The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, when speaking on "The Frontline" television programme, concurred with Ms McGrath's comments to the effect that maintenance does not really have a good effect in terms of clearing out rivers.

As a layperson, I am of the view that in order for water to flow the channels must be clear in order that it can do so unimpeded. If rivers are cleared of fallen trees and silt, then the waters will be able to flow. The Shannon runs from Lough Allen to the estuary in Limerick. Why would clearing it out not be of assistance? According to the IFA, it has not been cleared for 70 years. I do not understand how our guests can be so sure that maintenance does not make a difference, particularly if such maintenance has never been carried out.

Chairman

I must maintain a balance between Government and Opposition speakers. Approximately three or four Opposition Members have contributed to date, while only one from the Government side has done so. In such circumstances, I wish to call Deputy Scanlon and we will then hear from Deputy Feighan.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

I thank our guests for their presentations.

Chairman

In the interests of maintaining a balance, I will try to rotate between the Government and Opposition sides.

Deputy Frank Feighan

That is fine.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

I am somewhat disappointed with the map that has been provided. The Shannon rises in County Cavan, not Athlone. A great deal of damage has been done north of Athlone in Carrick-on-Shannon, Leitrim village and elsewhere. That area is as important as that which lies to the south of Athlone. I concur with those who stated that many people remain out of their homes in the area in questions. There are three businesses of which I am aware which may never be in a position to recommence operations. One major employer in Carrick-on-Shannon was obliged to move premises and is now struggling to survive.

I visited quite a number of the families affected, particularly those in Carrick-on-Shannon and Leitrim village. Previous speakers did not refer to these people. I visited new homes that had been flooded and in which one foot of water was standing. I do not know if people can imagine the destruction this can cause, the annoyance to which it gives rise among people — particularly young couples with young children — or the effect it has on their lives.

Many of those to whom I spoke on a particular estate indicated that they were surviving. They had struggled to keep the water out of their homes and had more or less succeeded in doing so by using sandbags. However, on one particular morning the water level rose by 18 inches between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. and their homes were flooded. How is it possible that water levels could rise by that amount in one hour? Will our guests explain why that might be the case? I was not in a position to outline to the people on the estate to which I refer how it could happen. I do not know what happened during that 60-minute period but perhaps one of our guests may be in a position to enlighten me. I accept that it had been raining for weeks when the flooding initially occurred. However, it was not raining during on the morning in question but the water level suddenly rose 18 inches. Perhaps Mr. Tarrant or another of our guests might be in a position to explain why the events to which I refer transpired.

Deputy Frank Feighan

I wish to offer a few observations. It is nice that the various agencies are represented at this meeting. The OPW is the lead agency in respect of this matter. We should all, politicians and those representing the agencies, hang our heads in shame because we failed to respond to the crisis. In that context, there was a lack of information and people engaged in playing the blame game. I spent my time running from place to place. From Lough Allen all the way to Limerick, the various local authorities insisted on blaming someone else for events. The ESB did not know what was happening.

The level of information provided was abysmal. People appeared on local radio stations and stated that unless a particular lock was opened, matters would become worse. Many farmers, business owners and families became extremely concerned because they could not obtain any information. As the lead agency, the OPW should take on board the fact that it lost the battle in respect of providing information. A week into the crisis, the local authorities finally began providing information. Prior to that, unfortunately, rumours and counter-rumours abounded.

One local authority attempted to charge people for sandbags, while a neighbouring authority was giving them away. Those from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should hang their heads in shame for allowing this to happen. We have been informed about staff from various Departments being sent on courses. However, no one was prepared to deal with the flooding which occurred and which caused major damage to people's homes. I am glad to get that off my chest. I am sure what I have said reflects the anger that exists among ordinary people.

I have requested a flood management plan for Carrick-on-Shannon. Has the OPW come up with any measures in that regard in respect of Carrick-on-Shannon and Leitrim village? The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Mansergh, visited Carrick-on-Shannon and promised business owners that their needs would be catered for. I have written to the OPW and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and discovered that the funding promised by the Minister of State does not exist. Why was the Minister of State informed by his officials that businesses which had been affected by flooding would be provided with funding when such funding does not exist? That is just not acceptable. The business owners to whom I refer were told lies. If there is no money for them, they should be informed of that fact.

There are sluice gates on Lough Allen which have not worked since the 1940s. These could have been raised and water could have been held in Lough Allen. Who is responsible for those gates and could they have been raised in order to retain water in Lough Allen?

Our guests stated that they are responsible for the River Shannon only. Who is responsible for tributaries and other rivers and lakes? I refer here to the River Boyle and Lough Gara. The former flows through Boyle and into Carrick-on-Shannon before joining the Shannon. Is any agency responsible for managing the River Boyle, Lough Gara and other waterways in the area? I do not believe so. The River Shannon is managed but no one takes into account of other waterways. This is a matter which must be addressed.

Will our guests from Waterways Ireland indicate whether we should consider a shorter tourism season in respect of Lough Allen? Concerns have been expressed that Lough Allen was maintained at an artificially high level in order to accommodate tourism vessels. However, only 20 such vessels used it in September. It is nice to facilitate such tourism activity but unfortunately many people further downstream paid the price for this when the floods arrived.

Those are the issues I wish to raise. I am of the view that one agency should have overall responsibility in respect of flooding. Such an agency must be on top of its game in order that people will not fear for their lives. During recent events, no one appeared to be in control. I do not want a recurrence of such events, which have led to people's homes and businesses being inundated with what effectively is three feet of shit. No one was prepared to come and see what was happening to those to whom I refer. As already stated, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Deputy Paul Connaughton

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to contribute, particularly as I am not a member of the committee. I have been present at discussions of this nature on at least five occasions in the past 30 years. The difficulty is that in the context of their professionalism and the arguments they have put forward, all of our guests are correct. They made the points they have made here at the five-hour meeting which took place in Ballinasloe. I have no doubt that what the delegates are doing is professionally correct. This was the game and these were the rules. I refer to all the groups present. The problem we have is that if that stance is maintained we will be flooded again. No new answer has emerged. I ask all representatives to respond to the following proposition. If the River Shannon was lowered by 12 inches, I am led to believe we would not have the sort of flooding we have, at least in the summertime, and we would not have flooding in places we never had it in before, like St. Michael's Square in Ballinasloe. If it is a physical possibility, will the fish swim, will the boats sail and will electricity be generated in Ardnacrusha? That is what we want to know. From the professional point of view of the delegations, interests must be protected. If that continues without any change, we will be back here in five or ten years' time and we will be ruined.

There is no point in me taking up my colleagues' time to contribute. I have the greatest reservation about the OPW as a lead agency even though I have great time for it and always had. If the group represented by the delegates before us is not capable of implementing what we are talking about based on the riding instructions for professional organisations, who will pull these people together to make them understand that they must change their conduct above and beyond what they are doing now to make a difference? That is the bottom line and nothing else counts. An overall authority or a lead agency is the correct option, provided it can crack the whip to make a difference to me and thousands of people flooded all over the country.

If there is no change and everyone believes boats must have a certain depth of water and Ardnacrusha must have a certain volume of water, there is no hope after today for the thousands of people who live on the banks of the River Shannon and its tributaries. If we keep doing the same thing we have done for years, the rainfall levels down from heaven will be the same and rain is sure to come in the same vast volumes. As many know, I have been on all sorts of committees for the past 30 years and we have studied the matter upside down and the place is full of reports. The last thing I want to hear anyone talk about is engaging in a new report. We do not need a report. We all know what is wrong. The question is whether it can be solved by the tweaks we are talking about.

My background is in farming and I cannot understand how science-based information could lead one to argue that if we decide to clean and maintain drains, it is of no use to the property concerned. If one puts millions of tonnes of debris into the Shannon and the River Suck and its tributaries, it displaces millions of gallons of water that must go out over the river or out the side. Does it not make sense, if some of this debris is taken out and the cubic capacity in the river is lessened to that degree, that the water will flow? It will not solve all the problems as we fully understand but surely it must be a step in the right direction.

My last word is to Mr. D'Arcy of Bord na Móna, which is not directly involved. I heard him say today that it is his intention and the policy of Bord na Móna not to engage in working any new bogs. This comes at a time when we will be run off our bogs next week under the EU habitats directive and Mr. D'Arcy has thousands of acres they did not examine at all. I cannot understand it. That is an example of a daft bit of joined-up thinking.

Deputy Ulick Burke

Three months after the flooding, in the aftermath of the most serious flooding ever in the Shannon basin, today's presentations indicate why the Shannon basin is flooded. In each presentation the agency indicated its responsibility for management and maintenance, none more so than Waterways Ireland and Bord na Móna. Within the past three months, has the OPW extracted from other agencies a commitment in the interim period on what they will do and what they will change to alleviate flooding in the area? Nothing I have heard today indicates anything will change, as has been said by my colleagues. I am seriously worried when I hear Bord na Móna making a statement that it has modern technology in place for silting and filtering water but the reality is that I can take Mr. D'Arcy and Mr. Riordan to an area where the damage was done long ago by Bord na Móna. Let Mr. D'Arcy and Mr. Riordan come with me to the swimming area at Portumna where one is up to one's neck in silt caused by Bord na Móna and its failure over the years.

Activity in the midland bogs has been dramatically reduced. This is fine if they get certification and verification by the EPA for the wonderful work. What is it doing to alleviate the difficulties it caused in the past? The answer is nothing; Bord na Móna has walked away from it and abandoned it. Waterways Ireland stated "Since its inception at the turn of the millennium, Waterways Ireland has been charged by both the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly through the North-South Ministerial Council with managing, maintaining, developing and restoring much of the island's inland navigation network". It refers to 50 additional mooring berths on the Shannon basin. That indicates Waterways Ireland will continue with its current function and will hold on to it.

The OPW is our one hope as the agency given singular responsibility of lead agency. The OPW must get control over these agencies and tell them to do something different to what has been done in the past because that is what has caused hardship to people trying to farm in the Shannon area and particularly in the callows. Does the OPW have control over those agencies so that it can get a remedy for the problem here? Unless the OPW representatives can say "yes" to this, we are only fooling ourselves and all the agencies present have declared their interest. I have seen no evidence from all the presentations given today that agencies will change. What are we doing here as a result? Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly can tell me he now has the function of bringing these people together and telling them they must do this, while other must do something else. In some instances the damage has been done and perhaps the OPW has the power to get the agencies to go back and clean up their act and what they damaged so much in the past.

We hear about and we recognise the functions of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, what are they doing with those agencies that have caused the catastrophe in so many areas to the environment as well as to those trying to make a living along the Shannon?

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

What are the views of the various groups on a single body for the Shannon? Do they believe a single body would be the most suitable, particularly with regard to the prevention of flooding? Does the ESB accept that it needs to make changes to its operation, particularly guidelines on the water levels in the Shannon and the lakes? Have the guidelines been updated sufficiently to deal with the present situation, in particularly with regard to climate change? Does Bord na Móna accept that it has been responsible for silting the Shannon? It would be good to hear its views on this matter. People speak about lakes as holdings for surplus water. This is a very good idea and Bord na Móna should seriously consider it. I would welcome additional lakes in County Kildare, where there is plenty of bog.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service, the inland fisheries boards and the Heritage Council are very focused on their own particular specialty but they do not look at the bigger picture, which is how can we improve Shannon navigation, particularly with regard to flooding. I am reminded of what happened a number of years ago when a snail stopped the progression of a motorway and the re-opening of a disused canal. We need to broaden our focus and have broader minds. I accept that at the same time we must protect our heritage but we must broaden our perspective on how we will focus on flooding nationally in the future.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on these issues as I am not a member of the committee. I would like more detail on the map that was referred to earlier. Members of the committee have sought maps of the 32 areas of raised bogs and I do not think they have been received from the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Deputy Denis Naughten

No.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

I will repeat that request.

I agree with those who have stated we should have no more reports as we must have all of the information. We had a similar meeting to this on 17 January in Ballinasloe when many of the bodies present here gave their points of view on the flooding in the Ballinasloe area. I will return to this point because a major issue arises with regard to the Office of Public Works. Much is expected of it, perhaps too much. The OPW has done very good work on the River Nanny near Tuam. It carried out relief flooding at Ballyglunin in north Galway. I am not too clear about what happens in other parts of County Galway because the county was very badly affected and received priority from the Government and the Minister of State but I am a little confused as to where we go now. The OPW has done some work but is in talks with Galway County Council on joint works.

Local people in Abbeyknockmoy in north Galway, who had to make their own channel, are not satisfied that the money being offered is adequate for what they are doing and have done. An entire area of north Galway encompassing Corofin and Caherlistrane was affected. In Athenry in south Galway people have not been able to get back into their houses. If they do get back, will work be carried out by the OPW to ensure that flooding does not occur again? These issues are still outstanding and I hope the Galway county manager will provide us with more information on them. As other speakers stated, I would like to see legislation introduced to give the Office of Public Works the lead. With regard to the single authority that has been mentioned, surely the Office of Public Works is the body that should do this. I hope we have such legislation soon.

A meeting was held in Ballinasloe on 17 January, which was called by the IFA. The Minister of State was present, as were representatives from all of the agencies. The day after it, the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, met Ballinasloe Town Council and I understand certain matters were agreed, such as on obstacles in the River Suck. We had never seen flooding in St. Michael's Square in Ballinasloe; there had been previous flooding in Ballinasloe but never to this extent. There was discussion about moving some gates at the bridge in Ballinasloe. I cannot remember all of the people who told me these gates had been stuck for 65 years so it was no wonder that Ballinasloe was flooded. Will the Office of Public Works state that it will install a motorised gate to relieve flooding? One must be able to remove obstacles to prevent flooding from occurring again in the town of Ballinasloe where so many people suffered. I am sure how this issue will be dealt with will be discussed tonight at a meeting of Ballinasloe Town Council.

We should forget about the reports and just do the work. I hope the Office of Public Works will be the lead authority and will get the go-ahead to do so. As for the idea of more reports, we are only going to swing around the roundabouts again and we have had enough of that. We have one chance to do this and I hope we will have the legislation and the body in place to do it. I hope the local authorities will co-operate and I have no doubt that they will. Galway County Council has had meetings with the Office of Public Works on this matter and perhaps we will receive information at the next meeting from the Galway county manager.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome the opportunity to contribute, not being a member of the committee. Like Deputy Scanlon, I want to raise the issue of the map provided which, unfortunately, does not include anything of the lower River Shannon, particularly in County Clare, an area with which I am most familiar. The village of Clonlara, in the lower River Shannon area, suffered very extensive flooding not only this year but over the past ten to 15 years. There is a notion that the flood event we experienced towards the end of last year was, depending on whom one listened to, either a 100 or 800 year event. A certain area of Clonlara has suffered this type of flooding over the past 15 years with the same group of houses being flooded each time and large tracts of farmland also being affected.

It is useful to have this debate now rather than directly after the event because we can discuss it in a less impassioned way and with less hysteria. It is an opportunity to discuss the fundamentals of what happened and how we will resolve the problem. There is little point in us getting into the pain and suffering people experienced. That has been well-vented and now is the time for action. I welcome the proposals on the OPW being the lead agency. I am concerned about the language referring to a lead agency with co-ordinating powers. Ultimately, all the groups around the table will become part of an authority with somebody in the position of chairing and co-ordinating. There must be a super-authority; somebody must be charged with responsibility to deliver a solution. That is not a co-ordinating role, it is a responsibility to make things happen. It requires somebody with the authority to make a decision when there are two conflicting points of view. We do not need another paper pushing exercise. What we need is somebody who will make a decision. I do not know whether that is the Office of Public Works or another body but we need to thrash that out as best we can to the greatest extent possible. I look forward to this being addressed, hopefully prior to the end of this meeting.

I wish to air some of the concerns raised by individuals, particularly in the Clare area and further up the river, about the ESB and its management of the waterways. I do not doubt that the personnel in the ESB managed the waterways to the best of their ability and to the guidelines set down. Deputy Connaughton and others spoke about how it is time to look at the guidelines or levels which exist. Unless we start doing that, we are going nowhere. The question has been raised by others as to whether Lough Derg could become a greater reservoir if properly managed for the control of water to ensure there is no last-minute necessity to spill water and reduce levels because it is backing up further down the river. Why should this process not be started much earlier in the weather pattern? As Deputy Naughten said, why could this not be started much earlier and have levels at a point where it could act as a reservoir during the worst of the rainfall?

I ask that an independent analysis of the management of the Shannon by an external and independent expert be carried out. This should not be another report but an analysis of the management that is taking place. I have no doubt the ESB will come to the table and stand over the actions it has taken and will be justified in doing so based on the criteria as set down.

We want to establish whether there was a better way and if this could have been used if a different set of preconditions were in place. The ESB will correctly say it managed to the best of its ability within the constraints in which it had to do its work. What I and others wish to establish is how we can wipe the slate and take into account the primary concerns to see if there is a better way. The information is there and there is an exceptional amount of data in the hands of all the people around the table. Is there a better way to do this?

Perhaps the lead agency could run with this. The only element I feel is necessary is an independent external practitioner who can produce a report which would be a good basis on which any lead agency could move forward.

Chairman

I will now allow various people to deal with the questions put. Some of them were addressed to everybody and others were more specific. We will take supplementary questions if required but we want to get a first round of answers from everybody. If there is a back and forth process some answers will never be heard.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

I thank the committee for the questions. Deputy Bannon asked if representatives of the bodies meet each other regularly. The National Parks and Wildlife Service meets regularly with all other parties but we have not met as a group to discuss the particular issue of flooding. Somebody mentioned earlier that the river basin management planning system and water framework directive has created a certain structure where stakeholders within each catchment come together. There may be scope within that framework for more regular contact and discussion about these matters.

A number of Deputies and Senators mentioned the map we provided and the fact it does not extend the whole way up and down the River Shannon. I admit that is the case. In the letter of invitation, we were asked to consider flooding of the Shannon callows so we provided this map as an assistance to the committee. We could provide a more detailed map extending the length of the river. Deputy Naughten mentioned that the map does not include some sites, which may be true, and we could provide detailed maps of those sites. It was also mentioned that we had undertaken to provide maps of raised bog special areas of conservation and I will look into the comment that we have not done so. We can provide those in due course.

Deputy Naughten also asked about the potential for flood attenuation within Bord na Móna's bogs, which is an interesting question. I have not been involved in any discussions with Bord na Móna about that aspect of the use of their cutaway bogs but we have had discussions, as highlighted by Mr. D'Arcy, on the use of cutaway bog for biodiversity enhancement etc. We have also discussed the potential of using Bord na Móna land to facilitate turf cutting for those who may have been displaced from special areas of conservation and natural heritage areas.

With regard to the idea of using these as an additional reservoir or flood plain, there were similar incidents in Austria as Vienna used to flood fairly frequently. A large flood plain and reservoir was created, which was quite effective in preventing flooding in Vienna. That could be considered.

There is a general flooding issue as it concerns our service. There has been a loss of wetlands throughout the country in general through land reclamation, turf cutting and other use of bogs. The water flows off the land to the rivers far more quickly. Some other countries have started recreating wetlands to act as a buffer from flooding. Functioning bogs and wetlands hold water for a certain amount of time during periods of high precipitation, releasing it slowly. If the capacity to hold water is lost to these environments, water goes straight to the rivers and there is an exacerbation in flooding.

Senator McFadden mentioned the spreading of silt on land. There is no principal difficulty in spreading silt on land and in terms of the requirements of the habitats directive and protecting the sites, there must be an assessment of where the silt is going. If silt is spread inappropriately on land, it may just wash very quickly back to the river. Article 6 of the habitats requirement is that there is a full understanding of what will happen to the silt before it is spread.

Some Deputies questioned whether the article puts nature higher on the pecking order than people affected by flooding. This is not so and there are derogations within the article in the directive allowing for even damaging activities to sites to be undertaken if there is an overriding public interest. There is a demand that we fully understand what we are doing when we act and fully consider the implications.

Some people asked if the Office of Public Works would have the power to override any of these requirements. The OPW, our Department and any agency or local authority is bound by this requirement of European law. There is no way around it unless we have European law changed.

Deputy Connaughton asked what a foot of a drop in the Shannon would mean for the habitats, the fish stock and navigation. It is a valid question that would be answered by an appropriate assessment. This does not mean it cannot happen but there must be an ecological assessment of a foot of a drop in the river in the protected areas, including the habitats and species. Article 6 demands this. If there is a credible case for an overriding reason of public importance for this to happen, it can occur within the construct of the habitats directive.

Chairman

I ask people to be as concise as possible in their answers. The day is moving on and we have a second half to our meeting.

Ms Clare McGrath

There were a number of headings for questions raised by a number of members. Forgive me if I miss any and I will come back to the committee if I overlook any of them. I am concerned that I may have given the impression that maintenance is not important. The Office of Public Works manages 11,300 km of maintenance channels as well as around 657 km of embankments. As I said, we have spent around €112 million on maintenance in the past five or six years and it is of considerable importance to us. Anywhere we have undertaken a scheme, we maintain it. It is just that the level of maintenance we carry out is directed at one-in-three-year events. The events we had at the end of last year would be expected to occur only once in 130 years, although I am subject to correction on this, and the level of maintenance would not have been capable of handling it. That was context of what I said about maintenance. However, maintenance is a very important programme in the Office of Public Works.

I appreciate the opportunity we have today of coming before the committee along with so many other stakeholders in the Shannon. The Deputy was correct that we await the signing of the statutory instrument under the legislation, and I will inform the committee of when this is to happen. That is all that is needed. In that regard, and in view of the fact that we have been given the lead agency role, it is imperative that each of the key stakeholders plays a major role in the successful implementation of the CFRAMS process. Each stakeholder is required to critically examine its existing operations and identify how, through investment, operational changes and the provision of information, it can contribute to the active management of flood risk in the catchment.

There will be an impact on each stakeholder, and we will all have to work together. We all have individual legislative responsibilities, conferred upon us by the Oireachtas, which we are bound to carry out. We must work together in that context. However, we have been asked, and we are prepared, to take the lead agency role in coordinating the inputs from all stakeholders, most of whom are represented here today, to ensure that we have an appropriate level of flood risk assessment and management plans not just for the Shannon, but also for the other catchment areas. We will be undertaking seven of these. We are operating at the level of river basin district, similar to what is happening under the water framework directive. There is a correlation there. We also interact with those involved in implementing the water framework directive.

A point was made about communication. We consider communication to be an important item on the agenda for many of the CFRAMS we are preparing. Three or four years ago, we initiated a flood awareness programme under the title "Plan, Prepare, Protect". It was an education programme for the public, for which a website was set up. However, in light of the events last December, this did not work very well for us. I accept that. What was the problem? Was it the level at which it was pitched? Was it how it was pitched? We must consider this again, and I accept this will be done.

When a flood event takes place, we are not the lead agency. The chairman of the major emergency management committee appeared here and explained what he has done in this regard. Emergency plans have been submitted, I understand, from local authorities, and flooding is covered under this. Thus, we are the competent authority only in the preparation of flood risk assessments. Works will be undertaken on this basis and we may identify problems, such as water levels in the Shannon, that must be considered. That is what will come out of the process and it will be considered with the stakeholders.

The question was raised of why the Shannon was being dealt with after the Lee. These are not reports; this is not a bound document of X number of pages. For the Lee, we have produced around 1,100 flood maps, nine detailed hydraulic computer models and 56 individual hydrological units. These are all relevant and necessary to determining what is to be done and what is to be prioritised. That research must be undertaken in respect of the Shannon. I respectfully suggest it is not a report.

The particular examples of Ballinasloe and Dunkellin, as well as other areas, were inquired about. It is important to mention that rather than waiting for the outcome of the CFRAMS, we are undertaking works in particular areas. We are working with every local authority that comes to us to identify individual units of work that the authority can undertake under its own powers but will be funded by us. We have a system in place and, as we have said, 20 local authorities have come to us. Those works will be done immediately.

With regard to Galway, there is a joint working group with the local authority and, under that group, the local authority and the OPW have been asked to arrange for the collection of flood level data which will be used in the study to assess the damage caused in the recent flooding and identify interim flood mitigation measures. Even at the first meeting, some initial actions were decided on. I will refer specifically to areas that were mentioned. Interim measures have been identified at Ballinasloe, and these will be undertaken subject to their meeting the criteria. With regard to programmes of maintenance and improvement works that have been identified by the group in the Dunkellin drainage district, we will undertake these on behalf of Galway County Council, commencing in 2010 and subject to stakeholder agreement, which will be necessary. The Shannon, similar to every other catchment, is a national resource. We will be working with all stakeholders to protect the resource for the users as well as protecting users and people living along these rivers from flooding.

Chairman

We will keep moving because I want to finish before 5 p.m.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

Does the town council send its plan directly to the OPW or does it go through the county council?

Ms Clare McGrath

It goes to the county council.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

The town council does not vote?

Ms Clare McGrath

No.

Chairman

We must try to keep it moving because I want to move on to the second half of the meeting.

Mr. Michael Starrett

I am aware that not all members were present when the Heritage Council made its presentation. We hope to suggest that there is a new way of doing this, which is laid out in the full paper. The fact that this committee has taken the initiative of bringing together so many of the key stakeholder agencies with executive responsibility emphasises the desire, both political and public, to get this sorted. I also stated that we welcome the clarification of the OPW's lead role in flood risk management. This needs to be resourced. As was said by various people, it is not just a matter of co-ordination but also of leadership and responsibility. The OPW will have to be provided with the resources to allow this to happen. In response to another point that was made, the Heritage Council focuses very much on the value of the Shannon to those who live and work there as well as those who visit, so we are very community focused.

With regard to what has been said about the lead role of the OPW, if one adds to that the emerging river basin districts, which are covered under a statutory plan, each agency must be seen to regard this as a priority and must allocate resources to implement active management. This will, I hope, cut out any confusion that could arise over administrative boundaries.

Chairman

I will move on to the inland fisheries board and the ESB.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I thank the Chairman. I wish to respond to questions from various Deputies. My colleague in the National Parks and Wildlife Service has addressed many of the issues but I will touch on some of these as well. One question related to how often the representative bodies discuss the River Shannon. The answer is not that often in this context. The river basin and district management groups may be the appropriate fora to do so. Deputy Christy O'Sullivan raised a very specific issue in respect of fish spawning and siltation. The type of maintenance that used to take place to remove silt was particularly damaging to fish stocks. It was an engineering operation which did not bear in mind fish stocks and it was very deleterious to fish populations. It was remarked that some 25 to 30 years ago there were more fish stocks than now. Our view is that the fish stocks are reasonably healthy but there are many pressures on those stocks not only from siltation, but also from drainage, water abstraction, roads, housing and so on which had effects on our water courses. The removal of silt has been quite deleterious to fish stocks, such that the Central Fisheries Board along with colleagues in the regional fisheries boards have been working with the OPW on the environmental river enhancement programme, which I mentioned. Essentially, the idea is to train OPW operatives who are engaged in drainage maintenance on how to achieve their objectives in respect of the conveyance of water and engineering in a way that is fish and environmentally friendly. We have been working in this area for approximately 30 years but more formally during the past 15 years. The environmental drainage maintenance programme focused only on the fish but the most recent programme, the environmental river enhancement programme, focuses not only on the fish, but on the entire river corridor, biodiversity, wildlife, birds and so on. We are achieving both objectives, namely, the maintenance of the river from a conveyance point of view and biological and diversity issues.

I refer to Deputy Connaughton's question in respect of the potential for a 12 inch drop in the Shannon. My colleague in the parks and wildlife service, Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh, covered the topic very well. If it seemed to be appropriate and if this could alleviate the problems it is something we could look into but it would require appropriate assessments. Both the habitats and water framework directives, for which the Central Fisheries Board is charged with managing the fish-related elements, have social get-out clauses with reference to imperative reasons of over-riding public interest. An appropriate assessment is required in this respect. I call on my colleague, Mr. Cusack, to directly address the question posed by Deputy Connaughton.

Mr. Eamon Cusack

The Shannon Regional Fisheries Board is one of the few agencies, if not the only one, that encompasses the whole catchment as a unit. Most other agencies operate across boundaries and so on. My board has recommended on many occasions that there should be an agency for the whole catchment with all the bodies attached to the IRBD, international river basin district, fully in support. During the presentation, I tried to show that maintenance can be carried out with tolerance for fish. Our agency is set up to look after fish. That is our job and, as one of the Members mentioned, we are given that task by the Legislature. As the Heritage Council outlined, leadership in this area is an issue. Perhaps the Legislature should examine the matter and put forward a proposal with which we can deal. However, within our remit we work with all the agencies, the OPW in particular, with regard to maintenance. We run maintenance programmes on several rivers throughout the catchment.

One issue not mentioned so far today is finance. Finance is crucial to ensure the rivers are maintained. Within the Shannon catchment we have carried out work on the Cross River in association with local anglers, farmers, Élan, a company which gave us money, and the ESB, which was very good to us during the project.

We worked with the farming unit to clean out the river, remove trees and scrub and generally put the river back into shape. As has been mentioned, in years gone by such work was carried out but, like everything else, it requires money. We have projects earmarked for the River Island among others. For several years, the community on the Island river has looked for a drainage cleaning operation. We do not propose to dig out the river but to clean the banks and shrubbery and to open up the river. This is environmentally friendly and we support such operations if they are carried out correctly. We disagree with those who would dig out the river willy-nilly. We can work with any organisation which seeks to work within the river and we can come up with solutions. In my presentation I tried to show that we can come up with solutions and this is what we need within the Shannon catchment. We want solutions rather than people raising problems.

Mr. Pat O’Doherty

I refer to the issue of collaborative working. ESB works in collaboration with several of the agencies here. We work with the relevant agencies in respect of the water framework directive and the local authorities and the OPW in respect of inundation studies and flood risk management. We work with the local authorities in respect of operational matters and with the fisheries boards in respect of fisheries matters.

I refer to the question of a river or rivers super-authority. ESB would be supportive of such a development. There is a link between the absence of an operational lead agency and a super river authority. Any operational lead agency should have its roles and responsibilities very clearly laid down, especially any statutory duties and were the statutory duties of any such river authority to change in some way, the existing statutory duties would need to be clearly understood. ESB would be very supportive in principle of a river authority for the Shannon or a river authority for the country.

I refer to a point made by Deputy Naughten. He used the word "negligence". ESB operated in accordance with its statutory duties at all times. We adhered fully to our guidelines which derive from those duties. We can stand over this; there was no negligence on the part of ESB.

I refer to the question of the impact of a 12 inch drop on the River Shannon. As stated in our submission, ESB has no strategic generation interest above Lough Derg. Our interest is in Lough Derg. A 12 inch drop would have an impact in terms of the stability of the embankments and it would of course impact on generation. It would do nothing for the floods, the likes of which we witnessed in November. To put this in context, the operational storage capacity of Lough Derg, that is, the difference between our operational minimum and maximum, is 50 million tonnes. At the height of the flood, some 80 to 90 million tonnes flowed into Lough Derg. It would have been possible to fill Lough Derg in little more than one day. I call on Mr. Tarrant to address some of these issues.

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

I will outline some supplementary points. I refer to our statutory powers. ESB has powers to alter levels on the three lakes in the Shannon under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927. I refer to maintenance. Section 17 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 describes the handing over of the Shannon works to the ESB. Section 19 describes the duties of the board to control, manage and maintain in good repair and condition and in proper and efficient working order the Shannon works. The Shannon works were transferred to the ESB under the Shannon works transfers orders 1-22 between 1929 and 1944.

The Shannon works include Parteen weir, the Head Race canal and embankments, protection embankments at Fort Henry and Ardclooney, the channel between Killaloe and Parteen Weir, the Ardnacrusha power station, the tailrace navigation locks, the protection banks for three pumping stations on the right bank of the river between Portumna and Meelick, Lough Allen sluices and embankments and the electricity transmission system.

I refer to some specific issues in respect of Lough Derg. We operate Lough Derg between 33.1 and 33.56 m. I will outline to the committee the background to the lower level of 33.1 metres. In 1979, there was a serious slip on the upstream face of the Fort Henry embankment near Parteen Weir when the water level was drawn down to a very low level. Following this slip, ESB undertook an embankment stability study using international experts, who recommended the level at Parteen Weir be kept above 32.6 m. Allowing for the gradient between Parteen Weir and Lough Derg when Ardnacrusha is fully in operation, a minimum operating level of 33.1 m was set on Lough Derg. The operating range on Lough Derg is quite narrow between 33.56 and 33.1 m. During the events of November, the Lough Derg level was within this normal operating band. Once it went above 33.56 m, we increased the discharge at Parteen, which is part of our normal procedure in such events.

I refer to the question about Lough Ree and the sluice gates which were kept closed at Athlone during the course of the flooding. This was done to minimise flooding downstream. There are natural restrictions in the river channel between Lough Ree and Lough Derg. The river, because it is slow moving, takes some time to travel between Lough Ree and Lough Derg.

On the point about the Lough Allen sluices, they are fully operable and specific procedures are outlined in our regulations and guidelines which cover the operation of the Lough Allen sluices. The level was raised in Lough Allen during the course of the floods, which was the equivalent, in effect, of storing water in Lough Allen.

On the issue of our guidelines, Deputies Fitzpatrick and Bannon raised a question. As Mr. O'Doherty has pointed out, we have said today we have no strategic interest in Lough Ree or Lough Allen and are very open to working with the OPW and other agencies to optimise the levels in those lakes. As we said, the operating plan for Lough Derg is quite narrow. We also have an external dam safety committee, which comprises a panel of external experts who review, on an annual basis, our dam management procedures.

I draw the attention of the committee to the OPW pre-feasibility study on flood risk management opportunities from 2004, the executive summary of which says the EBS regulations for managing Lough Derg, Lough Ree and Lough Allen provide, on balance, the optimum management of floods within existing storage and land control capabilities. We look forward to working with all the agencies concerned on Shannon flood risk management.

Chairman

The delegation from Waterways Ireland can give very brief supplementary answers.

Mr. Brian D’Arcy

I wish to refer to the first item raised by Deputy Bannon, namely, meeting other people. It has already been referred to. We are involved in the water frameworks directive and the river basis catchment drainage committees. We also play a consultative role with the OPW, which is the lead agency on flood policy and the CFRAMs programme. We have daily contact with the ESB at an operational level and we take our instructions from it regarding Lough Allen. There is a view that there is some conflict in terms of operational procedures between ourselves and the ESB. It is totally untrue.

At a meeting of the Joint Committees on Public Enterprise and Transport and Agriculture, Food and the Marine held some time in 2000 a report was commissioned from the consultants Kirk McClure Morton. It concluded Waterways Ireland and the ESB were satisfactorily co-ordinating their activities in accordance with operational requirements and the operational of controls under each bodies' jurisdiction were not contributing to the flooding problem. It is important that the sort of co-operation which goes on between us takes place on a daily basis.

Deputy Connaughton referred to our obeying the rules which, unfortunately, is the situation. What we do is enshrined in legislation. We do not have an option, I am sorry to say. He posed a question on the possibility of dropping the levels by 12 inches and asked if the boat will sail. One suggestion put forward was quite good, namely, that a full assessment of the situation should take place. In my opening remarks, I made the point that in the opinion of Waterways Ireland any changes to the existing navigation regime which would lower the level could render much of the expensive infrastructure which we put in place inaccessible to boats at certain times. It would have to be assessed.

Deputy Paul Connaughton

According to the delegation it cannot happen.

Mr. Brian D’Arcy

Any decision regarding the policy direction of Waterways Ireland in terms of a super authority, as suggested, would be a matter for discussion at the North-South Ministerial Council. We will take part in and co-operate with any or all of the organisations in discussions for the requirement of such an agency.

Mr. Michael Silke

After listening to the last speaker perhaps we should go to the House of Commons to see if we can lower the levels of the Shannon. Today has been most frustrating for me as a representative of an NGO. We have a major interest in the River Shannon and all the river systems. We represent the largest stakeholders, that is, people in towns and in rural Ireland, yet we have no say. I have listened to everything which has been said by the different agencies. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the fisheries boards do not want a single spoonful of silt taken out of the River Shannon, despite the fact that Bord Na Móna has pumped billions of tonnes into it over a 50 year period. The delegations might have their act together now, but it is very late and we need to remind ourselves of that.

The Shannon is in a disgraceful state. Wildlife has been killed off because nothing has been done. The fish have gone from it. Fishermen came to our shores for many years. I live beside the Shannon and have a massive amount of land along its banks. There are no fishermen any more because the fish have gone as a result of the silt and dirt in the river. We have a problem trying to take it out in order to better the lives of people and stop human suffering. Where were the delegations during the floods? Were they in any of the houses in which sewerage was floating around inside? I was; I visited houses in my province and Westmeath, Longford and Offaly. Do not try to tell me——

Mr. Eamon Cusack

I have to rebut that because Mr. Silke made the same comment in Ballinasloe and I let it go. We cannot let it go. Our staff, together with staff from other fisheries boards, did help flooding victims around the country. The homes of some of our staff were flooded. We know all about flooding and we are not willing to accept that comment from Mr. Silke. I fully accept the other comments he made, but I will not accept that one.

Mr. Michael Silke

I made the comment and I am not taking it back because I have seen too much human suffering. I will not stand idly by and see it happen again.

On the issue regrading Waterways Ireland and the ESB on the river level, let us call a spade a spade. In his submission, Mr. Tarrant said he raised the levels in Lough Derg by 1.46 m in 1979. The levels in Lough Ree rose by 0.61 m in the 1970s. We can examine what has happened since then. The people, their lands and their houses have been flooded and still nothing is happening, but the delegation is still correct. Waterways Ireland is only concerned with recreation and navigation. The ESB is only concerned with its selfish business interest, which is to provide cheap electricity. Do not tell me it is not. We had the driest October in living memory. On 18 November we had the biggest flood in living memory. In less than a fortnight, the water levels rose. I again ask why the delegation did not let the water go. It cannot answer it truthfully; it is as simple as that.

Deputy Bannon asked a question about one agency. I have only one interest in having one agency, namely, that we give one agency the power to do what needs to be done. There is no point in telling the OPW it is the lead agency and then tying its hands behind its back. Unless legislation is put in place and the Houses take the issue by the scruff of the neck we will be flooded again as badly as we were last year. The groups concerned will do everything they can not to allow the situation to be as bad as last year, but summer flooding and serious flooding will continue. Our livelihoods are at risk and are going down the Swanee. It is as simple as that.

We want one agency with statutory powers. The legislation must change. I listened to the contribution of Mr. Starrett. We are losing our heritage and people. The corncrake, wildlife, winter bird populations, fish and people are all going. Do the delegations not realise that? Are they self-interested and do not see it? Raising the levels in Lough Ree by 0.61 m is equivalent to 50 million cubic metres of water, and would remove the storage capacity from the lake. Do not tell me one cannot move the boats if one cleans Lough Ree, because one can. The same situation pertains to Lough Allen.

There is a public interest element to this issue, in terms of public safety. We have to take human suffering into consideration. I do not think people are aware of it. It is very great. I have been there, I have seen it and I have been in the middle of it. It is frightening. I am speaking from a farming perspective. We are seeing eviction by stealth from our property. All my life I have cut more than 600 round bales from the Shannon callows in the summer. I have taken no bales from it in the past three years. It is a savage loss to me. Does the ESB or Waterways Ireland pay me? They do not give two damns if I never avail of it again. Let us call a spade a spade. I have no right to stop a boat going down the river but people here have the right to destroy my livelihood; that is what they are doing by stealth, evicting me from what is rightfully mine, just the same as every other farmer along the Shannon.

The habitats directive did not come into this country to destroy people's lives but that is what is happening because of the manner in which it is being interpreted and implemented. It is supposed to take the public interest, the social and economic interest but what has happened to those? There is an emergency situation now where the habitats directive should be sidelined until the emergency is addressed. We are still talking about the habitats directive, Waterways Ireland, the ESB and Bord na Móna. I listened to Bord na Móna and if right was right, it should be made to put down a railroad and take that silt back into the bogs from where it came, and it should be done immediately. That is what we should do.

We must address this issue. If these Houses do not address it now, it is goodbye to rural Ireland for the people of the 11 counties that border the Shannon and the people along the tributaries. That is how serious this issue is.

Mr. Gabriel Darcy

This has been an interesting discussion, with a certain amount of fact and a further amount of fiction. Many people are in a desperate situation. I am from County Leitrim and I have seen at first hand much of the damage that has been done. We employ 2,300 people, most of whom are employed in and around the Shannon basin. Most Bord na Móna activity over the 75 years we are celebrating has been in this area of the midlands. Many of our employees, families and relations have been directly affected by this. I have seen it at first hand, as have many others around this table. It should not be insinuated that anyone who has been summoned today for this discussion feels nothing about what has happened. That point must be forcibly made.

The second item of fiction concerns the rainfall that occurred last October. People have led the committee to understand that October was a very dry month. On 20 October, the weather broke abruptly. According to figures for October rainfall, and these come from monthly weather bulletin number 283 from November 2009 from Met Éireann, in Gurteen and Mount Dillon there was 177.4 mm and 112.7 mm, respectively. Rainfall at Mount Dillon was 104% of the normal for that period, with a similar value for Gurteen. October was not a dry month.

Deputies raised the issue of silting. The concept of silting is that water is stored in ponds to allow the peat silt settle to the bottom.

Mr. Michael Silke

It is not.

Mr. Gabriel Darcy

It is only then released. The silt is used by Bord na Móna and is a valuable commodity. The activities of silt ponds and their management are the responsibility of Bord na Móna for the last 30 years. We have records going back that far. If anyone wants to go back beyond that to the previous 45 years, I would be the first to stand up for our responsibilities in this domain.

Bord na Móna controls 2.1% of the total landmass we are talking about. At the moment, 12,500 hectares are being used out of a total ownership of 37,000 hectares, against in the same area 160,000 hectares of non-Bord na Móna peat land and bog land, some of which is owned by industrial competitors. We are the only authority in the area with a peat licence, which brings us under the auspices of the EPA. I am happy to review any situation but I can point to our records over the last 30 years and they speak for themselves.

We take the issue of silting very seriously and we speak to many of the different organisations here today on this subject. We invest a lot of resources to prevent peat from entering the rivers. Certainly, peat has entered rivers from Bord na Móna and non-Bord na Móna peat lands in the past but relatively speaking it has been insignificant and much of it has flowed with the stream of the river. If there is evidence to show otherwise, I am happy to look at it.

Deputy Connaughton mentioned Bord na Móna moving off the bogs and not opening any more. That is a stated policy of Bord na Móna for good commercial, operational and environmental reasons. If there is another discussion to be had, we are happy to have it before this committee but it is not immediately relevant.

Deputy Paul Connaughton

If your bog was being taken next week, it would be very relevant.

Mr. Gabriel Darcy

I am quite happy to discuss that and other related issues but I do not think it is appropriate today, particularly for those in my county and other counties up and down the Shannon who are interested in the output of this discussion.

Everyone was brought around the table to see if there is a way forward. That is the whole object of today's meeting. I have heard some positive new issues arising from the discussion. There is a variety of apparently conflicting demands. There is a willingness on the part of everyone, particularly this group, and there is another huge group of people not represented by those at the table today, to put something in place to agree an authority with teeth that can be decisive. Flooding is the key issue. Bord na Móna has a lot of resources and the irony of all this is that the key issue causing much of the problem will probably be one of the scarcest commodities this country will be trying to capture, store and treat.

Chairman

I want to bring this section of the meeting to a close. Are there any very brief questions?

Deputy Noel Treacy

I apologise that I could not be present earlier. This is my third meeting since 2 p.m. Mr. Tarrant said he closed the sluice gates in Athlone to ensure there was no flooding downstream. If the gates were to be opened what would be the ramifications and impact downstream?

Deputy Denis Naughten

Is Mr. Ó Raghallaigh saying he is unaware of the submission the committee made to his Department five years ago? This was a UCD produced research project regarding those lands north of Lanesboro. Is Ms McGrath saying the OPW has no plans to carry out maintenance on the Shannon waterways? Mr. Pat O'Doherty said the ESB is not negligent. We are talking about 125 cu m of water in Lough Ree before the rain, as stated by Bord na Móna on 20 October. The end of September and early October was dry. There was at least one metre above the summer operating level in Lough Ree, based on ESB figures, and at least 2 metres above the operating levels in Lough Allen, before the rain. If that is not negligence, what is it?

Deputy James Bannon

A national flood alert system needs to be put in place. While it is too late for those who were affected by the flooding in December, going forward we must learn the lesson. We must follow the example of England and Wales where the latest technology is available to monitor rainfall, river levels and sea conditions on a 24-hour basis and this is fed back to the people. People were very annoyed and concerned during the rainfall at the lack of information available to them from the relevant bodies. I hope that one structure, a River Shannon Authority, will be put in place to manage and co-ordinate the activities of all the bodies present and others outside of this room.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

My question is to Dr. Ciaran Byrne in regard to fish stocks because I am interested in inland fisheries. I explained to him that the OPW cleaned all those rivers that I talk about on a five or six years basis. We had more stock and it is obvious that the rivers were alive with fish at that time. Now that the rivers are not cleaned there are no fish. Perhaps he will explain sometimes, not now, why that is the case?

In regard to Mr. Cusack's submission, what level of silt is required before it would be relevant to remove it, or would it be relevant at any time?

Mr. Eamon Cusack

The——

Chairman

We will take all the answers later.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Would it have to go to the top of the bank of the river or at what level?

Deputy Frank Feighan

My first question is for the ESB representatives. Could Lough Allen have stored any more water? Is it true that those weirs could have been raised to store that water? My next question is for Waterways Ireland. How many boats used the canal to get into Lough Allen in September? How many times has the North-South Council met and when did it last meet? My next question is for OPW. Has it any contingency plan for flood relief in Carrick-on-Shannon? Are any of the agencies responsible for Lough Arrow, River Boyle and River Brosna whose waters flow into the Shannon also?

Senator Ciaran Cannon

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh said there are occasions when certain aspects of the habitats directive can be set aside for overriding reasons of public importance. Who decides when an issue is of public importance? When, in the past, has such an occasion arisen and what were the circumstances? Ms McGrath did not answer my question as to when the Shannon CFRAMS is due to produce a report. I understand it is in four year's time, namely, 2014. What confidence can we have in the OPW that it will act on the recommendations of the report if, to date, it has not acted on the recommendations of a report on the Dunkellin river produced in 1998?

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

How did the water levels in Leitrim, particularly in Leitrim village, rise by almost 18 inches in the space of an hour? Was it as a result of water being released from Lough Allen? There must be some reason.

Senator Nicky McFadden

My question, which relates to the summer flooding, is to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Is it true that summer flooding is responsible for the devastation of wildlife? Perhaps the delegates would comment.

Chairman

I am seeking concise answers.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

In response to Deputy Naughten, I am not aware of the five-year old report to which he referred. That is not to say the organisation is not aware of it. It just has not come across my desk but there are other experts on these issues. Senator Cannon asked about the imperative reasons to override public interest. It would be up to the decision making authority to decide whether there are imperative reasons to override public interest were something to occur. Where there is priority habitat on the site an opinion of the European Commission would need to be sought. Ireland has been a little slow off the block in terms of implementing this directive and we have been faulted in the European Court of Justice. There are regular instances of this in other member states and there are a number on record that have been referred to the European Commission for its opinion. To date there has not been any in Ireland. There are a few going that way but there have not been any cases of IROPI being invoked in Ireland to date.

Senator McFadden asked about summer flooding. Summer flooding in the Callows has had a very damaging effect on corncrake in the area. The problem is the corncrake breed there during the summer in the grass in the meadows and the nests have been washed away in recent years. Mr. Michael Silke is very aware of this as it is in his area. If any flood alleviation works were being considered that is an issue that would be taken into account, that there could be a beneficial effect for corncrake but there may be a damaging affect for other interests within the site. The appropriate assessment would look at everything.

Deputy Denis Naughten

When the corncrake is gone we might get something done.

Chairman

Are there any OPW responses?

Ms Clare McGrath

Deputy Naughten asked if there was any maintenance on the Shannon and Deputy Feighan mentioned the Inny and Brosna rivers. The OPW has completed a scheme on the Inny, Brosna and Boyle rivers and those we maintain. In respect of any scheme we have undertaken on the Shannon we maintain those. However, where requested by local authorities, as is happening at present, to undertake works, either the local authority would carry out the work with funding from OPW, or in instances where the OPW undertake the work we maintain the scheme.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Are there any plans for maintenance works on the main channel of the River Shannon?

Ms Clare McGrath

No. Under the CFRAMS and its duration, elements will be identified but not in the interim.

Deputy Denis Naughten

How many families will be flooded out in four or five years' time before anything is done on that?

Chairman

Allow Ms McGrath to respond. It has been a long day.

Ms Clare McGrath

Deputy Feighan asked about the Shannon CFRAMS. It will take in the region of three to four years to complete. It follows on from what we said has to be undertaken, as was done on the River Lee in respect of the hydraulic modelling, the hydrological units and flood mapping. All of that must be undertaken in respect of the Shannon. In the interim, we do not say that works will not be undertaken but those works will be identified in consultation with the local authorities as part of the CFRAMS. Perhaps it would be useful to the committee if we set out the stages and the processes of what is involved in a CFRAMS, for example, what was involved in respect of the River Lee and the public consultation element and the stakeholder involvement.

The other question concerned the Dunkellin River, and speakers referred to a report generated some time ago. We prepared a flood relief scheme for the Aggard stream in Cregaclare, County Galway, and proposed works were placed on public exhibition in 2002 as required by the Arterial Drainage Acts. We received quite a number of observations in response to the public exhibition expressing concern that the works would exacerbate the flooding already occurring in areas downstream. Our technical information did not support that view. However, to address the concerns raised we agreed with Galway County Council to carry out additional works on the council's behalf on the Dunkellin River. The estimated cost of those works and the Cregaclare scheme was approximately €2 million. However, further objections were received from residents and land owners along the Dunkellin River who remained unhappy with the proposal and requested further substantial works.

The Minister of State met a representative group from the area and Office of Public Works officials had several further meetings in an effort to resolve the position. It was made clear to the OPW at the time, however, that the land owners were not prepared to allow the OPW proceed with the scheme. In the circumstances, the Cregaclare scheme and the proposed works on the Dunkellin river did not proceed.

Following the flooding in November 2009 there were demands for works in the Dunkellin area, and we are working with the local authority in that regard. I mentioned that earlier, but regarding the reference to an earlier report and action on it, that is the position.

Chairman

We will hear briefly from the representatives of the Central Fisheries Board.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I refer to Deputy O'Sullivan's comments. He made two points, one of which was that when rivers were cleaned regularly there were lots of fish but now that they are not cleaned regularly there are no fish. They are two separate processes. I want to be clear for the Deputy. We call the physical process that is drainage the short, back and sides. We are looking for fluvial homogeneity.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

That sorts that one out.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I will try to say it again.

(Interruptions).

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

Homogeneity. The channels are the same width and depth and what we are doing is taking out all diversity from a channel. Part of our works now with the OPW, which I have referenced on several occasions, is putting heterogeneity, which is change, back into the channel. The normal channel would have ripple, glide and pool sequences which are habitats for juvenile fish, adult fish and so on. Random boulders, logs and so on have been put back in to generate the differences.

The drainage process that took place for many years under the various Arterial Drainage Acts, as referenced, were incredibly damaging to river populations of fish.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

That is not the case.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I would be happy to bring——

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

The fish would almost hop onto the bank.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

That is a fact.

Mr. Eamon Cusack

Deputy O'Sullivan asked me about the depth of the silt. In the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board are we do not want silt in our rivers. We want what everybody else wants — clean rivers — because that is where——

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

At what stage is it taken out?

Mr. Eamon Cusack

Second, we prosecute people who put silt into rivers. That is one of the tasks the Dáil gave us. We do not want silt generally in our rivers.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Does Mr. Cusack know where the silt comes from?

Mr. Eamon Cusack

Sorry?

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

There is a natural wash of silt.

Mr. Eamon Cusack

Off the land, yes.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

There is a natural build-up of silt. It does not have to be put into the rivers. It is there naturally.

Mr. Eamon Cusack

In some rivers, such as the Feale river in our catchment, we get a gravel movement down the rivers and with the OPW and other agencies, that gravel is removed in a planned manner. In most rivers, however, if the river is naturalised the silt does not hold up. Silt holds up behind weirs and dams——

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

It still gets lodged in the river bed. I have been in the river as often as anybody else, perhaps illegally at times, trying to fish but that is another day's work.

Mr. Eamon Cusack

We do not have an issue regarding the silt. We want rivers clear and cleaned like everybody else.

Dr. Ciaran Byrne

I respectfully disagree with the Deputy regarding the effects of drainage and would be happy, outside the context of this room, to show him the before and after data the Central Fisheries Board has, which goes back many years. They include the effects of drainage on fish populations and the post-enhancement fish populations.

Chairman

Before we conclude, we will hear from the ESB——

Mr. Pat O’Doherty

I wish to advise Deputy Naughten and Senator McFadden of the position around Lough Allen and Lough Ree. The levels we were operating to in the period up to the flood in October were within our normal operating levels. There are channel restrictions, as my colleague outlined, which impact on flow. There was no negligence on our part.

Deputy Frank Feighan

This was an emergency. In an emergency could Lough Allen have been raised by another few feet, which would have saved much of——

Mr. Pat O’Doherty

If I could be allowed finish, Chairman.

Chairman

Allow Mr. O'Doherty to continue.

Mr. Pat O’Doherty

It is worth noting also that the October rainfalls were similar to those of the winter of 1994-95 and 2006-07 which was the last time we had major floods. If we examine the three months of those floods in conjunction with the three months of October, November and December of 2009, similar rainfall patterns occurred.

In regard to Lough Ree, an independent study was done by the OPW in 2004 and in its conclusion it stated that the investigations indicate that with the existing outlet control range at Lough Ree, there is little if anything that can be done to provide better flood relief by changing the ESB operating regulations.

To address the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, concern about Lough Derg, the IFA is concerned that Lough Derg increases flood levels upstream from Meelick Weir. The OPW concluded that the investigation showed that there were no major flood relief benefits available by managing Lough Derg storage in a different way and there are no impacts on flood levels above Meelick Weir from the operations in Lough Derg.

Deputy Frank Feighan

Can we return to my question about Lough Allen, which has not been answered? In an emergency could the water levels have been raised in Lough Allen to alleviate flooding downstream?

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

All I can do is answer based on the maximum normal level on Lough Allen. The maximum normal level is 49.68 m. Regarding the November flooding, based on the graph we have submitted to the committee, in the week between 29 and 26 November the level rose to just under 51 m. Other than that I cannot answer the question today. We can come back——

Deputy Frank Feighan

I put it to Mr. Tarrant that the equipment the ESB was supposed to maintain at the weir coming out of Lough Allen was not maintained. It could not raise it and hence it could not raise the flood level, which could have alleviated serious flooding downstream. Is that true?

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

The sluice gates at Lough Allen are maintained and fully operable.

Deputy Frank Feighan

Could they not have been raised by another four or five feet? The ESB was able to do that in the 1940s. Obviously, they fell into a state of disrepair and the ESB was unable to raise them any higher. That is obvious.

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

All I can say is that they are fully operable. The level reached nearly 51 metres. Other than that all I can do is come back to the Deputy with a clarification.

Deputy Frank Feighan

Those sluice gates could have been raised by another four or five feet. Lough Allen would have been able to take it. The ESB would have stopped serious flooding occurring downstream. Obviously, the ESB did not maintain those flood gates and it was unable to raise them in a time of crisis. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

I have answered the question as best I can. Those gates are fully maintained.

Deputy Noel Treacy

What impact would opening the sluice gates at Athlone have downstream?

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

With regard to Deputy Scanlon's question, any of the changes made to any of the gate operations were done in a slow, methodical way. We do not have an answer on the raising of the level by 18 inches that the Deputy referred to in his question. I do not have any information on that. I can make inquiries and come back to the Deputy on it but——

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

Will Mr. Tarrant to get back to me on that?

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

Yes.

Chairman

We will ask Mr. Tarrant to come back on that.

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

Regarding Deputy Treacy's question, if the discharge downstream of the weir in Athlone is increased, there is a natural restriction on the channel at that point and it causes flooding in the Shannon callows area.

Deputy Noel Treacy

How bad would that be?

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

Mr. Silke referred to——

Deputy Noel Treacy

What impact does Mr. Tarrant believe it would have vis-à-vis average winters?

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

On the guidelines we have developed, and referring back to what Mr. O'Doherty said about the regulations we have on Lough Ree, the investigations by the OPW in its 2004 report indicate that in regard to the existing outlet control arrangements at Lough Ree, there is little if anything that can be done to provide better flood relief by changing the ESB operating regulations——

Chairman

Would Mr. Tarrant provide us with a copy of the document to which he is referring in due course?

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

Yes. Can I make one point?

Senator Nicky McFadden

Chairman——

Chairman

I will call Senator McFadden shortly.

Mr. Nicholas Tarrant

We have said today that we are open to any reviews of guidelines or procedures on both Lough Ree and Lough Allen because we do not have a strategic interest in them.

Chairman

Do the Waterways Ireland representatives want to answer any questions?

Mr. Brian D’Arcy

We had a question from Deputy Feighan on the number of boats using Lough Allen towards the end of the season. Obviously, I do not carry that sort of information on me but I can get it for the Deputy. Deputy Feighan was one of those people who regaled at the re-opening of Lough Allen to navigation in 1995, it having been closed to it for 60 years. Our investment in this has been considerable. We will seek to get as many——

Deputy Frank Feighan

I did not dispute that with Mr. D'Arcy.

Mr. Brian D’Arcy

We will attempt to have as many boats as possible on it. In terms of the operating regime, we co-operate fully with the ESB.

Deputy Feighan asked a question about the North-South Ministerial Council, with which I will ask Mr. Martin Dennany to deal.

Mr. Martin Dennany

The number of meetings held by the NSMC as it reflects on Waterways Ireland is some three or four a year. That is decided at a plenary session between the two Governments. The last one was held in November and the next one is due to be held in the next month or so.

Chairman

Mr. Silke might have a final comment to make.

Mr. Michael Silke

I have a final question for the ESB and Waterways Ireland. Will they return the water levels in Lough Derg and Lough Ree to the levels that were in place prior to the 1970s?

Deputy James Bannon

I have a further question.

Chairman

The Deputy will have to be brief.

Deputy James Bannon

Do any of the representatives of the bodies have an objection to the transportation of water from the River Shannon in high flood times to serve Dublin city?

Chairman

There is a question for another day. The Deputy can ask the county manager in his area that question in a few minutes. Has Senator McFadden a final question?

Senator Nicky McFadden

A representative from the ESB has said that the OPW report of 2004 has exempted it from responsibility. I would like the lead agency, the OPW, to comment on that. Now that it has been given control and authority, will it give the ESB guidelines as to how it should manage the water levels in Lough Ree and Lough Allen?

Chairman

I understand the OPW will send us a copy of that report.

Ms Clare McGrath

I would like people to read the report because it is quite comprehensive.

Senator Nicky McFadden

My question is pertinent.

Chairman

Yes, it is.

Senator Nicky McFadden

The OPW has been given this responsibility and the levels need to be managed and maintained.

Chairman

I agree. I have asked for a copy of the report. We were not aware of it and not everyone has read it. It will be sent to us and will be available to the committee in the immediate future.

At this stage, I will conclude this section of the meeting. I thank all the delegates for their forbearance. It has been a longer session that we anticipated. Everyone present has different priorities and the exchange of views was useful. I thank everybody for attending. I will suspend the meeting to allow the delegates to leave and the respective county managers, who have had a long wait, to join us.

Sitting suspended at 5.33 p.m. and resumed at 5.37 p.m.