I spoke against it here in the Seanad on 18 December 1988.
Rightly or wrongly, anglers and other users of the Corrib saw this licence as a means of the Government taking over control of the Corrib. This is one of the reasons why the legislation has been resisted. These other uses, I have no doubt, would lead to pollution of our lakes and rivers. At the time I did not see this danger but subsequent events have established quite clearly that there was a campaign to take over our lakes for fish farming and thus create a further threat of pollution to our waterways. The introduction of this licence coincided with the development of fish farming activities in Connemara and along the west coast generally. The ordinary people of the Corrib-Mask and Connemara regions became alerted and by their campaign of public awareness saved at least the Corrib-Mask from the introduction of fish cages. This may seem an unreal threat to the outside observer but it was a real threat and I will establish that now by proof of what was happening in regard to attempts to put fish cages into the fresh waters in our area.
To realise the threat the Corrib-Mask region was under one would have to realise the vastness of the salmon farming projects taking place in the sea water in sheltered bays along the west coast. To supply those salmon farms with smolts, it is required to rear the smolts in fresh water, lakes or rivers, or in so-called land based hatcheries which are smolt-rearing installations on the banks of rivers, discharging their effluent into the rivers and lakes.
To give some idea of the vastness of this salmon farming business I will quote some statistics from a document produced by the Western Regional Fisheries Board, Potential Sites for salmon smolt production for the aquaculture industry in the Western Region:
It is estimated that there will be increasing demand for salmon smolts by the aquaculture industry in the region over the next 3 years. The projected figures are: total requirement, 4 million; existing output, 0.5 million; planned output for new units extensions, 1 million; future requirements from 1987-1990, 2.5 million. According to the I.A.A. the lack of available freshwater sites is impeding the development of the industry in the region. Therefore, at this stage, it is important not only to identify the projected smolt requirements but to decide how and where this can be met. Salmon farming is of growing economic importance to the region but Irish producers have to be competitive with their counterparts in Scotland and Norway and operating costs affect this. According to Roberts 1987, the operating costs are—
I will not give them. The document further states:
There is little published information in relation to the cost of smolt production on land based sites versus cages, but undoubtedly the capital costs associated with land based units is a prohibitive factor for many small operators.
The industry requires sites within 2 hours driving time of the sea cages. In practice this means that sea farms in the board's jurisdiction would most likely have to be supplied with smolts produced within the region.
There are 25,000 smolts to one tonne, 4 million smolts equals 160 tonnes.
It takes approximately 250 million litres of fresh water to produce one tonne of fish, that is 55 million gallons. It will require 8,800 million gallons of fresh water to produce four million smolts or 160 tonnes each year. To get this into perspective, for example, Galway city uses 8 million gallons of water each day or 300 million gallons of water each year.
The annual production of 4 million smolts will require about three times the amount of fresh water that Galway city uses each year. This massive amount of fresh water is only available in Lough Corrib and Lough Mask. It would not be economically viable to the multinationals who have invested tens of millions of pounds already in fish farm projects around the west coast if they were not able to produce their raw material smolts i.e. the young salmon, for putting in the fish cages. So therefore, it is quite clear that those developers had their eyes on the Corrib-Mask as the only area of lake with volumes of water sufficient to produce the number of smolts required for their investment in their sea farming activities. There was not enough fresh water elsewhere in Connemara or County Galway to rear the smolts so the pressure was on from high places to allow those multinational fish farm developers to get their smolt rearing cages on the Mask and the Corrib. But fair dues to the people of Galway and Mayo, they saw the danger and were alerted in time and by their public awareness and public demand they closed that door, but barely in time.
In case the Minister thinks I exaggerate, let me outline what was happening in my county and, indeed, in my neighbouring county which the Minister represents, County Mayo. The multinational companies pursuing fish farming were eventually able to get permission for smolt rearing on lakes and rivers by persevering with planning applications and appeals and then applying again. I will give just two examples to outline what I am saying and to prove that what I am saying is factual.
Example No. 1 is planning reference 53604 to Galway County Council. This was an application to Galway County Council by Bradan Mara for an onshore salmon hatchery at Ballinahinch granted by Galway County Council on 27 April 1987 and appealed to the Appeals Board. The applicants in this case, strangely, did not wait for a decision from the Appeals Board but they proceeded to lodge another application, planning reference 54294. This was granted by Galway County Council on 19 June 1987. This decision was also appealed to the Appeals Board and both these decisions were decided on by the Appeals Board on 28 September 1987. Despite the complexities of this case, this was a fairly quick decision, in three months, by normal standards of the Appeals Board, but stranger was to occur.
Planning reference 53604 was refused by the Appeals Board and planning reference 54294 was granted by the Appeals Board, both on the same day. It is quite clear the applicants must have had some knowledge of the likely outcome of planning reference 53604 when they did not wait for a decision from the Appeals Board and yet lodged another similar application three months later which was decided by the Appeals Board in their favour at the same time. As well as that, it might be of interest to point out that some months before the Appeals Board decision in this case, the company concerned, without permission, started to erect a road through a forest to the site, another clear indication to me that they had knowledge of the likely success of one of their planning applications.
The next example I will give is just as startling as the previous one. I am certain that the Minister for the Environment, if he were here, would take special interest in this one as not alone does it affect my county but it also affects the neighbouring county of Mayo. This application, again, was a double application, first planning reference 52454. This was a planning application by Eisc Iathglas Teo., seeking permission for fish cages in Lough na Fooey. To anybody who does not know, this is a lake at the head of Lough Mask, which feeds the Mask and also connects to the Corrib. This planning application for fish cages in Lough na Fooey was refused by Galway County Council on 17 July 1986 on two grounds. I got this information as a result of a notice of motion put down to Galway County Council in June, 1988:
Reference No. 52454: Eisc Iathglas Teo., permission for fish cages in Lough na Fooey refused by Galway County Council on 17 July, 1986 on two grounds:
(i) public health hazard in head waters of Lough Mask which is a major source of public water supply and
(ii) injury to visual amenity.
Refused an appeal by An Bord Pleanála solely on grounds of visual amenity.
Yet, despite the refusal of the application I have referred to, 52454, a similar application was made to the same planning authority by the same company for submerged fish cages in Lough na Fooey, planning reference No. 55416. This was decided on by Galway County Council on 17 February 1988 and it was decided to grant temporary permission for five years. This is now on appeal to the Appeals Board and it is quite obvious that even the Appeals Board at this stage are getting the message about the danger and the resistance to fish farming on those lakes which is being used as a water supply. Even though Galway County Council decided on 17 February 1988 to grant permission, exactly a year later the Appeals Board has not made a decision in this case. Yet in the earlier case I quoted, reference 54294, it took the Appeals Board only three months to make a decision to grant the application. The penny has dropped even with the Appeals Board and this is due to the awareness of the people and the public interest created by these matters.
This has caused the people of the Corrib-Mask area to fight to preserve their waters free of any type of pollution. It is still extraordinary in my opinion that the planning permission was granted by Galway County Council because if cages in application 52454 were a public health hazard, as quoted in the County Council document, in head waters of Lough Mask, which is the major source of a water supply in the Minister's constituency, submerged cages would be no different. They would create the same health hazard in my opinion. All this, despite a recommendation to Galway County Council from the Western Health Board dealing with planning permissions and I quote from a document of the Western Health Board. It is headed: Application for permission for on shore salmon hatchery and associated site works at Cloonnacatan. It reads:
We recommend that planning permission should be granted, subject to the following conditions. That water is not extracted downstream for human consumption.
I would also like to quote at this stage a letter issued by the Western Health Board in October 1986. This concerns again the whole question of the Western Health Board's opinion of the pollution that may be caused and the dangers of fish farming development in waters being used as public waters supplies. This is a letter from the Western Health Board in October 1986, signed by A. W. Halloran, supervisor environment health officer. It states:
The approach to water supply sources must be to protect and preserve them because of the significance of the wholesome water supply in relation to public health. Any threat, therefore, to an existing source must be resisted. This principle is reflected in E.E.C. legislation relating to water supplies.
Intensive fish farming is still at the development stage and little research has been carried out on its long term effects on drinking water. We know, however, that it is almost universal practice in fish farming to use antibiotics in the feed to control disease and chemicals to control parasitic infection.
Amongst the chemicals used are Formaldehyde, Malachite Green, Hyamine, Acriflavine, Dipterex and Enheptine. The first four listed are suspected carcinogens and the last two are known carcinogens. There is no comparison in the use of Malachite Green in topical application for a limited period of time and its consumption in drinking water for a lifetime. The fact that these substances are used means that they will be present in the drinking water, as conventional treatment will not remove them. They will of course be used in very low levels and may be undetectable using existing techniques. However, their presence in the water cannot be denied and this information, once it becomes known could give rise to great fear and anxiety in the community. People would fear that their water supply would be contaminated with dangerous chemicals and no amount of expert advice would alter this view.
Antibiotics which are used in the feed will be present also in the water supply and the food chain. Again they would be at very low levels, but because their properties and effects are so well known, their presence could give rise to the same anxiety as would be the case for suspected and known carcinogens.
The last planning application I will quote is planning application reference 51426 to Galway County Council.
This is an application for a salmon, par and smolt rearing installation at Bunatobber on the Kilroe River, Corrundulla, Co. Galway. This permission was granted by Galway County Council on 24 February 1985. It went into operation some time in 1985-86 yet they did not have a licence to discharge effluent in the Kilroe River and this was only applied for two or three years later, planning reference 112-86. This licence to discharge was granted by Galway County Council on 1 June 1988. The decision to grant the licence to discharge effluent is now on appeal to the Appeals Board and, again, there is no decision on this one. Yet, the enterprise has continued to operate since 1986 and must be discharging effluent without any licence to discharge.
The extraordinary thing about this enterprise is that one mile downstream from this installation, the Kilroe river flows into the Corrib at Ballinduff in Luimneach Bay on the Corrib near Headford. This permission was granted despite the known attitude of the Western Health Board from several internal memos and from the statements of the health board officer. Out of this same Luimneach Bay which is a sheltered bay on the Corrib near Headford, three major group water schemes draw their supply, the Kilcoona-Caherlistrane scheme with over 600 houses, the Annaghdown scheme with 300 users and Crosswood/Cloughan with about 250 houses. All of this water is untreated water, just chlorinated. The major pipe from the Crosswood/Cloughan scheme has been brought to Headford and is ready to be connected to the Headford town supply when a suitable pumping station is erected. This is ready for connection and Galway County Council have also indicated that they propose to take a supply from this area to Tuam.
I would like the Minister to explain the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. It reads:
Section 3 provides for the amendment of section 3 of the 1977 Act which imposes a general prohibition on causing or permitting any polluting matter to enter waters. Subsection (1) amends the present "good defence" provision so as to place a greater onus on the person charged to prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that his act or omission might cause or permit polluting matter to enter waters. Subsection (1) also replaces section 3 (5) (a) of the 1977 Act by a provision clarifying the effluents to which the general prohibition does not apply. Subsection (2) empowers the Minister to restrict or repeal, by regulations, the exemptions set out in sections 3 (5) abnd 3 (6) of the 1977 Act; any such regulations must be laid in draft before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Because of the fact that the person getting permission to discharge effluent into the Kilroe river in this case, does it prove that he could not reasonably have foreseen that his act or omission might cause or permit polluting matter to enter waters? I have given three examples of planning permission sought — I could give more — and how it was eventually granted and the circumstances in which it were granted. Are we serious about the prevention of water pollution or are we going along blindly hoping for the best, maybe to discover in five, ten or 15 years that we have destroyed an asset and a lake like the Corrib-Mask which might take hundreds of years to restore? Are we going along blindfold, without proper knowledge or concern about the effects, if any, that the discharge of effluent will have on major water supplies?
It should be pointed out that Galway city with a population of 47,000, and the surrounding areas, draw their water from the Corrib. Fish farms, so-called land based, which is only based on the edge of the river disposing their effluent into the river, should not take place on lakes or rivers used as water supply sources because of the chemicals and antibiotics which are used to control disease and parasitic infection. There is concern in County Galway about the operation of fish farms. Lettercraffroe Lake upstream from Oughterard and the Kilroe river where salmon smolt rearing is taking place are used for drinking water when it enters the Corrib and it would appear that granting planning permission for these two fish farms is in conflict with the regulations relating to water supply for human consumption. There are a number of group water schemes with over 1,000 houses being supplied from the very bay into which one of these fish farms is disposing of its effluent, and more importantly, a much greater demand will be made in the foreseeable future on this source of supply. In The Connacht Tribune of 23 September 1988 Galway County Council published details of its Tuam Regional Water Supply project. This envisages the provision of water for Tuam with a population of 6,700 and the neighbouring electoral area from Lough Corrib with an intake point in Ballyduff Bay which is in the townland of Luimneach East and Luimneach West, from Luimneach Bay where the effluent is being discharged from an upstream fish farm.
To meet the additional demand, the County Council expects that water will be pumped from the bay at a maximum rate of 50,000 cubic metres per day. The Minister for the Environment has stated publicly that ecological interests will not be sacrificed for the sake of creating jobs. I contend he must take action on those so-called land based fish farms and particularly he must ensure that this stretch of Lough Corrib is kept unpolluted. This is used for drinking purposes for 1,000 families at present, and an estimated 2,500 when it will eventually cater for the Tuam Regional Water Supply and possibly another 1,000 houses in the Headford area when the supply is connected to augment the present Headford supply scheme. He must assure those people that the principle stated by him will be applied with the primary object of ensuring that the quality of the water is safeguarded.
I know that due to public awareness in Counties Galway and Mayo the Minister for the Marine responded in May 1988 when he issued a statement concerning the imposition or non-imposition of fish cages on fresh water, and I quote:
The Minister for the Marine, Mr. Brendan Daly, T.D. wishes to clarify the legal position and policy with regard to the placing of aquaculture projects in freshwater lakes. The Minister has stated that no such projects will be permitted in lakes where there are major wild fisheries i.e. trout and salmon.
The Fisheries Conservation Act, 1959 requires that aquaculture projects in lakes be authorised by the Department of the Marine which has discretion as to whether or not they are allowed to proceed.
In certain instances, local authorities have by Order extended the jurisdiction over specific lakes, usually where the lakes are used for water extraction — this is a growing phenomenon. In those instances, cage based projects also require planning permission and are subject to the normal notification and scrutiny provisions of the Planning Acts and may not proceed without approval both from the Department of the Marine and the appropriate Planning Authority.
I welcome that statement because of the concern being expressed in the regions I have dealt with. How can county councils monitor this actvitity in fish farming because fish cages and smolt rearing is such a new phenomenon and we have not got the expertise to deal with this matter at county council level? How can they, on a continuing reduced budget each year, have enough personnel to monitor what is going on in our lakes and rivers?
The last sentence in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states: "The Bill does not give rise to any additional financial or staffing costs." How can we avoid additional financial or staffing costs if we are to properly monitor an ongoing situation? How can local authorities continue to do this on a reduced budget? For example, in 1988 in Galway our capital grant was reduced by 14 per cent or £1.4 million. Again, this year it has been reduced by 5.5 per cent or £560,000. I pose the question in all seriousness: how can the county council monitor pollution in vast areas like Galway with so many rivers, lakes, waters and seas in the light of these cutbacks? Very shortly, because of the lack of money being spent on county roads, it will be impossible to travel some of the roads in County Galway to get to the lakes and rivers to see what is going on. I know of situations already where people living in remote areas of Connemara have to park their cars at the end of the county road and walk to their houses, a distance of half-a-mile or more. This is the reality of the way people in my county are living at present. Perhaps it is different in other counties. In the north and south Connemara regions in particular some county roads have been washed away. If there are not roads to get to the lakes and rivers — leaving aside the inconvenience to local people — how can the relevant officials on a continually reducing budget monitor some of the possible causes of pollution?
In May 1988 the Minister for the Marine made a statement concerning the placing of aquaculture projects in freshwater lakes. I submit he should have gone further in this matter. He did not mention anything about having any opposition to so-called land based smolt-rearing installations and those can have the same detrimental effect as any projects in fresh water and can cause pollution. Even with land projects the effluent has to be discharged into a river which eventually will find its way into the lake. This must have the same effect on our freshwater as if those enterprises were conducted in the lake.
I do not apologise to anybody for putting my feelings on the matter on the record of the House. I am only mirroring the feelings of the people who have been alerted by the dangers they see around them in the development of fish farming in Connemara and the dangers they see to the Corrib-Mask area of Galway-Mayo particularly in relation to the possible pollution dangers to the Corrib and Mask waters from fish farms based in the head waters or in contributory rivers to those lakes. Who will thank us as public representatives in ten, 15 or 20 years time if we now remain silent and allow some multinational, high-powered, high-financed companies to take over our waters?
Will the generations to come after us thank us if we in the eighties stand idly by and allow anything to go ahead that might endanger the natural, God-given, free-from-pollution waters of the Corrib and Mask which I have described as the greatest unpolluted freshwater lake in Europe? We will be hardly thanked if we stood idly by and allow anything to happen which might have a detrimental effect on those natural limestone lakes. These lakes are the greatest natural fishing asset in Europe — when we settle the rod licence question. They could be sold to the people of Europe because there is nothing to equal them on the Continent. In Europe you have to book your fishing time in advance; there is a queue and a whistle is blown when your time is up and you are only fishing for fish which were put into the lake perhaps a year or so before you came there.
In my own area we have the greatest unpolluted 60,000 to 70,000 acres of water on the Corrib-Mask and it would be a sin if the public representatives of the area did not do everything possible in their power to maintain asset. I have taken up this campaign vigorously to support the efforts of the people of that region in ensuring that the Corrib-Mask will remain as far as possible an unpolluted, free, natural lake. Those who follow us will not thank us if we do not stand up now and be counted in this matter. I am asking the Minister to join in my plea and stand up and be counted on behalf of the people of the area I represent, on behalf of the people he represents and on behalf of the people represented by the Minister for the Environment.
It is unfortunate that the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, had to be called out on business. We have had a change of Ministers of State. I began the debate last week in the presence of the Minister for the Environment. I welcome the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, whom I know has a keen interest in local authority and local government matters. I have made my contribution at a slight disadvantage as regards looking for replies to some of the questions I have posed but I know they will be dealt with adequately. However, over the past two weeks, I have made my speech to three different Ministers. I know that could not be helped and I am not faulting any of the Ministers concerned because these things happen. I am sure my views and the serious and very strong feelings I have on the matter will be taken into account.
I have gone into great detail because I thought it was necessary. From my position as a representative on Galway County Council and Galway Borough council for many years I can see at firsthand what is going on. An attempt was made about a year ago — and it was at its strongest before the Minister for the Marine made that statement in May 1988 and the evidence I have given in my contribution here today substantiates it — to get fish cages on the head waters of the Corrib and, indeed, on the Corrib-Mask itself. I am glad that threat has temporarily abated but we and the Minister must be vigilant as public representatives to ensure that such a thing could never happen. If I can get assurances in that regard on the record I will be very glad of them.
I have responded to this debate because I was aware of what was happening in my own county and I am sure the Minister and Ministers of State are aware of what is happening throughout this area. I am aware from my observations that people are now alerted to the dangers. The bluff has been called: no longer will people take threats of any type of pollution, particularly such as I have outlined here. I will quote just a couple of publications which came to my notice recently; there are 20 or 30 of them but I will only quote two of them. The first one is from the Irish Skipper of January 1989: It says in the heading: “660 Applications for Fish Farms”. The second one is more recent, I only read it today coming up on the train. It is from the Irish Independent of 14 February 1989 and says: “‘Sea Threat’ appeal to Daly”— meaning the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Daly. It states:
An alert on the "serious threat" to outstanding beaches on the Connemara coast has been sounded by the Roundstone Community Council.
It is concerned at the Department of the Marine's decision to designate the 70 square miles of inshore seas from Slyne Head to Mace Head as suitable for fish farming....
that is from outside the Ballyconneely golf course to a location on the Galway side of Carna.
A licence to farm salmon in cages is essentially a licence to dump effluent into the surrounding waters, uneaten food, excrement, antibiotics, pesticides and dyes, according to the chairwoman, Ann Conneally. No local inhabitant has been consulted about the Department's decision and a licence to farm salmon has been granted to North Connemara Farmers' Co-operative Society. The Minister, Deputy Brendan Daly, should specify this a designated area before the area is irreparably damaged. I support the call by Ann Conneally of the Round-stone Community Council.
Another aspect of this is visible to anybody travelling the road recently, or in the last year, from Letterfrack to Leenane along by the very beautiful Killary Harbour. It is like a battlefield, with all types of unsystematic fish cages littering the bay for a space of three or four miles. It is like something left after scrap merchants or people of that nature had departed in a hurry. It is a scandal that in one of the highest scenic amenity areas in Connemara this should be allowed to happen.
I would like to know if the Bill deals with inland fresh water pollution and sea pollution. I know that county councils have planning jurisdiction only up to the high water mark and have not control of planning outside that. I wonder if there is any provision in this Bill to control development in seas as well? In the sheltered bays around the Connemara coast very grave damage can be done by fish farming development in such bays over which we have no control as a local authority.
I will conclude by saying I will be considering amendments to this Bill at a later stage.