Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy Bannon for raising this matter. On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Brian Hayes, who is absent on business, I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the subject of the management structure of the River Shannon.

At the outset, it would be useful to outline briefly the position regarding the responsibilities and involvement of different agencies to the Shannon. There are many organisations, national and local, with statutory obligations for the management of the catchment. For example, Waterways Ireland, WWI, has responsibility for navigation and, as such, will exercise some limited control over water levels in lakes and river stretches. The Electricity Supply Board, ESB, has statutory responsibility for the control of lake levels arising from water requirements for hydroelectric generation of electricity at Ardnacrusha. Environmental concerns, fisheries matters and tourism or recreational issues are dealt with by the relevant agencies with responsibilities in these matters. Local authorities, ten county councils, in the catchment monitor water quality with the assistance of a number of laboratories and have responsibility for its control.

The Office of Public Works main area of responsibility is for maintenance on those tributaries where capital works have been carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act 1945. The OPW hydrometric service also gathers water level and discharge information at a number of sites on the river. Operational control of water flows and levels on the Shannon is therefore primarily the responsibility of both the ESB and WWI. The ESB has overall statutory responsibility for the management and control of water flows and levels on the Shannon. WWI also has a direct role and function in managing levels on the river. A system of management and control is in place involving co-operation by those two bodies under a detailed set of operational protocols and arrangements for the regulation of water levels on the river. I am advised that it is the bodies' view that this system has worked and is working satisfactorily. The OPW has no direct operational responsibility for the management of water levels on the Shannon. The OPW liaises regularly with the ESB and WWI on the operation of the management protocols.

Given the variety of bodies involved and the disparate functions for which each one is responsible, the formation of a single authority or agency to oversee and co-ordinate management arrangements for the Shannon has been discussed on a number of previous occasions and indeed has been the subject of Private Members' Bills in this House. The question of creating a single authority for the River Shannon is a major policy issue because of the very diverse range of powers, activities and responsibilities that would be affected. These include electricity generation, tourism, infrastructure, water quality, water extraction, waste water disposal, flood risk management and a range of environmental responsibilities.

As Deputy Bannon is aware, the question of the optimum structure or structures to manage the Shannon and its tributaries was the subject of a report in 2002 by a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport. It is worth noting that the report indicated that a consensus existed among the numerous groups and bodies involved in the management of the Shannon that, while improvements in the management of the Shannon basin were needed, there was no agreement on the establishment of a new organisation as the best means to achieve this end.

The 2002 report attempted to establish how effectively the present organisational arrangements enabled the Shannon catchment to be managed and what might best be done to improve the process. Two main merits attributed to the present arrangements for the management of the Shannon catchment were identified. They were that functional responsibility is clearly fixed in law and each organisation has a precise remit, knows exactly what it is required to do and has clearly established priorities; and communication and collaboration between the various agencies take place using well established mechanisms, such as committees, working groups and partnerships.

The main weakness identified was a lack of co-ordination, among the organisations involved. The sub-committee took the view however that it would be undesirable to establish any additional institution unless it could be clearly demonstrated that tangible benefits would flow which could not otherwise be achieved. It noted the danger that an extra organisation might usurp or duplicate existing institutions or else be just a talking shop. The report concluded that the establishment of a new organisation would be something that could be recommended only as a last resort.

See this speech in context