Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

As I said, the work the school has done on the ET system has been examined for a number of years. One of its objectives was to achieve a zero discharge. That was its logic. It found that, as of yet, it was virtually impossible to achieve a zero discharge, mainly because of rainfall rather than effluent entering it. In a standard house, less than 1,000 l of wastewater enters the system every day. TCD found that does not have an impact and was being addressed. The addition of rainfall, however, caused the problem.

The research paper states that the system was acting as excellent pollutant containment even if it could not fully achieve a zero discharge system on an annual basis. It cannot operate at a level of zero discharge but it can achieve a zero impact. That is the point I am making. The amount of water leaving was equal to the amount of water coming from a system that had not been fed any effluent. If the testers took samples from the run-off from the concrete yard at the back of the house and from the effluent that went through the evapotranspiration system, they were equal. There was an equal loading of phosphates and they were well within any standard. I know of an evapotranspiration system in a house outside Mohill near Loch Rynn Castle Estate. I know the old man there well. He said now and again the testers come and take tests. He got them to call him back. He said the man who called him back after carrying out the tests told him that the water was similar to bathing water standard.

The zero effect is what we need to achieve. All of us want that. No one wants to pollute or destroy our environment. We understand that the water in our rivers and lakes often ends up in our taps because it goes back through the system. We want to ensure that we have a zero effect. The natural systems involving the growth of willow or reed beds are best in dealing with these situations. This is the key question. Are we able to do it right every time? Are we able to ensure that we can come up with a system that will work at every site correctly? Can that be monitored and checked? Is it affordable? That research is now being done, but when the research is done we come back to the problem at the end of it. In fairness, the Environmental Protection Agency said at the time that unintended consequences can arise and that zero discharge blocks even that.

Let us suppose we had a system that produced potable water, and it was only letting out 1 litre per day. Given the rigidity of the system we have at the moment, we are not allowed to discharge that water. That is a ridiculous situation in any context. Really, we need to work with the EPA, Trinity College, Laurence Gill and the others who have done this research to ensure we can come up with a system. Everyone involved in the process to date is confident that a system can be found that would have zero impact but it will not have zero discharge. It will have a certain level of discharge mainly due to rainfall. Once we achieve that, we come back to the problem of the zero discharge rule. The way to get over the zero discharge rule is to put a small licence in place that a local authority can issue. That is how to solve the problem. That is what the Bill intends to do. Of course, if people in the Department have particular issues that they would like to see resolved, I am open to hearing about it. Sensible amendments can come from anywhere. We are not all geniuses in this situation. We all know that there may be unintended consequences somewhere that we do not see but we can find a way to overcome all of those. That is what we need to work on.