Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have one final question. If we are looking at 179 high-priority rivers rather than at 800 rivers, which is a third of the 2,400, how can we say anything with certainty? It is like looking at a herd of cattle and saying 16 of them are bad. How can the EPA say these things when it does not analyse all of the different places and when some are analysed only every three years? I know the witnesses will say this complies with what the EU has laid out. The analogy I would use is that, if you were on a water scheme and there was coliform present, if you scoured that system, you could get it out and you would then be perfect. However, it is actually non-compliant if one premises is affected by coliform. That is the problem. While the EPA is looking at 179 every month, the others are not monitored as tightly. How can the EPA prepare an accurate guide? At the moment, its document is to be the be all and end all in an application for a derogation that will be going to the European Commission. When you do stuff, it needs to be foolproof. The 179 are assessed 12 times a year while another 2,200 are assessed at longer intervals. You could hit a river one day and see that it is one way only for it to clear itself out. A river can clear itself. There are then 800 that are not looked at all. How can the EPA then say that a river is not favourable or less favourable? I have seen all of this in different scientific stuff. How can the EPA's work on such an important document that is to go to Europe be foolproof? How can the EPA stand over it? The first thing that should be done is that this document should be independently reviewed. How can the EPA stand over this when the lives of a lot of people are at risk?