Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A public consultation on redesignating 433 rivers, streams and lakes as "heavily modified water bodies", closed last week. If the redesignation goes ahead, it will mean a massive increase in the number of these "heavily modified water bodies" from 33 to 466. All the main rivers in Dublin - the Liffey, the Dodder, the Poddle - as well as iconic rivers like the Boyne, the Corrib and the Shannon, will be included.

The reason the Government is doing this is that heavily modified water bodies do not have to meet EU water quality standards, which require all our rivers, lakes and estuaries to achieve good water quality by 2027. The Government is failing abysmally to achieve those standards; more than half of our rivers, lakes and estuaries are in an unhealthy state. In the late 1980s, we had more than 500 pristine water bodies; there are only 20 today. Rather than taking action to fix that, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is not just moving the goalposts, but demolishing the goalposts.

An Taisce's submission to the public consultation is damning of the redesignation process. It states the consultation "is wholly inadequate from a public participation perspective" because "the Department have manifestly failed to adequately carry out any of the designation tests". It provides a detailed explanation of what the designation tests are supposed to be under EU law and, step by step, shows how the Department has failed to carry them out. The first step is supposed to be to identify possible restoration measures for the rivers. An Taisce finds no evidence the Department bothered to do this and concludes "This is a total failure by the Department to identify the restoration measures required to achieve [good ecological status]." The second step is to examine whether those restoration measures would have significant adverse effects on the specified uses for the rivers, which can include providing drinking water supply, power generation, irrigation, flood protection or land drainage. Here An Taisce finds "Given that there has been no analysis of what restoration measures would be required... it [is] impossible for the Department to adequately answer this question." Did that stop the Department? No. It went ahead and inputted the word "Yes" to an Excel spreadsheet 433 times, apparently on the say-so of the specified use owners. Those specified use owners are the Department and the OPW. I have the Excel spreadsheet here just saying "Yes" 433 times. It is the definition of a box-ticking exercise.

There is a second column with "Yes" written 433 times in answer to the question, "Will the body fail good ecological status?" That lets the cat out of the bag. It is patently obvious that the Government is doing this to wriggle out of its obligations to bring water bodies up to good ecological status by 2027 and to hell with the cost to the environment and the damage to biodiversity. Is the Minister of State content to preside over a further decline of our rivers and lakes? Is he content to not even try to restore them and instead to throw in the towel and redesignate them as heavily modified in order that the Government is not under any pressure to improve them?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue and appreciate his concerns regarding this process. The water framework directive establishes the general objective that water bodies be restored to at least good ecological status by 2027. It also makes provision that a more realistic objective for water bodies that have been heavily modified may be set. This applies where restoration would not be technically feasible or would be disproportionately costly, among other considerations.

Under the water framework directive, the Department conducted an eight-week consultation on designating heavily modified water bodies, which closed on 23 May 2025. This followed an initial consultation on characterising heavily modified water bodies completed by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in 2022. The EPA determined, on the basis of expert judgment underpinned by new assessment tools, that these water bodies would fail to achieve the target of good ecological status due to changes in their physical condition. This resulted in a list of 466 water bodies requiring further assessment by the Department to determine their eligibility for designation as heavily modified.

These water bodies have undergone significant physical modifications to support various societal benefits, for example, concrete flood protection schemes. As a result, they are no longer in a natural state and cannot achieve the same environmental targets as their natural counterparts. These water bodies have been modified to supply drinking water, provide flood protection, protect towns and villages and create national ports. It also includes those modified as a result of land drainage, which is carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act 1945. Arterial drainage provides flood protection to thousands of residential and commercial properties, in addition to protecting farmlands.

The water action plan 2024 sets out a series of actions to tackle water quality in Ireland. All member states are required to produce such plans in six-year cycles. Action 3.11 of the plan commits to a review of arterial drainage requirements and the underpinning Arterial Drainage Act to inform future land use policy decisions. Until that is complete and irrespective of designation as heavily modified, the OPW has a statutory duty under the Arterial Drainage Act to maintain arterial drainage schemes.

Designation of water bodies as heavily modified acknowledges that there has been a modification for the purposes of a beneficial specified use and that different, more appropriate environmental standards need to be applied. These water bodies will have an alternative target of good ecological potential instead of good ecological status. Official EU guidance on this process outlines that this is not an exemption but is a specific category of water body with its own classification scheme and objective. It is important to note that good ecological potential reflects the best environmental target that the water body is capable of achieving while the modifications to support the specified use are still in place. In itself, the designation does not have an ecological effect but sets a realistic yet stringent standard.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State referred to a realistic yet stringent standard. I presume he will accept that it is deliberately a much less stringent standard than if those water bodies were not redesignated as highly modified water bodies.

The reply was in line with what I am saying. This is the Government throwing in the towel in respect of improving the quality of our water bodies. To quote Ms Joanna Braniff of the Rivers Trust, it shows there is no ambition for these rivers and that we are writing them off.

The Minister of State, as I heard the Taoiseach do earlier in the week, effectively tried to pass the buck to the EPA. He effectively misquoted what the EPA has done. The EPA carried out work in 2022 to identify candidates for this designation - it engaged with stakeholders - but it was not the final designation. It found bodies that could meet the designation but final designation is the job of the Department. In its letter to the Department on the issue, the EPA stated that it recommended consideration by the Minister of a number of issues as part of the final designation. It recommended that the Department "carry out a wider national policy review of whether the specified uses are appropriate during the 3rd river basin management planning cycle". It also recommended "that waterbody specific designation tests, that are informed by the policy review, should be carried out in due course". The Department has failed to do that.

The Minister of State referred to the change in these physical conditions based on expert judgment underpinned by new assessment tools. He is not saying that the Government has done that but that the EPA has done it. However, the EPA has not made its decision. This is a decision made by the Department.

The Minister of State made reference to arterial drainage. That is an outdated practice that can often lead to more flooding than would naturally occur. The main justification for exempting rivers from quality standards is highly questionable. It is in breach of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, which outlined that the Arterial Drainage Act is no longer fit for purpose. The Government is now using it as an excuse to lower the standards for our water.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy says it is in breach of the citizens' assembly, but it is in compliance with EU law and guidance. This is not an exemption. It is defined in the EU guidance as an alternative target that is designed to get the best possible environmental outcome while continuing to provide societal benefits. This is a cyclical process. Water bodies currently proposed for designation are unable to meet the good ecological status objective at this time. As further information arises, alternative solutions could become available. Once a viable alternative is implemented that can allow these water bodies to achieve their natural target, they will not be designated as heavily modified in subsequent cycles. Where no alternative solution can be found, mitigation measures will be applied to those designated water bodies to ensure they achieve the best environmental standard possible.

Designation as heavily modified is a dynamic process that allows us to continue to with specified uses, such as drinking water and flood protection, while still achieving the best environmental standards possible. It allows us to redesignate and de-designate water bodies in the future if better solutions arise. It does not constitute a lowering of ecological targets.