Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I commend Senator Murphy on the Bill and support it proceeding to Committee Stage. Flooding is an important issue and we have discussed it on numerous occasions in this House. It is going to become a more pressing issue as we face into the winter months and, in the longer term, more extreme weather events due to climate change. I recognise the devastating effects of flooding on the area around the Shannon lakes, especially around Carrick-on-Shannon, Leitrim village and the upper Shannon region north of Lough Ree. Data show there has been an increase in the pattern of flooding over the past 60 years and there is categorical evidence that the floods are getting bigger. These floods are devastating to homes, farmlands and businesses, and are eroding the quality of life for those who live there.

Sinn Féin Deputies have been very proactive on this issue. International best practice shows that tackling the issue of flooding requires a holistic, river-basin approach. It is not good enough to focus on only one area of the river. That is why Sinn Féin Deputies brought forward a Bill to establish a single Shannon river management agency, which the Senator also agrees is essential to look after the river in its entirety. There are currently 20 agencies, ranging from the Office of Public Works, OPW, to Waterways Ireland and local authorities, involved in water management and maintenance of the River Shannon. This Bill would give one agency, the ESB, new powers for flood management whereas the Sinn Féin Bill would bring those powers under one body. Community groups and local people up and down the Shannon are warmly welcoming the Bill, which seeks to place the agency on a firm statutory footing. People have suffered long enough and are worn out with the lack of action on this issue. They are constantly living in fear of when the next major flooding will take place. This constant living in fear is not fair.

When it comes to the issue of dredging, I do not agree fully with the Senator. Communities are tired of piecemeal or half-baked measures that will only push the problem of flooding to somewhere else downstream, and they do not want measures that will destroy the biodiversity of the rivers. There is a recognition now, certainly internationally, that hard engineering solutions such as dredging and flood walls are not the answer and actually make the problem worse, usually impacting on the community that is further downstream. We need a mix of hard and soft engineering solutions like natural flood management. Studies have shown that when carried out appropriately, natural water retention can slow down the flow and hold the water in the landscape for between 12 and 24 hours.

We do not have to look too far away to see this working in action. In 2019, I brought over an expert from the Slow the Flow programme in Britain to outline how it was working really effectively over there. It is also creating jobs for people, non-extractive jobs that are low in emissions, and providing incomes to farming communities along the watercourses. The expert spoke in the Leinster House audiovisual room. We know the nature-based solutions he outlined on that occasion are effective in reducing flooding, particularly in small catchment areas. Not only are they more effective, the cost savings are immense when you take account of the role played by nature-based solutions in reducing the occurrence of smaller, frequent floods or what are called nuisance floods in the United States. We are familiar with the catastrophic floods that occur every few years and more frequently now, and that cause massive financial damage, but the nuisance floods that happen regularly also have a cost. It is just not calculated in the same way because they are happening in different places and at smaller levels.

We must listen to and work with the science and always evolve the way in which we approach flood management. In addition, it is vital that nature-based catchment management projects are community-led. This cannot be enforced on communities. Communities have to be included in the process, must benefit from the process and must have ownership of the process. This also holds true for hard landscaping measures. I spoke this morning on the Order of Business about how bad we are at public consultation in this country. We shy away from asking people for their opinions and from working with them to find the solutions and the compromises for rolling out a project to which there will be less resistance in the long term. It does not get held up and delayed when people work with the communities. BusConnects is probably a good example of working with communities and listening to what their issues are.

I differ with some of the comments I have heard as to why this Bill is needed, but those could be teased out on Committee Stage. That is the perfect Stage to have that discussion. We can bring in the experts to hear about the evidence-based policy and what is working now.We are happy to allow the Bill to proceed. The communities have waited so long already that we need to get it right once and for all. I hope that this Bill, if passed, will go to Committee Stage and will not be delayed getting to Committee Stage, so that we can have those conversations and tease out the details.