Jerry Buttimer (Cork South-Central, Fine Gael)

Tá mé fíorbhuíoch do gach Ball a bhí páirteach sa díospóireacht iontach seo. Déanaim comhghairdeas leis na Seanadóirí Rabbitte agus Daly as an mBille a chur os ár gcomhair. I have a prepared script that would not do justice to the fantastic debate we have had. That is why I love coming back to the Seanad. It is a place where we have real, proper, informative debates. We began with the raw emotion of Senator Rabbitte who painted the picture of a real, lived experience. It is not a novel, film or fabled story; it is reality, in particular, the image of checking the levels and being able to recalibrate life in a different way.Senator Murphy set out the history. I did not think he was going to want to get rid of Ardnacrusha. I nearly felt he was going to get a bit of Semtex and blow it up - I am glad Senator Noonan came in and said it should have UNESCO world heritage status; I agree with him - but I know Senator Murphy did not say that, to be fair. Both Senators raised a very interesting, pertinent point about the site's future.

Senator Dee Ryan made a fascinating contribution about the use of the river in terms of not only rowing and swimming but also ecology, comments she shared with Senator Noonan.

Senators Duffy and Daly brought their insight in terms of not only practicality but also farming and the community.

Senator Conway spoke about the importance of the people and Senator Collins referred to flooding.

I apologise that the Minister of State is not here. As Members will know, the Government is not opposing the Bill on this Stage. I apologise to Members; I have digressed from the speech completely. I probably will not refer to the speech too much but I think they will get the gist of what I am saying.

This is an important matter. It is part of why we need Private Members' Bills in both Houses of the Oireachtas, in particular Seanad Éireann. The Bill before us covers many issues and incorporates some of the views Members have articulated. They voiced discord without being discordant on the Bill. The issues they have addressed collectively in this House show that Private Members' business and this Bill are about addressing a collective lived experience of people.

Senator Ryan is right - I know Senator Noonan will agree - that we are moving towards renewables. If, as Senator Murphy said, 2% of our electricity generation comes from Ardnacrusha, if we are genuinely serious - I pay tribute to the former Minister, Eamon Ryan, who set us on a journey towards renewable energy - and if we want to take what Senators have articulated about the west coast, then this debate is that catalyst with Government policy on renewables. I know that is a different part again.

Maybe there are people watching and listening to this at home. We are living in a world where there are more severe weather events. Senator Daly spoke about the soft day. Yellow warnings, red warnings and orange warnings have become part of our lexicon and they are not going away. I thank Senator Rabbitte for articulating, on behalf of an gnáthdhuine, the person who is at home, sa bhaile, ag éisteacht agus faoi bhrú. Sometimes, when I hear the naysayers, I ask the lads and ladies how we are to protect people. How do we act collectively, not just to ensure that weather warnings are taken seriously, but that we can mitigate climate change? More importantly, how do we protect ourselves as people - not only our families, our homes and our communities, but also our world?

I had the pleasure when I was Cathaoirleach of this great House of visiting many parts of the world. I was struck by the people of Malawi, who are facing extinction. With the former Member and Minister, Denis Naughten, I visited the people of the Sahel, who are on the verge of annihilation. Today, in a different way, the people the Senators talk about are, in a similar vein, having that same experience in our country, in the middle of a modern world, exposed to weather. We all have a role to play in how we can mitigate climate change. As Met Éireann will tell us - I am smiling at Senator Daly because he is not wrong - the intensity of our rain and our weather has changed. As a consequence of flood management, needs must adapt also.

As Members will know, the OPW is the lead agency for the co-ordination of the risk management policy. The OPW has three strategic policy objectives and areas. One is prevention by avoiding construction in flood-prone areas. The second is protection in terms of being able to take feasible measures, both structural and non-structural, to reduce the likely impact of flooding. The third is preparedness in terms of informing people of flood risks and putting in what Senators spoke about, namely, resilience. One thing Senators are right about is that people's internal resilience is getting weary. I saw it in my city of Cork, where there was a flood in the area of Douglas. We were told it was a once-in-a-generation flood, and there was flooding in Cork city in 2010. My God, there are still people today who, when they see a red or yellow wind or weather warning, panic. Rightly so. I compliment the OPW on its work because its flood mitigation, its minor flood works and its major coastal protection schemes, on which we have spent millions, if not billions, of euro, have worked quite well.

We must do things differently. We must be prepared to think outside the box in terms of the CFRAM approach to the solution as regards rivers. The OPW, with the Government, must be cognisant of that. As a Government - Senator Noonan was in government and was very much involved as well - we have committed almost €1.3 billion to the delivery of flood relief measures up to 2030. That speaks to many townspeople here who have spoken about flooding and the avoidance of flooding.

Again, I apologise to the Members. I am dispensing with some of the speech because it is not really what we are on about here.

As regards the Bill the Senators have spoken about today, it is important that I make the point, on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Moran, that the OPW has no powers to instruct the ESB regarding its works on the Shannon river.

We share a collective - I took note of it - in terms of the response to the water release and the high volume of rainfall. I think it was Senator Murphy or Senator Noonan who referred to the slowness of the response. We saw that, although I had better be careful because we had a court case in Cork with the release of water. Anyway, the Senators know where I am going with that. I do not want to get anybody else into further trouble. There needs to be greater consultation and engagement around that piece, and this Bill does that.

May I make a couple of points about Members' contributions? The Bill itself does not change the purpose of the 1934 Act in terms of electricity generation. The debate today has proposed a wider engagement, and rightly so, on our electricity generation in terms of renewables, which is good. The removal of the water level limits from the 1934 Act neither increases the ESB's power nor provides additional flexibility in how the Shannon operations are managed. The levels referred to in the 1934 Act do not constitute mandatory operational levels.

It is important to put everything in context. The new wording will not obviate the ESB's obligation to obtain planning permission or to obey both national and EU legislation on the environment. That is a key point. Given that the Bill does not change the purpose of the 1934 Act, which was for electricity generation, any works envisaged by this amended Bill will equally need to be for the purpose of electricity generation. That is a fair point by the Members. As in the case of the River Lee, restrictions on water flow in the River Shannon are primarily as a result of the river's topography, not as a result of legislation. It goes back to the point about the management of water and how we do it. That is a fair point. We all need to have that conversation, irrespective of views.

The main point the Department would make is that the Shannon flood risk management plan, published by the OPW in 2016, is the correct vehicle for managing flood risk on the river. Detailed modelling was carried out as part of the Shannon catchment-based flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, study. This is extensively reported on in the hydraulics report, the preliminary options report and the flood risk management plan for the river. This work concluded that the operation of the controls at Ardnacrusha, Parteen Weir, Athlone and Lough Allen or Bellantra has been extensively modelled and studied as part of the Shannon CFRAM study. What they say, which we can talk about again at a future date, is that no realistic operational options to mitigate floods were identified.

I draw Members' attention, in the time remaining to me, to the water framework directive, which places an obligation on us as a country to protect water status from deterioration and to bring all water to at least good status in a way that brings in the points made by Senators Noonan and Ryan about ecology. Senators mentioned the yields. I think Senator Murphy did. Maybe he did not - sorry. We cannot ignore that either. Water quality is very important as well. If we are to be honest, achieving good water quality in our rivers, lakes, estuaries and seas is essential for us as a nation to protect our drinking water sources, our environment and the tourism sector.If we look at the work in terms of investment done by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, and Senator Noonan when he was Minister of State, investing in nature can bring multiple benefits to our country, particularly with the nature-based catchment management solutions, improving water quality, reducing flood risk and creating habitats. In carrying out these functions, these measures can provide multiple co-benefits such as climate regulation, climate change adaptation, improved soil management and the creation of amenities.

I point out to the Members of the House that the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has raised concerns about the Bill in its current format in that it would allow river works without the required assessments. The Department draws attention to the requirements of the habitats directive and highlights the possible need for a strategic environmental assessment in relation to this proposed Bill. This goes back to Senator Conway's core point that Government can work on that on Committee Stage. Equally, the Department has also expressed concern that the Bill, as proposed, would not compromise the objectives of the water framework directive. As we know, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the environmental objectives of the water framework directive are legally binding on member states and member states are required to refuse authorisation for any project which may result in deterioration, or which may jeopardise the environmental objectives. I refer Senators to that derogation regime of Article 4(7) of the water framework directive.

Going back to the beginning where we started with Senator Rabbitte was painting that picture, I was nearly in a poetic musical with Lough Allen, Lough Ree and Lough Derg. I was struck by the power of the human and the loss of animal, crop, fodder or land. That is all combined because a farmer loves his land and his stock. We have many challenges which are multifaceted. The real thing is that there are no easy solutions. We have a very honest and brave attempt this afternoon in this House to bring forward legislation, which I commend. I thank Senator Rabbitte for doing this. This legislation is an additional tool in our armoury and our weaponry as we look for possible means of mitigating flood risk. I hope we will have, and we do require, a whole-of-government approach to flood policy and that collectively we can work le chéile to minimise that risk of flooding and flood damage through prevention, protection and preparedness.

Mar fhocal scoir, gabhaim buíochas leis na Seanadóirí Rabbitte agus Ó Dálaigh as ucht an rúin a chur os ár gcomhair. Táimid i bhfabhar an rúin.