Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, I am happy to have the opportunity to outline the Water Environment (Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Bill 2022 to the Seanad.

The purpose of the Bill is to set out a system of controls on the abstraction and impoundment of water, to protect our environment and to ensure compliance with Ireland's responsibilities under the water framework directive. Article 11 subsection (3) of the water framework directive requires all member states to implement measures to control the abstraction of freshwater, surface and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface water. The provisions of the water framework directive have not been transposed into Irish law and the Bill is a significant milestone in Ireland's overall environmental protection measures.

Unfortunately, the absence of a comprehensive and modern abstraction-management and control regime in Ireland has led the European Union to open infringement proceedings against Ireland for failure to fully transposed the directive. Enactment of the Bill will form a considerable part of Ireland's response to these proceedings. In general, abstraction pressures on our water environment are relatively low compared with some of the more significant pressures identified in the draft river basin management plan 2022-2027. Detailed assessments of our water bodies by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the local authority waters programme, as part of our river-basin management planning cycles, will aim to refine and identify the more significant abstraction pressures. This will give us a better picture of the nature of these pressures and the water bodies that are most affected. Changes to our climate and meteorological pattern in recent years have also given rise to concerns over the management of our water courses. Not only do we want to have waters of sufficient quality, but we also want sufficient quantity of water to supply our growing population centres and industries to help us continue to produce high-quality foods on our land.

At a high level, the Bill provides for a modern registration, licensing and control regime for water abstractions. Its focus is on the largest abstractions in Ireland as well as smaller abstractions that may cause short-term or ongoing environmental damage. It is designed to be based on the risk of a water body not meeting the environmental objectives under the water framework directive and is not intended to control all abstractions. This risk-based approach is in keeping with the principles of the directive and is similar to the approach taken in other EPA environment licensing regimes.

The Bill also includes provisions relating to water impoundment infrastructure associated with abstractions. For example, where a dam or other barrier interrupts the flow of a river for the purpose of abstracting water, the controls in the licence will extend to the operation of the impounding infrastructure.

The most significant abstractor of water in Ireland is Irish Water. A large proportion of the current registered water abstractors involve drinking water abstractions operated by Irish Water. Provisions of the Bill will allow Irish Water to operate these abstractions within a framework that protects the quantity of water available and will ensure the EPA can regulate these abstractions appropriately. In particular, the Bill will allow for a streamlined, comprehensive and robust application process for the water supply project from the Parteen Basin to supply to eastern and midland regions. It will modernise the legal framework around significant abstractions and will ensure appropriate levels of oversight and control will be applied to that proposed abstraction. I will now elaborate on the provisions of the Bill.

It is a relatively detailed Bill comprised of 11 parts, 116 sections and one Schedule. It is largely a technical Bill. Part 1 covers sections 1 to 7, inclusive, and primarily addresses the general matters, including, the Title of the Bill, arrangements for bringing the Bill into operation and standard provisions. Section 7 also includes some existing legislation that will be repealed to further strengthen the legal provisions of the Bill.

Part 2 confirms regulation-making powers on the Minister to regulate unlicensed abstractions, including, abstractions below the registration threshold and those awaiting a decision on a licence application. Local authorities will be responsible for ensuring compliance with these regulations under Part 9.

Part 3 details the exemptions from the requirements of the Bill that may be applied by the Minister by way of regulations. Part 4 includes sections 11 to 13, inclusive, and provides for the maintenance of a register of abstractions over the threshold of 25 cu. m per day by the EPA. These provisions replace the provisions of the European Union (Water Policy) (Abstractions Registration) Regulations 2018, which will be repealed under section 7 of the Bill.

Part 5 is the most substantial part of the Bill and sets out the principal licensing provisions for abstractions that require a licence. Sections 14 to 20, inclusive, contain the main provisions relating to abstractions that require a licence. These include the circumstances in which an abstracter is required to apply for a licence, the requirements of the EPA to assess these applications and the powers to grant or refuse a licence. It also sets out the provision for the Minister to vary the thresholds for licensing.

Sections 21 to 28, inclusive, address licence applications that require an environmental impact assessment, EIA. These sections place particular emphasis on the procedures to be followed in determining an EIA, the level of detail required to make a full assessment and, most importantly, the co-ordination of an EIA between Environmental Protection Agency and the relevant planning authority.

Sections 29 to 36, inclusive, relate to licence applications for abstractions that may be subject to retrospective environmental impact assessment. A retrospective EIA is required in cases where the EPA determines that an environmental impact assessment was required and should have been made prior to or after the commencement of the abstraction. For a variety of reasons, the EIA may not have been undertaken at the time when the abstraction commenced. The process set out in these sections will ensure the appropriate environmental assessment is undertaken and all legal obligations are fully met.

Sections 37 to 45, inclusive, provide for combined abstraction licence applications. These applications comprise existing abstraction operating prior to the commencement of the Act and a revised abstraction that will increase the existing abstraction rate. The purpose of these sections is to ensure a licence abstraction is sufficiently assessed in terms of any retrospective EIA and to provide for an equally robust assessment for the future proposed abstraction rate. Such scenarios may arise where population-growth predictions will necessitate an increase in drinking water supplies.

Chapter 5 of Part 5 includes sections 46 to 55, inclusive, and provides for a number of different requirements to complement the previous licensing sections. These include provisions around applications for joint licences, surrenders, transfers, reviews, revocations and suspensions. All these provisions are necessary to allow the EPA and licence holders sufficient scope to address changing circumstances as they may arise and enhance the ability of the EPA to manage the risks associated with these changes.

The final elements of Part 5 cover sections 56 to 59, inclusive, which are miscellaneous provisions relating to licensing that provides for judicial reviews of decisions, regulation-making powers of the Minister, EPA guidelines for the licensing process and minor amendments to the licences.Part 6 focuses solely on abstractions by Irish Water. Sections 60 to 73, inclusive, focus on the powers of Irish Water to make a public abstraction, provisions for objections to those abstractions, the process for An Bord Pleanála decisions and objections and provisions to address claims for compensation. These provisions for compensation are likely to be used where people feel their rights in respect of water would be materially or adversely affected by a public abstraction by Irish Water.

Sections 74 to 82, inclusive, set out provisions for Irish Water to undertake temporary abstractions to supplement or replace existing abstractions on a short-term basis. This may arise in the event of a severe drought, infrastructure failure or a contamination of a raw water source. These temporary abstractions are confined to eight weeks' duration with the possibility of a single eight-week extension being granted.

Section 80 allows the Minister to make an order exempting a temporary abstraction from licensing requirements in emergency circumstances. Any such order would only be considered on the basis of a civil emergency where the abstraction is for the sole purpose of responding to the emergency. As with other temporary abstractions, the same eight-week time limit applies to an emergency abstraction under section 80.

Section 82 provides for appeals and compensation relating to Irish Water temporary or emergency abstractions. Section 83 puts in place a framework for Irish Water abstractions from ESB reservoirs, with a particular focus on ensuring legal arrangements are in place between the parties before an abstraction licence can be granted.

Part 7 of the Bill relates to Waterways Ireland and its statutory functions and to abstractions from navigable waters and canals. This part ensures Waterways Ireland has significant input into EPA assessments of abstractions from navigable waters operated by Waterways Ireland. It also provides that any licensed abstraction from a canal can only be undertaken with the agreement of Waterways Ireland.

Part 8 comprises one section that addresses the operational safety of hydroelectric schemes. It provides that the EPA shall have regard to the function of the ESB when considering an application for an abstraction licence associated with a hydroelectric scheme.

Part 9 contains the principal enforcement provisions of the Bill. Sections 88 to 96, inclusive, set out the enforcement functions of local authorities and the EPA, including powers to appoint authorised persons to undertake enforcement actions. Sections 97 to 102, inclusive, provide for the issuing of compliance notices and requirements on those who receive a compliance notice. These notices can be issued by a local authority or the EPA for a number of offences, including abstracting water without a valid licence or breaching the conditions of an existing licence. The notice can also require the owner of the abstraction to take measures to protect the environment or meet the environmental objectives of the water body concerned or both. Sections 104 to 109, inclusive, set out the offences throughout the Bill, prosecution powers and the penalties associated with the conviction for an offence.

Part 10 contains four sections that relate to miscellaneous and transitional provisions. The transitional provisions are in place to ensure the integrity of the legal framework following the commencement of the abstractions Bill and repeal of the Water Supplies Act 1942, certain provisions of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1964 and the abstractions registration regulations of 2018.

Part 11 contains three sections that require amendment to the Canals Act 1986, the Shannon Navigation Act 1990 and the Planning and Development Act 2000. The most substantial of these is section 116, which amends the Planning and Development Act. The amendment insert references to water abstractions and the need for consultation in certain circumstances between planning authorities and the EPA, including on environmental impact assessments.

The Schedule lists the public authorities referred to in the Bill. I thank the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage for the detailed pre-legislative scrutiny afforded to the general scheme of the Bill on 20 January 2021. I am glad to say the majority of recommendations as set out in the committee's report are reflected in the Bill. I look forward to the contributions of Senators as we progress the Bill through the parliamentary process.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, to the House and thank him for bringing the Bill to the Seanad. It is always welcome to have Bills initiated in the Seanad as opposed to by our colleagues in the Lower House. I thank the Minister of State for this. The Bill seeks to provide modernisation of the registering, licensing and control regime for water abstractions. The Minister of State is right to point out that a detailed body of work was carried out by the Oireachtas joint committee on this matter. It was thrashed out. We had quite a lot of engagement from bodies on it. It is true to say these bodies expressed some concerns about some elements of the Bill. I look forward to these issues be teased out on Committee and Report Stages. This is particularly with regard to compensation for water abstractions.

In the Bill, the Minister of State is putting in place a simple registration system for water abstractions subject to a minimum threshold, and putting a more robust scheme in place. It is important that we update our legislation. The existing regime is based on legislation enacted in 1942 and 1964. I do not think any of us were around in 1942. It is always appropriate that we update legislation. We have obligations under the EU water framework directive. The Minister of State will agree that is important we get the delicate balance right. While we have to transpose water directives we must also ensure we get the balance right. Legislation is always black and white and there are very few grey areas. Sometimes we have to show flexibility in how we word it to ensure we get the balance right to protect our environment and look after those who are deserving of compensation where land is being sterilised or where there are crops. I look forward to teasing out the Bill on Committee and Report Stages. I thank the Minister of State from bringing it to the House today.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, for coming to the House. I am conscious he is a rural Deputy as well as a Minister of State. He represents Longford and Westmeath where there are many farmers. I will spend most of my time speaking about engagement with the Irish Farmers Association, IFA. There was very little talk, if any, about the farming community in the Minister of State's presentation. I will speak about this in some detail. I have no difficulties with the Bill but I have issues with regard to adequate compensation and a framework for compensation for the farmers whom we, Government policy and the Minister of State value. We need to see this reflected in the legislation and I will set out a number of reasons for this.

I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for its assessment of the pre-legislative scrutiny. The Minister of State thanked the Oireachtas joint committee for its work in his speech. The report from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service states 13 recommendations were made by the committee. It states the key issues in two of the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations are reflected in the Bill. It states the Bill may be described as adopting an approach consistent with eight more of the recommendations but it is still unclear. The report also states the key issues in three of the recommendations have not been accepted or implemented in the Bill. This is from the pre-legislative scrutiny and a bit of movement is possible. As always, I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service team for its work, particularly on this Bill.

As the Minister of State knows, and it is a well thrashed-out cliché although it is true, farmers are the custodians of the environment. They understand their responsibility to comply with regulations and to protect and improve water quality. Farmers understand that water is a critical natural resource for them. It is a resource they need and it is consistent with the supply of their animals, crops and agricultural enterprises. It is a given. This is not the case for farmers alone. Everyone needs water. We need clean water coming in but we also need to be conscious of the water we flush out and its impact on the environment, human health, animal health and ecosystems. We must balance all of these and be mindful of our international and European obligations.

With regard to water abstraction compensation payments, the IFA states that where abstraction takes place on farm land and results in land sterilisation, crop loss and disturbance that fair and equitable compensation must be paid to the farmers.I am a member of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine and have had a lot of engagement with the IFA, and I am also on the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The IFA has, over a long number of years, advocated for the development of an equitable national package of measures, including compensation to replace the ad hocarrangements implemented by local authorities and Irish Water.

The right to compensation is reflected in sections 14 and 15 of the Water Supplies Act 1942. The Water Environment (Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Bill proposes to repeal the 1942 Act, including sections 14 and 15, and replace them with a provision which is more limited in scope. The IFA has serious concerns regarding what is proposed in the Bill in terms of compensation, and we need to tease out its concerns. The Minister will be supportive of that.

This process is one in which we can tease out its issues. That is important. I seek to try to tease them out. It will be a matter for all of us. I have no doubt other Members across the House will have similar issues and concerns as we go through the various stages of the Bill. The main concerns of the IFA include the limits of any claim for compensation to within two years of the authorised abstraction commencing. It has stated that this would potentially allow the State to step aside from its existing obligations to farmers, resulting in a haphazard approach across the country by different local authorities and leaving many compensation issues unresolved.

I told the IFA to identify both its problems and solutions, because we will examine them. It proposed that we address removing the time limit on a claim of compensation or extending the period. It went on to propose there should be an obligation on Irish Water to notify all farmers directly by registered post that they may be impacted by the process of water abstraction. Farmers want to hear things formally, rather than hearing something on the road. The IFA proposes a formal mechanism of communication and notification. It stated that a national protocol needs to be developed, which sounds reasonable to me, and a package that resolves concerns regarding losses arising where abstractions are imposed on farmland.

The requirement to notify impacted farmers will enable them to engage with the planning processes and any other processes involved, and would facilitate and allow them to bring their views to the attention of the relevant agencies. That is vital and I want to make that clear here today. These are reasonable things. It is about public engagement, knowing what is proposed and the outcomes and having reasonable negotiation. Collective negotiation is more ideal. It is very difficult to have single negotiations across acquisitions or any measures involving farmland. There is, perhaps, a mechanism for dealing with that. We have seen that with the National Transport Authority, NTA, and other bodies in respect of infrastructural projects.

The IFA has told me it is highly unusual - I also believe this - that when it comes to redress, the burden of proof of loss would be placed on individual farmers. That is of concern to the IFA. For example, Irish Water's sister company, Gas Networks Ireland, GNI, recognised from the outset that the loss exists and endeavours to address such losses through negotiation. That is important. The 1942 Act clearly sets out the relevant legislation for the determination of compensation. However, this Bill provides no framework for the determination of compensation for farmers. The Bill should be amended to address this and I will bring some reasonable amendments to the House for debate at a future date in order that we can have clarity about the existing frameworks were compensation and how they will apply in a practical sense.

There is also the issue of mediation. Mediation is widely used and is an accepted alternative to a dispute resolution mechanism. It should be pursued and we should make provision for that in the Bill. For individual citizens such as farmers, mediation represents a more affordable mechanism. We know the cost of courts and litigation. It represents an affordable mechanism to arrive at an outcome where an agreement is not reached. Mediation is an option we should consider. The Bill should include an obligation on all parties to first engage in mediation by default. Engagement is always active and never passive. I support such a mechanism.

The Bill proposes to extend the powers of Irish Water to take a water supply beyond the land it owns or acquires. However, it fails to adequately provide for the necessary package of measures and frameworks, including compensation, and such related powers, if exercised.

I have focused on the IFA and farmers but I did so because I do not think there has been enough debate about that. We have not had an opportunity to debate these matters. They do not come under the remit of the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government; they are more pertinent to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and Marine. I have told the IFA we have to engage. The Bill is essential and important, and we will try to put forward reasonable and practical amendments that I hope we can work collectively across the House to pass.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for bringing forward this important Bill. It is important, at a fundamental and basic level, that we responsibly manage our water resources in a sustainable way. To do that, we need to know what is going on with them, how much water we are abstracting, where it is being abstracted and how it is being managed. On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Members of the House, I welcome the Bill and we support it. We particularly support the fact that the Bill aims to modernise and bring up to current standards the registration, licensing and control regime for abstractions of water.

The proposed system in the Bill of registration and licensing is to be administered by the EPA, with local authorities also maintaining an ongoing enforcement role. We welcome in particular that it will be a joint activity, and we believe local authorities have served us well in the past and can certainly serve us well into the future. They bring institutional experience and have a track record, as well as having local knowledge. We support local authorities' involvement in ongoing enforcement.

The Minister of State mentioned how abstracts are currently being governed by outdated legislation. The Water Supplies Act 1942 is 80 years old and the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1964 is almost 60 years old. The world has changed so much in that time. That is another good reason for us to support the Bill and, it is to be hoped, see it passed expeditiously.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, I have had the benefit of being a part of the pre-legislative scrutiny. We thank the Minister of State and his Department for the support they lent to that. We also heard from external expert witnesses who attended the committee and gave generously of their time to help inform our pre-legislative scrutiny report. This legislation predates this Dáil and Seanad and goes back to 2018 but our work took place in October 2020 and our report was published in January 2021.

The committee comprises representatives from Government and Opposition and made a number of recommendations. The committee specifically recommended that the threshold for registration be lowered to 10 cu. m and the licensing threshold be lowered from 2,000 cu. m per day to 20 cu. m. This recommendation was considered and provision has been made in section 16 of the Bill for the Minister to have the power to specify or reduce the registration threshold and to specify or vary the licensing threshold for the purpose of the sustainable management of water resources. We welcome that. When the Minister of State is replying to the debate, it would be helpful for the House if he could outline how that might work in practice, whether it is he or any future Minister who holds office.

The committee also recommended the removal of the provision in the Bill that did not allow an existing abstractor to be refused a licence. This provision has been removed, which we welcome.

Provision in the Bill, in accordance with the committee's recommendation, has been made for the inspection application of remedial measures, the adjustment enforcement of remedial measures and the suspension and revocation of licences where the abstraction is not meeting the required conditions or abiding by the necessary regulations and guidelines.This is very important and it is important that it operates effectively. The Minister of State might give us an example of how that will work in practice. Provision has also been made in the Bill for assessing compliance with and enforcement of regulations applying to abstractions that do not require a licence and certain abstractions that require a licence pending the agency’s decision to grant the licence. There is also the question of the response to the committee's recommendations regarding enforcement and compliance with the registration and licensing regime.

It is a big Bill and important that we get it right. We are committed to working with the Minister of State, the Department and all Members of this House to see this legislation passed expeditiously but, most importantly, effectively. This will ensure that abstractions of water that take place within our jurisdiction not only serve us in the immediate term, but serve generations into the future and ensure that Ireland's water supply is managed in a sustainable and responsible way into the future. Go raibh maith agat, a Aire Stáit. I look forward to hearing from the rest of the House.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and his team to the House. This legislation is long overdue. It is very important legislation. It is crucial that we get it right and that the Government listens and takes on board the views of the Oireachtas and the joint committee, which I commend on its pre-legislative report, which I have taken the time to read in advance of today's debate. The House will forgive me for holding out little hope, given that so much of the Oireachtas committee report seems to have been ignored in the drafting of the Bill, but we will be submitting amendments on Committee Stage that stay true to the advice of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

I particularly want to talk about thresholds, enforcement and the resources for enforcement. From the outset, it seems that the Bill is letting everybody off the hook. For example, licensing requirements only kick in at 2,000 cu. m and registration at 25 cu. m. The committee report notes that all abstractions under 25 cu. m do not require regulation other than to abide by the general binding rules. It notes that the approach in Scotland and Wales is 25 cu. m and the equivalent threshold in the North of Ireland for the registration of abstractions is 10 cu. m. Why is there a departure from those jurisdictions? Why not listen to the Oireachtas committee report? Why not look at all-Ireland alignment? Given that the primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for modern legislation on licensing and control, surely the basing of thresholds on the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 is contrary to the aim of this Bill, given that it was enacted over 40 years ago.

In simple terms, the proposed threshold for “registration” equates to approximately enough water to supply 42 households per day or to fill 104 wheelie bins per day. That is a significant amount of water being extracted until registration kicks in. Indeed, of at least 21 water bottling plants in the country, none of them pass the proposed threshold for licensing and only five of them extract enough water to even require registration. It seems that everybody is getting let off the hook.

There is also the combined cumulative effect of all of those who do not reach the registration threshold or the licensing threshold, and we will not have any of idea of the bigger picture when we take into account the cumulative effect. In addition, these thresholds are a departure from recent trends across Europe. Specifically, the registration threshold proposed is 150% higher than that in place in the North and in Scotland, and the proposed licensing threshold is 100 times higher than that in place in the North, in England and in Wales.

I am particularly concerned as to the proposed Bill's compliance with Article 11.3 of the water framework directive. This article presupposes an assessment of all abstractions to determine whether they are environmentally significant. However, the proposed Bill will not require such assessment. Can the Minister of State clarify how the agency will be able to determine if an existing abstraction of below 25 cu. m is causing a deterioration if it is not registered? Second, how is this consistent with the Court of Justice of the European Union finding that member states must refuse authorisation of projects where a deterioration may occur?

In terms of enforcement and review, we have concerns in regard to the enforcement of the general binding rules. Specifically, while all abstractions, irrespective of their thresholds, are subject to the general binding rules, there is at present no provision or mechanism for the inspection of the general binding rules for any conditions surrounding the licensing requirements in the Bill. Can the Minister of State clarify whose role it will be to enforce the general binding rules and what financial or other resources will be provided in support of this? Who is going to be enforcing this and what resources will be provided to them to do so?

I would like to express my concern as to the provision of adequate financial supports to ensure enforcement. The EPA has previously advised that while it has sufficient resources in terms of its ability to prepare and analyse licensing, a gap exists in the resources to adequately enforce the requirements that will follow from the issuing of primary and secondary licences. The committee previously raised concerns as to the lag between the introduction of legislation and the provision of resources needed to carry out the functions of that legislation. I ask the Minister of State to indicate if he has engaged with the EPA to address this potential gap in funding and to clarify what the estimated cost of funding will be in the first year. Second, can the Minister of State also clarify what additional resources will be provided, both financially and in terms of staffing, to local authorities to assist in the additional work that the Bill envisages for them?

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is good that we are progressing this Bill. As the Minister of State said, it is something we have been required to do by the EU. We could have Seanad Chamber debates all day, every day on the water situation in this country, which we all know is pretty dire on so many levels. I will stick to a couple of points. In the programme for Government, we said we would fully consider the review from the Commission for Regulation of Utilities of Irish Water’s proposed approach to water supply projects for the eastern and midlands region. This review has not been published yet and I want to bring that to the attention of the Minister of State. We need to focus on what we have committed to doing. We have to ensure that Irish Water develops drinking water safety plans to protect abstraction sources and reduce public health risks, including trihalomethanes exceedances in treatment plants, which is also a big issue that we got handed as a Government.

The Bill is welcome. I want to outline a couple of reasons why abstraction has to be monitored. In particular, large abstractions can lead to springs drying up and nearby wells emptying, as I have seen happen in my own county, higher pumping costs, subsidence, which we all know about, reduced river flows in summer, fish kills and saltwater intrusions that contaminate the groundwater.

With all that in mind, I want to focus on one aspect of the whole thing. We are talking about this big new plan that will cost millions of euro to take water from the Shannon to Dublin. This is something we have to seriously consider. An environmental impact assessment scoping report was prepared in 2016 by the project promoters but no actual assessment has yet been published to demonstrate the likelihood of significant impacts, such as ecological impacts, electricity demands and embodied carbon impacts. None of that has been reported yet we just keep talking about it happening. Maybe the people in Dublin think we are mad. They need the water but there are other alternatives, and I do not think everyone in Dublin agrees with it either. A matter that really worries me, which I raised with Irish Water, is that it has no consideration for investment in rainwater harvesting of any kind. That is shocking. There are grants available under the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, for other agri-schemes for rainwater harvesting. Not enough is being done to advertise that. People do not know about it. I worked with schools for many years and we got many schools to fit cubic metre tanks, which cost €80 in the local co-op and hold 1,000 l. They use them for grey water for gardening and everything else. It is a bit like electricity - instead of putting the photovoltaic on and leaving the lights on all night, the first thing a person does is to turn off the lights. It is the same with water. Let us cut our demand for water in the first place. Research carried out by a university in Dublin suggests domestic rainwater harvesting for grey water treatment could meet 94% of Dublin's water demand. I have a scientific paper that proves that. It is another good reason to ask why Irish Water is not considering rainwater harvesting. It is crazy. We have loads of rain in Ireland. We have water shortages because rainwater harvesting is not being taken seriously on domestic or national levels.

Abstraction also has to be considered alongside the accelerating impacts of climate change. Ireland is predicted to face increasingly hot and dry summers, with potentially serious impacts. We may run out of water because no water has been saved. Summers and the weather will change and have changed. While we were discussing climate change, the climate changed. It is insane that we have water shortages in a country where there is loads of rainfall. Now, more than ever, this is very important. I would love for the Minister of State to bring the point back to Irish Water, which is a State agency, that it has to take rainwater harvesting seriously. Domestic rainwater harvesting could meet 94% of Dublin's water demands. That is for grey water treatments. We all know Irish Water is treating water that is then being used to flush toilets. It is complete madness. I have been to water treatment plants. They cost loads of money and consume significant amounts of energy to pump the water. Alternatively, we could have rainwater harvesting, although maybe not in every apartment in Dublin, but there is rooftop rainwater harvesting and nearly everyone I know has space for a cubic metre tank at the back of their house. I have seen loads of houses where the householder has installed such a tank. We need to up our game in that regard.

The last thing that is deeply worrying is that, in January, Irish Water will take over responsibility for all water from local authorities. I am deeply concerned that the service in certain areas will be good, but Irish Water is taking over responsibility for all areas. When a person phones about a leak, in some cases the council says it is its fault, whereas in other cases the council says it is the fault of Irish Water but Irish Water says it is the fault of the council and it slips between the cracks. The bottom line is that if Irish Water is taking over water in January, we need to demand that it starts looking at the research that has been carried out and takes rainwater harvesting seriously instead of considering taking water from the River Shannon.

I welcome the Bill and the Minister of State's work on it. As previous speakers stated, we need enforcement. Rainwater harvesting could solve many of the problems, however.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call the next speaker, I welcome to the Gallery Senator Pauline O'Reilly, her mother, Carmel, and her aunts Pauline and Harriet. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann. We have had a number of distinguished visitors today. We had Senator Flynn's daughter and Senator O'Loughlin's mother. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their valuable contributions to the debate in connection with this key legislation. As the legislation progresses through the House, we will be happy to work with Senators to try to reflect many of the contributions that were raised in the legislation.

I wish to point out initially, in relation to the pre-legislative scrutiny report, that the Department took on board suggestions therefrom. It was a catalyst to respond to some of the key changes that were in the legislation. Some of the recommendations from the report may not be in it word for word, but they clearly informed the response to draft the legislation. We will commit to prepare a report on the pre-legislative scrutiny report for submission to the Seanad to explain how we were informed by the issues raised within the report, how we responded to that and how they were a catalyst to assist us.

The constructive debate that we had today follows on from the detailed pre-legislative scrutiny, as I referenced, that the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage gave to the general scheme of this Bill more than a year ago. I fully appreciate the support that has been expressed by some Members for the Bill. We are happy to have the opportunity to work with the Seanad before the Water Environment (Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Bill 2022 is enacted.

The purpose of this Bill, as stated, is to set out the controls on the abstraction and impoundment of water, to protect our water environment and to ensure compliance with Ireland’s responsibilities under the water framework directive. The focus of the Bill is on the largest abstractions in Ireland and those smaller abstractions that may be causing short-term or ongoing environmental damage. The Bill will ensure that our surface and ground waters are carefully managed to prevent risk of over-abstraction and provide the Environmental Protection Agency with the powers to operate a modern, risk-based licensing regime.

The Bill delivers one of Ireland’s key responsibilities under the water framework directive. At a time of changing climate and uncertainty over the sustainability of our drinking water resources, the Bill will ensure our most valuable natural resource is protected into the future.

I wish to respond to another few points that were raised. Senator Garvey raised the issue of harvesting. We will raise that point with Irish Water and it is a sensible one. Senator Fitzpatrick raised the issue of thresholds. These thresholds will obviously be risk-based. That is the key thing in relation to the setting of them. If the EPA recommends any changes regarding the thresholds, we can then do that. It would be in its hands to recommend that. On Senator Warfield’s point on abstractions and local authorities, they will be enforcing them. As a reference, as part of the EPA, the local authority assessments will be carried out on water pressures that will be identified through the various different bodies. As I outlined, it will be risk-based.

In addition, I committed to doing the report for the pre-legislative scrutiny and any other issues. I want to assure people there will not be a two-tier system of licensing and licences can be suspended on environmental grounds.

We can respond to specific points other Senators may have raised. We are happy to organise briefings within the Department through the Minister, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, to achieve a balance for people so they fully understand and appreciate what we are trying to do. Critically, the most important point is that we absolutely took on board the joint committee pre-legislative scrutiny report and that was a catalyst for many of the actions that were taken in this legislation. We are happy to do a report for the House on that.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.