Paul Murphy blasts plan to redesignate 433 rivers

Minister, 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 the so-called 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 Corub 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 of 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's only 20 today. Now, rather than taking action to fix that, your department is not just moving the goalposts, but demolishing the goalposts. Hontashka's submission to the public consultation is damning of the redesignation process. It states that the consultation, quote, is wholly inadequate from a public participation perspective because, quote, the department have manifestly failed to adequately carry out any of the designation tests. It provides a detailed explanation of what these 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. Hontashka finds no evidence that the department bothered to do this and conclude that, quote, 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 or not 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. Hontashka finds that, quote, 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. But did that stop your department? Oh, no. You just went ahead and inputted the word yes into an Excel spreadsheet 433 times, apparently based 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 433 times just saying yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. The definition of a box ticking exercise. There's a second column with all the yeses 433 times in answer to the question, will the body fail good ecological status? That lets the cat out of the bag. The government is patently, obviously doing this to wriggle out of its obligations to bring up water bodies to good ecological status by 2027. To hell with the cost to the environment, with the damage to biodiversity. Are you really content, Minister, to preside over a further decline of our rivers and lakes? Do not even try to restore them, but to throw in the towel to redesignate them as heavily modified so that you are not under any pressure to try to improve them. I want to thank the Deputy for raising the issue. I appreciate your 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 Minister's Department conducted an eight-week consultation on designating heavily modified water bodies, which closed on the 23rd of May last. This followed an initial consultation on characterising heavily modified water bodies completed by the EPA in 2022. The EPA determined that these water bodies would fail to achieve the target of good ecological status due to changes in their physical condition based on expert judgment underpinned by new assessment tools. 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 a respective designation is heavily modified, the OPW has a statutory duty under the Arterial Drainage Act to maintain arterial drainage schemes. The 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 would have an alternative target of good ecological potential instead of good ecological status. EU official 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. The designation in itself of course does not have an ecological effect but it sets a realistic yet stringent standard. realistic yet stringent target standard. I presume you'll accept that a standard that's a lot less stringent and deliberately so than if you didn't redesignate them as highly modified water bodies. This is, and your answer is in line with what I was saying, this is the government throwing in the towel in terms of improving the quality of our water bodies. To quote Joanna Braniff of the Rivers Trust, it shows there is no ambition for these rivers. It says we are writing these rivers off. And then the minister, and I heard the Taoiseach earlier in the week do it, effectively trying to pass the book on to the EPA and effectively misquoting what the EPA had done. The EPA did work in 2022 in identifying candidates for this designation which engaged with stakeholders but it was not the final designation. It found bodies that could possibly meet the designation but the final designation is the department's job. The EPA in its letter to the department about this says, quote, there are a number of issues which we recommend are considered by the minister as part of the final designation. The EPA would recommend that the department carry out a wider national policy review of whether the specified uses are appropriate during the third river basin management planning cycle. We recommend that water body specific designation tests that are informed by the policy review should be carried out. The department has failed to do that. The minister refers to the change in these physical conditions based on expert judgment underpinned by new assessment tools. Again, that isn't, you are not saying that you have done that, you are saying the EPA has done that, but the EPA has not made this decision. This is a decision made by the government, or your department. The reference to arterial drainage, this is an outdated practice that can often lead to more flooding than would naturally occur. So the main designation, the main justification for exempting rivers from quality standards is highly questionable. It is in breach of the Citizens' Assembly on biodiversity which recommended that the Arterial Drainage Act is no longer fit for purpose. Now you are using it as an excuse to lower the standards for our water. You say it is in breach of the Citizens' Assembly, but it is in compliance with EU law and the EU 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 the societal benefits. This is a cyclical process and 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 that they achieve the best environmental standard possible. To summarise, designation as heavily modified is a dynamic process that allows us to continue to supply specified uses such as drinking water and flood protection while still achieving the best environmental standards possible. And it allows us then to redesignate and de-designate water bodies in future if better solutions arise. It does not constitute a lowering of ecological targets. How good is that permanent treatment and de-designate water Podplinkids? Its development will work once in to during the long now. You are now ripe for climate change to download and degradation to work without staggeringulate Antwort so that can be included. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Day around for your time. Thank you too. I think a good lady and a good lady. Thank you. Thank you too. Thank you very much. Make it ready. Thank you very much.